The SSD Diaries: Crucial's RealSSD C300

51 Comments

View All Comments

• Breit - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - link

  yes, a sandforce drive should be slower in general when used with third party encryption as all data seems random to the drive then and the compression algorithms have nothing to compress. i'm not sure if the sf1200 controller can, but the sf1500 controller definitely can encrypt the data on the drive by themself storing it in an aes-128 encrypted format.
  
  quote from the sandforce site:
  "DuraClass technology automatically stores data in a secure, AES-128 encrypted format. This also prevents would-be thieves from extracting data directly from the flash memory should they ever have access to the drive."
  (http://www.sandforce.com/index.php?id=21&paren...
  
  question is how good or usable their implementation is?! :)

• sparkuss - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  I asked this question in a previous review and once again you note your "using the Marvell 88SE9128 controller similar to many motherboards".
  
  Did you only use the WIN7 MSAHCI and INTEL IMSM 8.9 on both the onboard SATA2 and Rocket 620?
  
  This is of interest to many on the Crucial boards concerning the lack of TRIM support in Marvell drivers for their 9123/9128 controllers.

• mattgmann - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  last year the ssd market was pretty cut and clear with what was good and what wasn't. There have been a lot of advances recently, and it's getting hard to keep track of what manufacturers with what controllers work well in what configurations. I'd really love to see an SSD buying guide with all of the current drives, possibly separated into workstation, laptop, and server use sections.
  
  thanks

• willscary - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  I just sent my first SSD back to Crucial. I called. They RMA'ed me and will send a replacement ASAP. I am impressed. I have 5 year warranties on the M225 series SSDs, and they never even blinked...send it back and they will replace it.
  
  This was the only M225 that I have installed that does not have 1916 firmware.
  
  My comment is on the prices. If any of you recall, I was the guy who already had bought, installed and used 5 Crucial M225 128GB SSDs when I decided to try Sandforce in the OWC SSD. After I bought the SSD and ON THE DAY IT SHIPPED, OWC changed their website and said that the controllers were Sandforce 1200 and not the 1500 that I was told when I puurchased. It was still a good deal, but I was upset with the bait and switch, so I refused delivery and had it returned.
  
  I then purchased a Crucial M225 for myself, this one the 256GB flavor.
  
  I want to say that I have had no problems. Peak reads reach about 240MB/s and average reads are about 215MB/sec with large files. Writes are less, about 175-180MB/sec for larger files. With small files like Anand uses, my writes are about 125MB/sec and my small file reads are about 145MB/sec.
  
  Very small files read and write much slower, in the 5-25MB/sec range, but those are files that are very small...in the 4-20KB range.
  
  What amazes me is the speed. While 5MB/sec may sound slow, it is not, at least when you consider that these are 4KB files. These small files write and read nearly instantly.
  
  I paid $525 for the drive. I have seen them as low as $509. This is a great price! Now that I have seen the newest article here by Anand, I really understand that my outdated M225 is still a great deal at $525.
  
  I would like to see this drive, or a comparable one, listed in the lineup with these newer drives. While not as fast, I believe them to be a good value when sale priced. I even saw a Western Digital 128GB SSD a few weeks ago for $219 with free shipping. They were gone very quickly!

• Makaveli - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  That was a good read thanks.

• pesos - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Hi Anand,
  
  Thanks for the followup review - I have been using a 256gb C300 on each of my Poweredge T710 servers for the last few months with great results.
  
  I am curious - does applying the destructive firmware update restore the drive to peak performance, or should it be coupled with some kind of secure erase?
  
  Thanks,
  Wes

• elimliau - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - link

  Hi,
  Has anyone made the above work, mine cant?
  Regards,
  elimliau

• sparkuss - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - link

  elimliau,
  
  You need to head over to the Crucial SSD forum. I have seen several threads and posts on that specific card/board.
  
  http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD...

• sparkuss - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - link

  EDIT: You may have to register to get that link to work, sorry

• foo-bar - Friday, July 16, 2010 - link

  This is all very interesting, and new SSDs seems to hit the market constantly. But the differences seems to be mostly software related i.e firmware. What are the bottleneck to get full SATA speed? Is it the NAND flash them selves? And if so, what is on the horizon when it comes to this type of memory?