Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Poison BL.]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Alan Grimes  wrote:

> All this raises an interesting question: How much effort is it
> reasonable to expect a user to undertake just to use one of these
> drives? I mean it's going to be very tough to argue that it should
> require more than "plug in -> add partitions > boogie"  I mean half of
> what I'm hearing about how to set these up sounds like superstition
> based on how flash was 10 years ago. =\ I mean there needs to be a
> protocol where the drive communicates with the operating system what it
> needs, and the OS should just do it, and the user shouldn't know about
> it prior to running utilities on the volume/drive...
>
> It is really not reasonable to expect the user to know, understand, and
> actively administrate delicate tuning parameters for specific makes and
> models of drives and evolving tools to use these drives. Right now my
> drive is set up as if it were a black box that contains bits. I don't
> think it's reasonable for me to do anything more than that. =\


And, on the range of OSes that cater to users who don't care to know,
understand, or actively administer their systems they tend to detect that
it's an SSD, enable trim, and then let the user suffer with the defaults,
getting better performance than a spinning disk, even if they're not
getting the *most* out of their drive. For the users that *do* wish to,
there's options, whether via a different OS, third party software (like
Samsung Magician for their drives on Windows), or manually adjusting the
settings for the drive in their OS. They do tend to 'just work', but like
anything else, you don't get the best performance out of them by expecting
them to just plug in and go. Even spinning disks benefit from some tweaking
of filesystem parameters away from the defaults for best performance under
specific workloads.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 14 Feb 2017 18:29:49 Alan Grimes wrote:

> Right now my drive is set up as if it were a black box that contains bits.
> I don't think it's reasonable for me to do anything more than that. =\

Well, no, but then you wouldn't, would you? Anybody else might take an 
interest in the health of his system.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Alan Grimes]

All this raises an interesting question: How much effort is it
reasonable to expect a user to undertake just to use one of these
drives? I mean it's going to be very tough to argue that it should
require more than "plug in -> add partitions > boogie"  I mean half of
what I'm hearing about how to set these up sounds like superstition
based on how flash was 10 years ago. =\ I mean there needs to be a
protocol where the drive communicates with the operating system what it
needs, and the OS should just do it, and the user shouldn't know about
it prior to running utilities on the volume/drive...

It is really not reasonable to expect the user to know, understand, and
actively administrate delicate tuning parameters for specific makes and
models of drives and evolving tools to use these drives. Right now my
drive is set up as if it were a black box that contains bits. I don't
think it's reasonable for me to do anything more than that. =\


Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 10:25 PM, Mick wrote:
>> I was using discard and can't say I 
>> noticed any performance penalty on the OCZ drive.  I removed it and set up a 
>> fstrim cron job and suddenly there is a major I/O bottleneck when the cron 
>> job 
>> runs.  Perhaps I should be running it more often ...
>>
> Yeah, I read something that recommended weekly fstrim but it was
> noticeable. I found doing it more frequently (I set mine up to daily. Or
> was it twice a day?) it doesn't take as long.
>
> Also make sure that the job runs if it's missed.


-- 
Strange Game.
The only winning move is not to play. 

Powers are not rights.

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[taii...@gmx.com]

I had a crucial SSD drive too and it failed in the warranty but as I 
didn't have the receipt they refused to honor it and said I was out of 
warranty as based on the date they sold it to the store not the day the 
store sold it to me.
Apparently failures on my model were a very common thing due to a 
manufacturing defect.


Thank god for backups.

Bunch of jerks, don't buy from them.

