Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/ One Geek's Heroic Quest for a Slightly Faster Drive Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:53:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Solid State Drives Vs Hard Drives – An Introduction « Solid State External Hard Drive Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:41:14 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-247 [...] hard drives in nearly all situations. For example, one of the fastest drives right now, the Crucial RealSSD C300, reads data at up to 355 megabytes per second, which is more than four times as fast as a regular [...] [...] hard drives in nearly all situations. For example, one of the fastest drives right now, the Crucial RealSSD C300, reads data at up to 355 megabytes per second, which is more than four times as fast as a regular [...]

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-35 vt Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:57:05 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-35 That is the reason for serious applications SLC memory is used - MLC just won't be a reliable solution even for a few months (as under constant load their MTBF could fall even way below 1000 MTBF). Performance-wise there is actually no much difference, and it is pointless to compare their speed. Their lifetime is the actual difference. And even the best SLC drives under heavy load could lose to enterprise-class (it mostly means reliability) HDDs when it comes to their lifetime. Therefore, MLC drives are nothing more than a fast, expensive, but short-lived toy. That is the reason for serious applications SLC memory is used – MLC just won’t be a reliable solution even for a few months (as under constant load their MTBF could fall even way below 1000 MTBF). Performance-wise there is actually no much difference, and it is pointless to compare their speed. Their lifetime is the actual difference.

And even the best SLC drives under heavy load could lose to enterprise-class (it mostly means reliability) HDDs when it comes to their lifetime.

Therefore, MLC drives are nothing more than a fast, expensive, but short-lived toy.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-34 vt Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:44:27 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-34 Also, their read cycles are ACTUALLY not unlimited. The number is somewhat over 1000000 read cycles, but if you test it by reading some small file over and over for some prolonged time without caching, the block will be moved by the drive hardware and the old block would be marked as "BAD". That is 1 "BAD" block in less than a hour. Also, their read cycles are ACTUALLY not unlimited. The number is somewhat over 1000000 read cycles, but if you test it by reading some small file over and over for some prolonged time without caching, the block will be moved by the drive hardware and the old block would be marked as “BAD”. That is 1 “BAD” block in less than a hour.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-33 vt Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:36:54 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-33 It is actually A VERY OPTIMISTIC value for modern MLC drives under heavy load. MTBF has nothing to do with the actual lifespan, it is just a value specifying the number of failures in a huge array of drive within some time from their initial use. After that time the number of the drives failed will drastically increase. Those "hours" are not calculated for a single drive, it is for the whole array of drives for some SHORT TIME of their initial use. To put it simple, If we have 1000 drives and test them for 1 year, and 3 drives fail, the value would be 1000/3 * 1 year ~ 2920000 MTBF, but IF we test them for 7 years, and 90% drives fail (900), the calculated MTBS would be 1000/900 * 7 years ~ 2839 hours (JUST "SO MUCH", 1000x less). If we test them further, the value would eventually go close to zero. Also, for SSD drives there is some SPECIFIC load assumed, assuring that they would easily fail under actual heavy LOAD, and their actual lifetime has NOTHING TO DO with their declared MTBF. To clarify the things, i can describe the calculations for 256 GB MLC drives. MLC has a maximum of 5000 erase cycles (almost all modern chips). Therefore it can endure ONLY 256 * 5000 = 1,28 PB information written (in the MOST OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO, actually it would rarely last even half of that without huge degradation or becoming inoperative). If we put it under constant load of 100 MB/sec, we are going to use up its all write endurance in less than 149 days (almost 5 months), but actually it won't last even half of that due to limitations of the hardware and "imperfect" wear algorithm. Therefore 3-4 months lifetime estimation under constant load is a VERY OPTIMISTIC value. It is actually A VERY OPTIMISTIC value for modern MLC drives under heavy load. MTBF has nothing to do with the actual lifespan, it is just a value specifying the number of failures in a huge array of drive within some time from their initial use. After that time the number of the drives failed will drastically increase.
Those “hours” are not calculated for a single drive, it is for the whole array of drives for some SHORT TIME of their initial use. To put it simple, If we have 1000 drives and test them for 1 year, and 3 drives fail, the value would be 1000/3 * 1 year ~ 2920000 MTBF, but IF we test them for 7 years, and 90% drives fail (900), the calculated MTBS would be 1000/900 * 7 years ~ 2839 hours (JUST “SO MUCH”, 1000x less). If we test them further, the value would eventually go close to zero. Also, for SSD drives there is some SPECIFIC load assumed, assuring that they would easily fail under actual heavy LOAD, and their actual lifetime has NOTHING TO DO with their declared MTBF.
To clarify the things, i can describe the calculations for 256 GB MLC drives. MLC has a maximum of 5000 erase cycles (almost all modern chips). Therefore it can endure ONLY 256 * 5000 = 1,28 PB information written (in the MOST OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO, actually it would rarely last even half of that without huge degradation or becoming inoperative). If we put it under constant load of 100 MB/sec, we are going to use up its all write endurance in less than 149 days (almost 5 months), but actually it won’t last even half of that due to limitations of the hardware and “imperfect” wear algorithm. Therefore 3-4 months lifetime estimation under constant load is a VERY OPTIMISTIC value.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-32 admin Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:36:30 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-32 vt: Thanks for yout input and sorry that you got stuck in moderation. That issue should be fixed now. I agree with your views on the "enterprise" moniker and there's no doubt that HDDs are the cheaper alternative even if you build a failsafe RAID 1+0 array vs. no RAID for the SSD. As for effective lifetime, MLC drives are rarely if ever used in constant 24/7 write load environments, but even then a 3-4 month lifespan is extremely pessimistic considering the average MTBF values of today's drives. vt: Thanks for yout input and sorry that you got stuck in moderation. That issue should be fixed now. I agree with your views on the “enterprise” moniker and there’s no doubt that HDDs are the cheaper alternative even if you build a failsafe RAID 1+0 array vs. no RAID for the SSD. As for effective lifetime, MLC drives are rarely if ever used in constant 24/7 write load environments, but even then a 3-4 month lifespan is extremely pessimistic considering the average MTBF values of today’s drives.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-31 vt Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:27:33 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-31 "the x25-e is explicitly a server/enterprise drive based on SLC NAND, so it wouldn’t be a fair apples-to-apples comparison." There is no much difference when it comes to performance, as SLC just means more erase cycles and will last (much) longer. Despite the high read/write speed under heavy load any MLC SSD won't last very long. That is the main difference, not the "enterprise" word. Most MLC drives despite their high price can't compete with lifetime of usual cheap HDDs under heavy load. Their speed and shock resistance is the only advantage. Under constant 24/7 write load this model would last for just 3-4 months, while the same capacity SLC drive with same wear leveling would last for over 5 years. “the x25-e is explicitly a server/enterprise drive based on SLC NAND, so it wouldn’t be a fair apples-to-apples comparison.”
There is no much difference when it comes to performance, as SLC just means more erase cycles and will last (much) longer. Despite the high read/write speed under heavy load any MLC SSD won’t last very long. That is the main difference, not the “enterprise” word. Most MLC drives despite their high price can’t compete with lifetime of usual cheap HDDs under heavy load. Their speed and shock resistance is the only advantage.
Under constant 24/7 write load this model would last for just 3-4 months, while the same capacity SLC drive with same wear leveling would last for over 5 years.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-25 admin Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:45:20 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-25 Thanks a lot for the interesting info, Richard! Sounds like a great setup. Those stripe sizes are always an interesting experiment, but most users seem to get the best results when skipping the small sizes and choosing 128k or larger with SSDs (although i have no idea what usually works best for CAD). Thanks a lot for the interesting info, Richard! Sounds like a great setup. Those stripe sizes are always an interesting experiment, but most users seem to get the best results when skipping the small sizes and choosing 128k or larger with SSDs (although i have no idea what usually works best for CAD).

