>> I had a OCZ Vertex 1 (Indilinx) in my home PC for 2 years ... every 3 >> months it would corrupt fatally (BIOS wouldn't even see it). >> After 3 RMAs I got them to replace it with a Vertex 2 (Sandforce), and >> that one is stable as a rock. >> ... Slightly slower than the Indilinx - but who cares about that when >> it's at the expense of stability. > > Interesting. Have a few 30-120 GB Vertex 1s around here. Been OK > once OCZ got the firmware stablized and pretty stable.
The thing with V1 is that they don't move data around on the flash cells. In other words, if you fill the drive 90% with static data (Windows/Applications), and then write like crazy ... the remaining 10% + the overprovisioned area will be wearing out very quickly. > The Vertex 2 should be MUCH faster than the Vertex 1 - at least that's > what all the benchmarks say. V2 is faster with *some* data. The controller employs data compression - partly to give you longer life by having to write fewer physical bytes to the flash - and partly to get speed. The numbers quoted are for "average" data that compresses 2:1 or even 3:1. Use the drive for incompressible data, and the speed is actually slower than a V1. > Seems that SSDs have traded one type of failure mode for another at > this point. I expect them to get all the bugs worked out eventually. > The performance and power usage of them is so great that I use them in > any new build where random IO performance is an issue. I completely agree. Just don't trust any important data to them .... either back up religiously, or just use the SSD for the boot/applications drive, and keep your hard-to-replace data on an HDD. (And spend the money that a bigger SSD would have cost on lots and lots of RAM instead). Regards, -Jeppe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