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Poison BL.]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Frey  wrote:

> On 02/13/2017 10:17 AM, Poison BL. wrote:
> >
> > I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
> > well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from
> > those. Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point
> > of failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you
> > went from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your
> > uptime requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal
> > machine) justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD
> setup.
>
> I finally got tired and replaced my old laptop with a ThinkPad P70, and
> boy is it so much faster than anything else I own. Compile times are
> crazy fast on this new laptop of mine, but it came equipped with an i7
> with 8 threads and 16GB of RAM, which I'm sure helps A LOT.
>
> I'm going to get an SSD (or maybe an NVMe drive) for the new laptop and
> leave /home on ol' reliable rust disks.
>
> I do have backups. That's not the concern - the concern for me was
> turning on the PC and having it completely crap out.
>
> I used to have an SSD on my mythtv backend server, and it started
> behaving strangely one day. I could not log in to the console. X froze.
> Logged in via ssh and files appeared to be missing on the root
> partition. Rebooted the backend server and it was completely dead, no
> warnings or anything.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
I actually see both sides of it... as nice as it is to have a chance to
recover the information from between the last backup and the death of the
drive, the reduced chance of corrupt data from a silently failing
(spinning) disk making it into backups is a bit of a good balancing point
for me.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Daniel Frey]

On 02/13/2017 10:17 AM, Poison BL. wrote:
> 
> I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
> well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from
> those. Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point
> of failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you
> went from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your
> uptime requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal
> machine) justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD setup.

I finally got tired and replaced my old laptop with a ThinkPad P70, and
boy is it so much faster than anything else I own. Compile times are
crazy fast on this new laptop of mine, but it came equipped with an i7
with 8 threads and 16GB of RAM, which I'm sure helps A LOT.

I'm going to get an SSD (or maybe an NVMe drive) for the new laptop and
leave /home on ol' reliable rust disks.

I do have backups. That's not the concern - the concern for me was
turning on the PC and having it completely crap out.

I used to have an SSD on my mythtv backend server, and it started
behaving strangely one day. I could not log in to the console. X froze.
Logged in via ssh and files appeared to be missing on the root
partition. Rebooted the backend server and it was completely dead, no
warnings or anything.

Dan

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Daniel Frey]

On 02/13/2017 10:25 PM, Mick wrote:
> I was using discard and can't say I 
> noticed any performance penalty on the OCZ drive.  I removed it and set up a 
> fstrim cron job and suddenly there is a major I/O bottleneck when the cron 
> job 
> runs.  Perhaps I should be running it more often ...
> 

Yeah, I read something that recommended weekly fstrim but it was
noticeable. I found doing it more frequently (I set mine up to daily. Or
was it twice a day?) it doesn't take as long.

Also make sure that the job runs if it's missed.

Dan

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[wabe]

Mick  wrote:

> On Tuesday 14 Feb 2017 01:51:01 wabe wrote:
> > Mick  wrote:  
> 
> > > Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them
> > > with the discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?  
> > 
> > I noticed a big performance impact with my old Corsair 60GB SSD
> > (Force3 IIRC) when I used the discard option in fstab. So I decided
> > to use the fstrim command instead, before I did my weekly backups.
> > The fstrim command always needed about 10 minutes or so to complete
> > its job.
> > 
> > About 1 year ago I replaced the Corsair with a Samsung SSD 850 PRO.
> > With this device I did not notice a performance impact when the
> > discard option is enabled and so I decided to use it.
> > Btw: On the Samsung SSDs the fstrim command only needs a second or
> > so to do its job.
> > 
> > I never used a benchmark program to check if there is really no
> > difference. But at least I don't notice any in my every day use.
> > 
> > My old Corsair SSD (bought it in 2011) is still in use as swap
> > space device in my Win7 machine (together with a SSD 850 PRO as
> > system device). Before that, I used it as system disk on my gentoo
> > machine. I also used it for my users mail and thumbnail directories
> > and also for /log, /tmp, /var and the whole portage tree. Before
> > I upgraded my gentoo machine to 16GB RAM I also used the SSD for
> > portages temporary files. So it was really in heavy use. And is
> > still running without problems.
> > Before I installed the Corsair SSD into my Win machine, I used
> > fstrim to increase the reserved space to 50%. I hope that it will
> > run for at least another 6 years. ;-)
> > 
> > --
> > Regards
> > wabe  
> 
> Thanks wabe, this is really interesting.  I was using discard and
> can't say I noticed any performance penalty on the OCZ drive.  I
> removed it and set up a fstrim cron job and suddenly there is a major
> I/O bottleneck when the cron job runs.  Perhaps I should be running
> it more often ...