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Richard Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:19 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-24 I dropped $1270 on 2 of the 256gb jewels. I have them in my Dell Precision M6400 Quad core Mobile workstation. They are configured in a raid 0 with a 128k stripe. I believe it to be some of the best money I have spent. They are Fast, FAST, and did I mention they're Really fast. I have Win7 x64 and it boots in under 1 minute. I have ubuntu 10.4 on the other boot. Its up in 20 secs. My throughput is avg. around 320-375 mb/sec. I am a CAD designer I do lots of solid models and the like. I can animate and render without even the slightest hiccup. If you can spend the money you won't be sorry. Just make sure you have the latest firmware update. I dropped $1270 on 2 of the 256gb jewels. I have them in my Dell Precision M6400 Quad core Mobile workstation. They are configured in a raid 0 with a 128k stripe. I believe it to be some of the best money I have spent. They are Fast, FAST, and did I mention they’re Really fast. I have Win7 x64 and it boots in under 1 minute. I have ubuntu 10.4 on the other boot. Its up in 20 secs. My throughput is avg. around 320-375 mb/sec. I am a CAD designer I do lots of solid models and the like. I can animate and render without even the slightest hiccup. If you can spend the money you won’t be sorry. Just make sure you have the latest firmware update.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-22 admin Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:04:44 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-22 JJ, Good point. First of all, I haven't gotten my hands on an x25-e unit yet :( On the other hand, the x25-e is explicitly a server/enterprise drive based on SLC NAND, so it wouldn't be a fair apples-to-apples comparison. JJ,
Good point. First of all, I haven’t gotten my hands on an x25-e unit yet :( On the other hand, the x25-e is explicitly a server/enterprise drive based on SLC NAND, so it wouldn’t be a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

]]> Crucial SSD C300 - The World's Fastest Solid State Drive? http://www.fastestssd.com/reviews/insanely-fast-crucial-real-ssd-c300/comment-page-1/#comment-21 JJ Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:33:11 +0000 http://www.fastestssd.com/?p=23#comment-21 Wheres the comparison to the Intel x25-e? Wheres the comparison to the Intel x25-e?

]]>