| 1 |
Hello, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020, Marc Joliet wrote: |
| 4 |
>Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2020, 16:56:52 CET schrieb antlists: |
| 5 |
[..] |
| 6 |
>> Can't remember where it was - some mag ran a stress-test on a bunch of |
| 7 |
>> SSDs and they massively outlived their rated lives ... I think even the |
| 8 |
>> first to fail survived about 18months of continuous hammering - and I |
| 9 |
>> mean hammering! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>The German c't magazine did a similar test of various SSDs from |
| 12 |
>different |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I mentioned that in the other thread ("SDD, what features..."), I plan |
| 15 |
to sum up the articles tomorrow. I'd guess he means that test ;) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>price categories, and they all showed the same result (I think some exceeded |
| 18 |
>their lifetime by more than a factor of two, and the minimum was something |
| 19 |
>like 1.5). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you mean TBW by "lifetime": All above factor 2, best: over 18. Ok, |
| 22 |
those were the "brand models" (1 Crucial, 1 OCZ (Toshiba), 2 Samsung |
| 23 |
and 2 Sandisk, and 2 drives of each model)... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Fun fact: one of the test PCs died and killed two of the 3 remaining |
| 26 |
SSDs, the second Sandisk Extreme Pro (the first had died already) and |
| 27 |
the first Samsung 850 Pro. The remaining second Samsung 850 Pro in the |
| 28 |
other Test-PC was still being hammered 4.5 months later with 8 PeBi |
| 29 |
written (all drives were 240/256 GB), but showing first "Uncorrectable |
| 30 |
Errors" via SMART. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The test also included the failure mode as well, e.g. "dead as a |
| 33 |
brick" in a moment, warning signs via SMART, failure to write but |
| 34 |
still readable etc. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The mag followed that up with a test of el-cheapo SSDs ... which I'll |
| 37 |
include in my summary. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-dnh |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe |
Archives