I only used fstrim in single user mode before I made my weekly 
backup. I can imagine that it will cause a I/O bottleneck while it 
runs.

P.S.: I wrote by mistake, that I used fstrim to reserve free space
on the drives. Actually I used hdparm for that.

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Mick]

On Tuesday 14 Feb 2017 01:51:01 wabe wrote:
> Mick  wrote:

> > Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them
> > with the discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?
> 
> I noticed a big performance impact with my old Corsair 60GB SSD
> (Force3 IIRC) when I used the discard option in fstab. So I decided
> to use the fstrim command instead, before I did my weekly backups.
> The fstrim command always needed about 10 minutes or so to complete
> its job.
> 
> About 1 year ago I replaced the Corsair with a Samsung SSD 850 PRO.
> With this device I did not notice a performance impact when the
> discard option is enabled and so I decided to use it.
> Btw: On the Samsung SSDs the fstrim command only needs a second or
> so to do its job.
> 
> I never used a benchmark program to check if there is really no
> difference. But at least I don't notice any in my every day use.
> 
> My old Corsair SSD (bought it in 2011) is still in use as swap
> space device in my Win7 machine (together with a SSD 850 PRO as
> system device). Before that, I used it as system disk on my gentoo
> machine. I also used it for my users mail and thumbnail directories
> and also for /log, /tmp, /var and the whole portage tree. Before
> I upgraded my gentoo machine to 16GB RAM I also used the SSD for
> portages temporary files. So it was really in heavy use. And is
> still running without problems.
> Before I installed the Corsair SSD into my Win machine, I used
> fstrim to increase the reserved space to 50%. I hope that it will
> run for at least another 6 years. ;-)
> 
> --
> Regards
> wabe

Thanks wabe, this is really interesting.  I was using discard and can't say I 
noticed any performance penalty on the OCZ drive.  I removed it and set up a 
fstrim cron job and suddenly there is a major I/O bottleneck when the cron job 
runs.  Perhaps I should be running it more often ...

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[wabe]

Mick  wrote:

> On Monday 13 Feb 2017 13:17:14 Poison BL. wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Frey 
> > wrote:  
> > > On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:  
> > > > So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD
> > > > lasting more than 20 days?  
> > > 
> > > I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over
> > > the last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable
> > > (multiple brands too.)
> > > 
> > > I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of
> > > four SSDs I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.
> > > 
> > > I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right
> > > now I keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS
> > > easily. One one of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent
> > > me a newer drive/model as it was replaced more than once.
> > > 
> > > I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and
> > > crashing into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I
> > > went back to a (relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been
> > > reliable for the last four years. At least with a hard drive
> > > failure, you stand /some/ chance at recovery, not zero.
> > > 
> > > The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty
> > > is in my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year.
> > > I fully expect it to die one of these times when I boot the
> > > laptop (it's one of the old models.)
> > > 
> > > My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and
> > > AData SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as
> > > throwaway devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial)
> > > and don't want to spend big money on them. I have noticed the
> > > AData SSD's performance is not as fast now as it was new (maybe
> > > 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably pack it in soon too.
> > > 
> > > Dan  
> > 
> > I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years
> > as well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery
> > from those. Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a
> > single point of failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not.
> > The point that you went from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes
> > me question why, if your uptime requirements (even if only for your
> > own desires on a personal machine) justify raid10, you weren't on
> > at least raid1 with the SSD setup.
> > 
> > As for performance degredation on SSDs, that I've definitely seen
> > on pretty much every brand, though I've had good luck doing clean
> > reloads on samsungs once or twice to get speeds back up some
> > (somehow, even trim doesn't seem to keep things at their best).

