POST A COMMENT

17 Comments

Back to Article

  • rqle - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    what up with the validation for these ssd drives? These companies! Our data is probably the most important thing in our system. Do they not think it's important? Reply
  • jimhsu - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    That's why I'm recommending ordinary people to consider only SSDs that are out on the market after a year or so. Even Sandforce with all their fixes is still suspect unless they can convince me in 6 months that no horrible problems will develop. The quality control for Rev A products stinks so much that it's foolish to do otherwise. "Bleeding edge" is one thing, but doing so for your data is something else entirely. Reply
  • Chloiber - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I'd also say, that if you want a reliable SSD, buy one which has been on the market for several months. And if you want to update your FW, wait some days after the release.
    Someone has to be the early adopter, but when I buy new or update a brand new FW I always expect problems.
    Personally, I don't have a problem with this because it is my decision to buy the newest hardware.
    But if you want a reliable SSD and don't want to play around, buy an older one...
    Reply
  • leexgx - Friday, May 07, 2010 - link

    OCZ vertex or M225, seem quite stable been out for some time now (faster SSDs not very important as norm user will not notice it unless he doing server loads) Reply
  • GullLars - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    When you buy a new-to-market SSD, you should do 2 things other than configuring your setup:
    1. Make an image as soon as OS, drivers and core apps are in place, and store the image on one or more HDDs. This makes for a quick recovery should the drive fail, or should you need to do a destructive firmware upgrade.
    2. Configure all user data folders to other drives than C: and do regular backups of important data. (this you should do anyways regardless of SSD or not)

    I have no problems with manufacturers shiping possibly unstable new to market drives if the following conditions are met:
    1. They explicitly state there may be problems with initial drives and firmware (not hidden in the middle of a manual).
    2. Such problems would be covered fully by warranty with no limitations, including flash to new firmware to fix said problems.
    3. The price isn't unreasonably high with the earily adopter risk factored in.
    4. The manufacturer listen to customers and quickly deal with any problems.

    Like others here, i agree, if people want a drive that just works without problems, go with a product with at least 2-3 months track record in the market. If there are any large problems, someone will have noticed by then. Also, when upgrading firmware, 1 week after release should be sufficient to detect any problems, as people generally yell out in support forums if there are any.
    The problem with the new C300 firmware flashing is likely more user-incompetence than problems with the method, but the programmers could make the flashing program check SATA modus before starting the flash (like HDD erase does).
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Well, unless you have a boatload of money you are probably only putting your OS on the SSD and your important data is elsewhere. That said, problems cropping up in something as simple as a Windows install should really be caught in testing.

    Though wouldn't a DOA drive be "one bad drive"?
    Reply
  • bplewis24 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    DOA would mean Dead on Arrival. So I'm assuming by that he means that there wouldn't be any "errors" to catch in testing as the thing wouldn't even boot up to begin with. Thus the errors are exhibited from a controller issue, not a DOA drive.

    Brandon
    Reply
  • Taft12 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Their ignorance and arrogance is going to cost them a bundle

    Maybe more customers are cashing in on their abundant mail-in rebates and they need to cut R&D corners (and surely others won't even give their second rate products a chance due to their disdain for MIRs in the first place)
    Reply
  • tejas84 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I don't care what you say Anand... SSD's are NOT ready for primetime. I am sticking with proven mechanical technology until SSD's can prove themselves in Server environments and also come with equivalent warranties.

    I will not waste my money on unproven SSD's and I am sure that many enthusiasts who actually care about their data will agree.
    Reply
  • Impulses - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I'm not sure I understand this panic or contempt, most enthusiasts aren't using SSDs to store data... Sure, the shoddy validation process some SSD seem to go thru is still cause for concern, but it's not like it's gonna cost you priceless memories or something. The vast majority of people toss their OS and apps on these things, something you should have backed up anyway (not because it's precious data but for convenience).

    There's been plenty of HDD firmware issues in the past anyway, Seagate's 7200.11 line, WD's TLER / RAID issues, etc. They're hardly immune from any of this. That being said, Intel's drives are not only the best bang for the buck right now, but they probably have the best track record as well, hard to go wrong w/an X25-M or an X25-V. I'm enjoying both of mine a lot!
    Reply
  • tejas84 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I cannot believe you are comparing SSD cost per gigabyte to a mechanical HDD. Winchester mechanical drives have been proving themselves for decades. Yes they are a lot slower than SSD's but they are bulletproof when it comes to data.

