• Computers
  • SSD drive - Also edit -EVO 840 Bug (p.2)
2014/10/21 07:19:52
Karyn
Another vote for Samsung here...
 
 
 
 
 
 
...just before I relocate the thread to computers...
 
 
 
 
... if you follow the thread there and keep posting there'll be more traffic in the Computer Corner...
 
 
I'll give it an hour.
2014/10/21 08:56:54
Keith Albright [Cakewalk]
Something to be aware of.  I heard this from Steve Gibson.  
Higher density SSDs use what's known as multi level cells.  Since they're basically capacitors, over time they can lose the ability to distinguish between different values.
 
Look for "And so the problem with multilevel cells as opposed to single-level cells" 
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-406.htm
as this is a transcript of the entire show, 
 
The tech continues to improve as far as long term reliability.  Knowing how many levels are being represented in cells can give a basis for comparison.  Probably don't want to be on the highest density if you want long-term usage. 
 
Regardless, still have to continue to deal with backups.  But not having a spinning platter does have advantages.  
 
 
2014/10/21 09:30:11
Karyn
It's not so much the density of the SSD that's the issue, but specifically the Flash type used to get the density.  MLC is cheap, but SLC is faster and lasts 10x as long.
 
Random quote from the internets that explains MLC and SLC.
 
MLC vs SLC head to head
Vendors may prefer not to discuss the differences between the technologies, but understanding the underlying technology can influence deployment strategies. So, what are the key differences between MLC and SLC flash SSD?
All flash memory suffers from wear, which occurs because erasing or programming a cell subjects it to wear due to the voltage applied. Each time this happens, a charge is trapped in the transistor's gate dielectric and causes a permanent shift in the cell's characteristics, which, after a number of cycles, manifests as a failed cell.
SLC uses a single cell to store one bit of data. MLC memory is more complex and can interpret four digital states from a signal stored in a single cell. This makes it denser for a given area and so cheaper to produce, but it wears out faster.
So, an MLC cell is typically rated at 10,000 erase/write cycles, while an SLC cell might last 10 times that before failing. However, manufacturers of products consisting of MLC cells can and do have ameliorating technologies and techniques at their disposal.
According to Andrew Buss, service director at analyst firm Freeform Dynamics, amelioration techniques used by most vendors include wear-levelling, which moves write cycles around the chip so that cells wear evenly; on-device deduplication, which reduces the volumes of data written and so lowers wear; redundancy, which reserves a portion of the device's capacity to replace cells as they fail; and write optimisation, which stores data writes so they can be made in large chunks to reduce the number of write operations. The emerging term for MLC products that incorporate such techniques is enterprise MLC, or eMLC.
Most such techniques are implemented in the device controller -- the interface between device and computer -- with companies such as SandForce and Intel among the most advanced in implementing such techniques, according to Buss. *And despite the endurance issues related to SSDs, they remain, say vendors, more reliable than spinning media.
 
*Emphasis added by me.
 
Something not mentioned above, but hinted at if you read the amelioration techniques, is that you should NOT defrag an SSD. 1) You gain nothing in RW speed by defragging an SSD, it's running at the speed of flash RAM regardless. 2) You're reducing the life of the cells by needlessly moving files around.  3)  Wear levelling (always writing to fresh areas rather than over-writing original data) means that fragmentation will occur very quickly on regularly changing files, but it doesn't matter as random access speed of flash RAM is effectively the same as serial access speed.  Unlike with a spinning disk.
2014/10/21 10:01:24
johnnyV
Excellent stuff.
And Thanks for leaving this for the day, The thread I started here never got one reply ;(    
( you can delete it)    but I got some good answers upstairs. Very few regular users visit  the sub forms so your not tapping in to our nice wide spectrum of users when you post anywhere other than the main forum. I'm so happy the old Sonar and Sub forms are all one now.  I don't need to open as many sub forms anymore. So there is a great benefit for just keeping most topics in the main forum. I agree that building a computer belongs here, but in away this topic is important to all users of DAW's.
Anyways all is good and I'm just waiting for my new case and power supply allong with the Samsung SSD to arrive.  
2014/10/21 10:09:45
fireberd
One of the DAW builders, that posts here, (I forget which one) recommended Intel SSD drives.  I have one on my Win 7 install and have Sonar and plug-ins installed on the SSD, but I have my projects on a conventional hard drive. 
 
I also have an OCZ Vertex 4 on my Win 8.1 install (same PC as the Win 7 - dual boot) and the OCZ Vertex 4 has better benchmark scores.  OCZ was recently acquired by (I Think) Panasonic, but I don't know if they have rebranded the OCZ's yet or going to leave them branded as OCZ.
 
Of the two, if were to buy another it would be an OCZ, based on my experience over the last 2 plus years that its been installed (when I built the PC).
2014/10/21 11:10:34
lawajava
JohnnyV - you've made a good choice. I have two internal Samsung 1TB Evo SSDs in my laptop.

Couldn't be happier. I would never go back to platter drives.
2014/10/21 11:52:48
johnnyV
Well a few minutes browsing manufactures web sites and you'll not find any references to the 
MLC and SLC specs. I would assume top brands are not using MLC. 
 
I know you can pick up a 32 Gig USB flash drive and the $10 ones are slow transfer and the $35 ones are faster.  But I guess the cheap ones are MLC. Or is a flash drive a different animal all together than a SSD? 
2014/10/21 15:59:30
BenMMusTech
I'm going to get a small (128) SSD and place it into a USB 3 dock, this will be my working drive.  I will then use cheaper spindle drives for archiving.  The smaller drive will force me to back up regularly.  I really need a SSD because I do some video work and I'm afraid of breaking a spindle drive, I must admit.  I was doing a small 6 minute video project yesterday and I was taxing the hard drive eco system.
 
Ben 
2014/10/21 21:22:03
tlw
My two Intel SSDs are working fine after two years. Though if I were rebuilding from scratch I'd be inclined to consider 500Gb Samsungs for the audio drive. SSD byte-per-buck ratio is much better than a couple of years ago.

As for SSD over USB3, not sure I'd go that way. You should get some speed boost over a 7200 3.5" HDD but nothing like as much as connecting an SSD to the SATA bus. The bigger problem is that to work well and maintain their speed it is necessary for SSDs to be sent the TRIM command by the operating system. I've been researching external fast storage and as far as I can see USB does not support TRIM.

Which means that once the SSD gets to be around 1/2 full (or maybe less) it will suffer a huge drop in speed, especially for writes.
2014/10/22 05:15:33
johnkeel
BenMMusTech
I'm going to get a small (128) SSD and place it into a USB 3 dock, this will be my working drive.  I will then use cheaper spindle drives for archiving.  The smaller drive will force me to back up regularly.  I really need a SSD because I do some video work and I'm afraid of breaking a spindle drive, I must admit.  I was doing a small 6 minute video project yesterday and I was taxing the hard drive eco system.
 
Ben 




It's a waste of SSD, i would only consider having a external one if it was E-SATA. 50% of USB3 docks are garbage, 20% of USB ports in PCs are garbage, the sequential speed doing that is not bad but the access time is really bad. I really hate external storage by USB.
© 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account