It really helps when you always left some free space on the drives.
I used fstrim to reserve additional 20% free space on my SSD drives.
I said additional because manufacturers always(?) reserve some 
percentage free space for overprovisioning. This not only expands 
the lifetime of SSDs but also helps to preserve write performance.

> > I can't say they're more or less reliable than spinning disks,
> > though they do have the benefit of no moving parts to wear out over
> > time (thermal cycles can still cause a physical failure on them,
> > though).  
> 
> Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them
> with the discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?

I noticed a big performance impact with my old Corsair 60GB SSD 
(Force3 IIRC) when I used the discard option in fstab. So I decided
to use the fstrim command instead, before I did my weekly backups.
The fstrim command always needed about 10 minutes or so to complete
its job.

About 1 year ago I replaced the Corsair with a Samsung SSD 850 PRO.
With this device I did not notice a performance impact when the 
discard option is enabled and so I decided to use it.
Btw: On the Samsung SSDs the fstrim command only needs a second or 
so to do its job.

I never used a benchmark program to check if there is really no 
difference. But at least I don't notice any in my every day use.

My old Corsair SSD (bought it in 2011) is still in use as swap
space device in my Win7 machine (together with a SSD 850 PRO as
system device). Before that, I used it as system disk on my gentoo
machine. I also used it for my users mail and thumbnail directories
and also for /log, /tmp, /var and the whole portage tree. Before
I upgraded my gentoo machine to 16GB RAM I also used the SSD for 
portages temporary files. So it was really in heavy use. And is 
still running without problems.
Before I installed the Corsair SSD into my Win machine, I used 
fstrim to increase the reserved space to 50%. I hope that it will 
run for at least another 6 years. ;-)

--
Regards
wabe


pgp_2HmSIJKiB.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Poison BL.]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Mick  wrote:

> On Monday 13 Feb 2017 13:17:14 Poison BL. wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Frey  wrote:
> > > On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> > > > So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> > > > more than 20 days?
> > >
> > > I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over the
> > > last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable (multiple
> > > brands too.)
> > >
> > > I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of four SSDs
> > > I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.
> > >
> > > I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right now I
> > > keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS easily. One
> one
> > > of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent me a newer
> drive/model
> > > as it was replaced more than once.
> > >
> > > I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and crashing
> > > into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I went back to a
> > > (relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been reliable for the last
> > > four years. At least with a hard drive failure, you stand /some/ chance
> > > at recovery, not zero.
> > >
> > > The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty is in
> > > my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year. I fully
> > > expect it to die one of these times when I boot the laptop (it's one of
> > > the old models.)
> > >
> > > My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and AData
> > > SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as throwaway
> > > devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial) and don't want
> to
> > > spend big money on them. I have noticed the AData SSD's performance is
> > > not as fast now as it was new (maybe 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably
> > > pack it in soon too.
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
> > well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from those.
> > Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point of
> > failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you
> went
> > from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your uptime
> > requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal machine)
> > justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD setup.
> >
> > As for performance degredation on SSDs, that I've definitely seen on
> pretty
> > much every brand, though I've had good luck doing clean reloads on
> samsungs
> > once or twice to get speeds back up some (somehow, even trim doesn't seem
> > to keep things at their best).
> >
> > I can't say they're more or less reliable than spinning disks, though
> they
> > do have the benefit of no moving parts to wear out over time (thermal
> > cycles can still cause a physical failure on them, though).
>
> Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them with the
> discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?
> --
> Regards,
> Mick


I actually only have one (exceptionally cheap, and little used) in a linux
box at all, and haven't tested with anything other than having discard set.
I sadly have to live the windows life on all my work machines :(

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Mick]