    Reliable data storage is non negotiable even for an OS, I will sit back and watch you early adopters have a load of stress while I reap the rewards of a stable reliable cheap SSD a few years from now!

    It remains to be seen whether the wear levelling on SSD's will stop data loss or corruption. I admire the controller tech especially Sandforce SF-1200 but all of you early adopters cannot say that any OEM's will be selling these overpriced SSD's to the masses.

    The great unwashed buy mainstream stuff in case you did not know that!
    Reply
  • GullLars - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    "I cannot believe you are comparing SSD cost per gigabyte to a mechanical HDD. Winchester mechanical drives have been proving themselves for decades. Yes they are a lot slower than SSD's but they are bulletproof when it comes to data."
    He was NOT comparing cost pr GB to HDDs, he was comparing Intels SSDs "bang for buck" to other SSDs, and it's true they are in the top in this respect.
    And HDDs being bulletproof when it comes to data, that's a fallacy. I've seen a lot of harddrives fail over the years, especially in laptops. Most HDD failures result in total loss of data, or very costly recovery. HDDs also have a 3-5% anual falure rate, if you discard DOA, infant death, and FW buggs or flashes gone wrong, SSDs seem to be <1%.

    "Reliable data storage is non negotiable even for an OS, I will sit back and watch you early adopters have a load of stress while I reap the rewards of a stable reliable cheap SSD a few years from now!"
    Reliability of storage is totally negotiable. If you don't store user data on the SSD, and have a spare HDD (or small dedicated partition on a HDD in use) to substitute in case of the SSD failing, downtime and data loss can be virtually negleced in end-user enviroments. Downtime from re-imaging is normally 15-60 minutes.

    "It remains to be seen whether the wear levelling on SSD's will stop data loss or corruption."
    No it doesn't. SSDs have been around since the 70's, and flash SSDs since the 90's. They have mainly been used in the enterprise, so you likely wouldn't know. TMS, Stec, BitMicro, Curtis and Adtron all have great track records in the enterprise.

    It remains to be seen wether low-end consumer-SSDs have sufficient CRC/ECC strenght and methods of countering silent errors, especially with cheap MLC.

    This is the reason why i bought Mtron Pro (enterprise version SLC with a full 5-year warranty for use in servers) to RAID back in 2008, and gave roughly $1000 for 64GB to use for OS and apps. A short-stroked partition on my 300GB Velociraptor is slow in comparison, the difference comparable to an old 5200rpm 2,5" disk compared to the velociraptor. When i went back to OS on the velociraptor temporarily after 1 year on the SSDs just to test some settings when i installed W7, i cought myself wondering WT*'s wrong with my machine?
    Reply
  • Belard - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Yeah, why?

    Oh, of course. The un-suspecting non-educated consumer are looking at the $80~99 price tag on these drives, thinking that ALL SSDs are the same.

    OCZ has SO many variants on their drives, its hard to keep up.... what, 8 different lines I think. Intel has 2.

    So for $100, a person gets 32GB of a reduced performance version of an already not-so great SSD.
    $210 gets you an 80GB drive that'll blow it out of the water with performance and security.

    Intel, who I don't generally like as a company - still makes the fastest (overall) drive on the market - as RANDOM performance is more important than sequential/burst mode. The year+ old X25-G2 is still near the top and has the best reliability!

    I can't wait till all BRANDS of SSDs can reach the quality of intel's X25. Because so far, Intel is STILL the best to get and generally cost less than the others too, go figure.
    Reply
  • Chloiber - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    Well, to be honest, the Indilinx Controller is even older than the X25-M G2 ;)

    But Anand was right when he said "Intel just conroed the ssd-market"...they did... ;)
    Reply
  • B3an - Thursday, May 06, 2010 - link

    Intels X25-M's are not the fastest anymore. The C300's and other Sandforce drivers are now faster.
    Intel also had firmware issues too, nothing serious, but still.

    I've had two X25'M's in RAOD0 for months, now i have two Crucial C300's, and they ARE faster in random writes, sequential writes and reads. All areas. You just have to look at the Anand review to see this. Try reading up on stuff next time so you dont look like such a fool.
    Reply
  • Roy2001 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I have used 80GB 2G Intel SSD for more than 6 months and it is good. My laptop just got another one and improvement is huge! Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - link

    I used to like OCZ, not because of their products, but because of their support. It was always easy to get in touch with someone that speaks English well and made an honest effort to work with their customers to rectify a problem they had. Their lack of concern for their customers seems to be increasing lately. They've lost one customer for good, I have a feeling if they keep going down this road they'll lose more. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now