Nihility

Member
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nihility


  1. Isn't USB 3.0 supposed to deliver 300 MB/s?

    I'm sure I've seen speeds of 130 MB/s on my HDDs.

    And seems like it's confirmed by this guy: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?264800-Real-world-USB3-speed-test!&p=4698087&viewfull=1#post4698087

    I don't see anything over 100 MB/s with an SSD in your review.

    Any idea what's going on?

    edit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7WDwKcm8Y

    300 MB/s read, 160 MB/s write

    edit 2:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3923/kingston-datatraveler-ultimate-30-ocz-enyo-quick-look-at-two-usb-30-ssds

    190MB/s


  2. Nice elegant drive.

    I couldn't find any pricing information in the review?

    What's the longest key code it can accept?

    Would have been nice to see some HD Tune results to see performance across the whole drive.

    Does the drive get hot after writing to it for a very long time?

    What about power usage?

    Maybe Storage Review could do a feature about how encryption affects performance? Testing several solutions like True Crypt and the built in Windows 7 encryption and testing both an SSD and an HDD.


  3. it's important to remember this is reflecting a business alignment in warranty lengths and not a reduction in drive quality

    I don't believe that for one second.

    Seagate has been having a lot of quality issues lately, if anything, they are just adjusting the warranty to the already sub par quality of their products.

    Besides that, both companies ramped up production at their other plants and that has to cause a decrease in quality.


  4. Maybe the ASUS P8P67 only as 1 PCI-E lane allocated to USB 3.0? That would limit it pretty harshly.

    It may also be a bottleneck in many other places. Personally, I haven't seen USB 3.0 go above 160 MB/s. But I don't have access to RAID 0 enclosures.

    It's a shame that Apple isn't supporting USB 3.0. Especially when thunderbolt is so expensive to implement.

    Edit:

    I'll add that it's also a shame that Intel doesn't support USB 3.0 natively in the current chipsets.


  5. Really surprised to see that it doesn't have USB 3.0 support.

    Especially when you need a power adapter (or firewire) to be able to use eSATA. Furthermore, it seems that this enclosure is capable of saturating eSATA at 250 MB/s while USB 3 should be able to go up to 400 MB/s (I don't know if that RAID controller can handle it).

    A few gripes with the review:

    • You don't mention which interface you are using for the tests (although it is obvious that it's eSATA just because the other options are too slow).
    • No performance graphs?
    • Temperatures. Does the enclosure get hot under heavy use?

    Besides that, I really liked the review.

    I am a bit surprised to hear that USB 2.0 can power 2 drives. I thought even a single SSD or low power 2.5" HDD would require the maximum power output of a standard USB 2.0 port.


  6. You've mentioned that in a previous post. Can you give a bit more information?

    As far as I can tell, even the best write amplification is at around 0.7 (for Sandforce SSDs which do on-the-fly compression). Any other SSD will have a >1 write amplification, so it would actually be worse than the stated lifespan of TLC Flash.

    Besides compression (which can't be done on media files or other compressed files) and flash over provisioning (keeping a chunk of flash on the side side 7-15%, what else could they do in software?


  7. Flash technology is only getting worse and worse.

    SLC -> MLC -> TLC , each progression caused a significant decrease in write cycles.

    Even the reduction in process resolution (130nm, 90 nm, 65 nm etc.) causes a reduction in write cycles (drive lifespan as well).

    There's a clear incentive for these companies to create drives that die after a few years and the way the tech is moving along, they seem to be doing just that.

    I am fully aware that this is also necessary to reduce flash costs, but it's a worrying trend.

    Edit: I'm not sure how accurate the following information is (wikipedia):

    SLC NAND flash is typically rated at about 100k cycles (Samsung OneNAND KFW4G16Q2M)

    MLC NAND flash used to be rated at about 5–10k cycles (Samsung K9G8G08U0M) but is now typically 1k - 3k cycles

    TLC NAND flash is typically rated at about 100-500 cycles

    100-500 cycles... seriously???