On Monday 13 Feb 2017 13:17:14 Poison BL. wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Frey  wrote:
> > On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> > > So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> > > more than 20 days?
> > 
> > I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over the
> > last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable (multiple
> > brands too.)
> > 
> > I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of four SSDs
> > I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.
> > 
> > I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right now I
> > keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS easily. One one
> > of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent me a newer drive/model
> > as it was replaced more than once.
> > 
> > I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and crashing
> > into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I went back to a
> > (relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been reliable for the last
> > four years. At least with a hard drive failure, you stand /some/ chance
> > at recovery, not zero.
> > 
> > The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty is in
> > my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year. I fully
> > expect it to die one of these times when I boot the laptop (it's one of
> > the old models.)
> > 
> > My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and AData
> > SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as throwaway
> > devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial) and don't want to
> > spend big money on them. I have noticed the AData SSD's performance is
> > not as fast now as it was new (maybe 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably
> > pack it in soon too.
> > 
> > Dan
> 
> I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
> well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from those.
> Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point of
> failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you went
> from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your uptime
> requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal machine)
> justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD setup.
> 
> As for performance degredation on SSDs, that I've definitely seen on pretty
> much every brand, though I've had good luck doing clean reloads on samsungs
> once or twice to get speeds back up some (somehow, even trim doesn't seem
> to keep things at their best).
> 
> I can't say they're more or less reliable than spinning disks, though they
> do have the benefit of no moving parts to wear out over time (thermal
> cycles can still cause a physical failure on them, though).

Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them with the 
discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Poison BL.]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Frey  wrote:

> On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> > So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> > more than 20 days?
> >
>
> I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over the
> last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable (multiple
> brands too.)
>
> I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of four SSDs
> I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.
>
> I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right now I
> keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS easily. One one
> of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent me a newer drive/model
> as it was replaced more than once.
>
> I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and crashing
> into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I went back to a
> (relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been reliable for the last
> four years. At least with a hard drive failure, you stand /some/ chance
> at recovery, not zero.
>
> The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty is in
> my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year. I fully
> expect it to die one of these times when I boot the laptop (it's one of
> the old models.)
>
> My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and AData
> SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as throwaway
> devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial) and don't want to
> spend big money on them. I have noticed the AData SSD's performance is
> not as fast now as it was new (maybe 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably
> pack it in soon too.
>
> Dan
>
>
I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from those.
Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point of
failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you went
from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your uptime
requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal machine)
justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD setup.

As for performance degredation on SSDs, that I've definitely seen on pretty
much every brand, though I've had good luck doing clean reloads on samsungs
once or twice to get speeds back up some (somehow, even trim doesn't seem
to keep things at their best).

I can't say they're more or less reliable than spinning disks, though they
do have the benefit of no moving parts to wear out over time (thermal
cycles can still cause a physical failure on them, though).

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Daniel Frey]

On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> more than 20 days?
> 

I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over the
last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable (multiple
brands too.)

I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of four SSDs
I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.

I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right now I
keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS easily. One one
of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent me a newer drive/model
as it was replaced more than once.

I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and crashing
into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I went back to a
(relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been reliable for the last
four years. At least with a hard drive failure, you stand /some/ chance
at recovery, not zero.

The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty is in
my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year. I fully
expect it to die one of these times when I boot the laptop (it's one of
the old models.)

My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and AData
SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as throwaway
devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial) and don't want to
spend big money on them. I have noticed the AData SSD's performance is
not as fast now as it was new (maybe 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably
pack it in soon too.

Dan

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Poison BL.]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Alan Grimes  wrote:

