Samsung 870 QVO SSD Performance On Ubuntu Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Samsung 870 QVO SSD Performance On Ubuntu Linux

The Samsung 870 QVO solid-state drives announced at the end of June have begun appearing at Internet retailers. The Samsung 870 QVO is the company's latest QLC NAND solid-state drive offering 1TB of storage for a little more than $120 USD all the way up to 4TB for $500 and an 8TB variant for $900. For those curious about the EXT4 file-system Linux performance out of the Samsung 870 QVO, here are some benchmarks.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=29418

[willmore]

I'm so glad Fedora has decided to move to the slowest filesystem.

[herman]

Cue the fights about btrfs. I'm curious to know if btrfs was run with some sort of compression.

[tildearrow]

Typo:

The new QVO SSDs are leveraging 92-layer 3D QLC V-NAND and the the Samsung MKX controller.

[torsionbar28]

Just 360 TB of endurance on a 1 TB drive? A pitiful 360 cycle life per cell? No wonder SSD prices have been falling, the product keeps getting worse and worse. My intel X25-E drives from *ten years* ago have a 1 PB (yes petabyte) endurance on a 64 GB drive. That's over 15,000 cycles per cell. Clearly QLC NAND is only suitable for the very lightest duty throw-away consumer use cases. Grandma checking her AOL email and such.

[S.Pam]

Honestly, there is something wrong in the application start up time. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-870-qvo&num=4

it cant possibly be the Btrfs fault to take 90 seconds on an ssd to start. Most likely stupid mq-deadline that just isn't working right.

[herman]

Just 360 TB of endurance on a 1 TB drive? A pitiful 360 cycle life per cell? No wonder SSD prices have been falling, the product keeps getting worse and worse. My intel X25-E drives from *ten years* ago have a 1 PB (yes petabyte) endurance on a 64 GB drive. That's over 15,000 cycles per cell. Clearly QLC NAND is only suitable for the very lightest duty throw-away consumer use cases. Grandma checking her AOL email and such.

Keep in mind that the X25-E cost $700 for only 32GB when it first came out. 360TBW is actually not that bad. If you write 5GB a day for 10 years, then you only wrote 18TB. That is wholly usable for consumers, even as an OS drive.

[torsionbar28]

Keep in mind that the X25-E cost $700 for only 32GB when it first came out. 360TBW is actually not that bad. If you write 5GB a day for 10 years, then you only wrote 18TB. That is wholly usable for consumers, even as an OS drive.

You underestimate the amount of disk writes the Windows OS performs on a daily basis. That number goes through the roof on a budget peecee with low memory where swapping starts to occur. I agree there are certain low-end consumer use cases for a drive like this, as I said previously. Personally I would never buy any SSD with such a low endurance rating.

[herman]

You underestimate the amount of disk writes the Windows OS performs on a daily basis. That number goes through the roof on a budget peecee with low memory where swapping starts to occur. I agree there are certain low-end consumer use cases for a drive like this, as I said previously. Personally I would never buy any SSD with such a low endurance rating.

It would take 100GBW every single day to burn up the drive in 10 years. That's not likely, even as bad as Windows is. You're right though, swap could be an issue, but given how cheap RAM is it shouldn't ever need to be used. I'm not discounting your concerns, and in fact, I generally agree with you. I want my drives to have an overabundance of write capability (especially with the advent of btrfs on Fedora ), but this drive will most likely last well beyond 10 years for most consumers. By the time it dies, cheaper and faster drives will be available to the masses.

[arQon]

So the TLDR of this is what you'd expect. QLC is garbage, both slower and shorter-lived than a decent SSD from 5 years ago. Technology moving backwards - like SMR, but without even the one redeeming feature that has.

QLC "should" compensate for its utter shittiness by being (much) cheaper than a "proper" SSD, but the combination of DRAM glut and corporate greed means it's not even managing to do that.