> Dear god, I think I have come in contact with one of the suckiest things
> in the universe!
>
> I mean first there are supermassive black holes... OK... Then there's
> Crucial MX300 SSDs, and in a distant third there's Justin Beiber.
>
> I mean the absolute suckyness of MX300 SSDs defy human comprehension. I
> mean you could connect one of these:
> http://www.zmescience.com/science/biggest-most-poweful-engine-world/ to
> a suction pump and it couldn't possibly suck one quintillionth as much
> as this SSD...
>
> I mean if the power goes out, and you want to do some vacuuming, just
> put your MX300 behind the bag in your vacuum and it'll work better than
> normal.
>
> Seriously, what could possibly suck harder than a SSD which dies stone
> cold dead after only 20 days?!?!?! Thank god I had done nothing worse
> than store my rusty old Velociraptor on a shelf, and by good fortune it
> only took about two days to get it updated... I really hadn't intended
> to ever use it again. =\
>
> I'm not sure what lesson I should take away from this except that
> Crucial does not have any business selling SSDs. =\
>
> I'm not sure where to go from here. My 'raptor is very close to
> exceeding it's reliable lifespan, by some standards it already has...
> But now the QC of these SSDs has been shown to be outrageously bad. =(
>
> So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> more than 20 days?
>
> --
> Strange Game.
> The only winning move is not to play.
>
> Powers are not rights.
>


I've had all manner of drives fall on the leading edge of the failure rate
'bathtub curve', both SSDs and spinning rust (including hybrid drives), and
many more of each last far past what should typically be the tail end
'spike' that occurs on that curve (including a few of WD's raptor drives of
various vintage). A single drive failure is an anecdote, not an indicator
of a systemic failure of the entire production line (let alone brand),
especially if it lasted 20 days past install... which is well outside
anything a quick, every Nth drive, QA test on the production line is going
to pick up unless they happened to grab that single, specific, drive. As 20
days is also well inside the warranty they give on that drive, a
replacement's not likely to be difficult to get from the manufacturer (and
if you purchased it within the past 30 days, from typical vendors if you
prefer).

I don't *think* I have any of the MX series, but I have had good luck with
the one BX200 I have in my work desktop, and I've heard good things on the
handfull of BX series drives my boss's deployed in various desktops and
laptops. I haven't done any deliberate performance testing on them, but I
can attest to much better speeds out of my BX200 than the spinning 500GB
sitting under it in the same machine.

As for the failure *mode* of your drive, simply, completely, dead... that's
been my experience on every failed SSD I've seen, be it a samsung 850 pro,
an early crucial drive, corsair, and even intels. I suspect either the
controller itself is the point of failure on them, or it's simply incapable
of working around a failure of some other component.

Lastly, while drive failures do, very much, suck... they happen. That's why
backups are essential, and also exactly why raid levels outside of raid0
exist (one is not a replacement for the other, 'course).

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Mick]

On Sunday 12 Feb 2017 17:40:35 Alan Grimes wrote:
> Dear god, I think I have come in contact with one of the suckiest things
> in the universe!
> 
> I mean first there are supermassive black holes... OK... Then there's
> Crucial MX300 SSDs, and in a distant third there's Justin Beiber.
> 
> I mean the absolute suckyness of MX300 SSDs defy human comprehension. I
> mean you could connect one of these:
> http://www.zmescience.com/science/biggest-most-poweful-engine-world/ to
> a suction pump and it couldn't possibly suck one quintillionth as much
> as this SSD...
> 
> I mean if the power goes out, and you want to do some vacuuming, just
> put your MX300 behind the bag in your vacuum and it'll work better than
> normal.
> 
> Seriously, what could possibly suck harder than a SSD which dies stone
> cold dead after only 20 days?!?!?! Thank god I had done nothing worse
> than store my rusty old Velociraptor on a shelf, and by good fortune it
> only took about two days to get it updated... I really hadn't intended
> to ever use it again. =\
> 
> I'm not sure what lesson I should take away from this except that
> Crucial does not have any business selling SSDs. =\
> 
> I'm not sure where to go from here. My 'raptor is very close to
> exceeding it's reliable lifespan, by some standards it already has...
> But now the QC of these SSDs has been shown to be outrageously bad. =(
> 
> So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> more than 20 days?

LOL!

I did laugh reading this, thanks!

I have no experience with SSDs badged by Crucial.  I have been using a 240GB 
OCZ-ARC100 on a daily basis for more than two years now, and it is still 
working.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Jigme Datse Yli-RAsku]

I have 3 of these class of device (if I recall) 3 Crucial SSDs where I have 
only had issues with the one install of the device, and I'm not really sure 
*why* that might be causing problems, but I suspect that a good part of why it 
"just won't work" is because of the UEFI system on that machine, or something 
installed "inside" the UEFI which makes it confuse the heck out of the machine. 
 I have intended to boot into and install Gentoo on it, to see if doing so is 
"doable" or if I should strip the machine, and hope I can get some useful 
components out of it.  Perhaps the optical drive would work well, on this 
machine, though I don't really have a reason to switch this machine's optical 
drive out right now. 

My suggestion is the drive *should* be under warranty, so get a replacement 
that way, and hit up some other manufacturer if you can afford to.  I have 
heard people say that they have had drives running for 10 years, but I may have 
misheard.

On 2017-02-12 14:40, Alan Grimes wrote:
> Dear god, I think I have come in contact with one of the suckiest things
> in the universe!
>
> I mean first there are supermassive black holes... OK... Then there's
> Crucial MX300 SSDs, and in a distant third there's Justin Beiber.
>
> I mean the absolute suckyness of MX300 SSDs defy human comprehension. I
> mean you could connect one of these:
> http://www.zmescience.com/science/biggest-most-poweful-engine-world/ to
> a suction pump and it couldn't possibly suck one quintillionth as much
> as this SSD...
>
> I mean if the power goes out, and you want to do some vacuuming, just
> put your MX300 behind the bag in your vacuum and it'll work better than
> normal.
>
> Seriously, what could possibly suck harder than a SSD which dies stone
> cold dead after only 20 days?!?!?! Thank god I had done nothing worse
> than store my rusty old Velociraptor on a shelf, and by good fortune it
> only took about two days to get it updated... I really hadn't intended
> to ever use it again. =\
>
> I'm not sure what lesson I should take away from this except that
> Crucial does not have any business selling SSDs. =\
>
> I'm not sure where to go from here. My 'raptor is very close to
> exceeding it's reliable lifespan, by some standards it already has...
> But now the QC of these SSDs has been shown to be outrageously bad. =(
>
> So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> more than 20 days?
>

-- 
Jigme Datse Yli-Rasku
jigme.da...@datsemultimedia.com (Preferred address for new messages)
250-505-6117

Jigme Datse Yli-Rasku
PO Box 270
Rossland, BC V0G 1Y0
Canada

...
... This message should be electronically signed, and if the sender ...
... has your public key, may also be encrypted. ...
... If you have any questions about this, please email, or call. ...
... ...
... Note, unknown calls likely will go to voicemail. ...
... Please leave a message if you get voicemail. ...
...

[gentoo-user] WARNING: Crucial MX300 drives SUUUUUCK!!!!

[Alan Grimes]

Dear god, I think I have come in contact with one of the suckiest things
in the universe!

I mean first there are supermassive black holes... OK... Then there's
Crucial MX300 SSDs, and in a distant third there's Justin Beiber.

I mean the absolute suckyness of MX300 SSDs defy human comprehension. I
mean you could connect one of these:
http://www.zmescience.com/science/biggest-most-poweful-engine-world/ to
a suction pump and it couldn't possibly suck one quintillionth as much
as this SSD...

I mean if the power goes out, and you want to do some vacuuming, just
put your MX300 behind the bag in your vacuum and it'll work better than
normal.

Seriously, what could possibly suck harder than a SSD which dies stone
cold dead after only 20 days?!?!?! Thank god I had done nothing worse
than store my rusty old Velociraptor on a shelf, and by good fortune it
only took about two days to get it updated... I really hadn't intended
to ever use it again. =\

I'm not sure what lesson I should take away from this except that
Crucial does not have any business selling SSDs. =\

I'm not sure where to go from here. My 'raptor is very close to
exceeding it's reliable lifespan, by some standards it already has...
But now the QC of these SSDs has been shown to be outrageously bad. =(

So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
more than 20 days?

-- 
Strange Game.
The only winning move is not to play. 

Powers are not rights.