Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus 1TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FeRD_NYC
    replied
    Can I ask, just as a general question, why the decision was made to start generating storage graphs sorted by performance, so that which device is which keeps changing from graph to graph? AND to color them all the same baseline color? Even when the focus is on one particular product (colored slightly darker), it's needlessly confusing. And when it's a collective group survey and there's no single focus (like, most recently, the XFS / EXT4 / Btrfs / F2FS / NILFS2 Performance On Linux 5.8 head-to-head-to-head-to-head-to-head from last year) it's an absolute nightmare trying to follow the stats.

    In some older graphs that were linked to from that 5-way Linux matchup, the bar for each device was color-coded, which made them easier to follow as they bounced around. But I can see how that could cause its own set of problems (it's an accessibility nightmare, for one thing), so I understand the decision to same-color the bars.

    But I have a radical suggestion: Just don't rearrange them! Keep them in static ordering, alphabetical or whatever. Humans can find the longest line from among a group far more easily than they can follow a constantly re-sorting list of items, and if you're worried it might not be clear which is the winner/loser you can add a vertical line at the end of the longest bar, or something.

    Here, I took the liberty of redoing the first three charts from this article. Isn't this better?:






    Leave a comment:


  • Jedibeeftrix
    replied
    I've had a 2TB Rocket 4.0 Plus since the 1st of March, and the Sabrent Rocket Control Panel has consistently told me the firmware is "EIFM21.0" and there are no updates available.

    What is this v1.2 firmware of which you speak?

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    What is the evidence in favor of the review using 980 Pro and not using 980? Not counting the single word "PRO" in the article, which is just part of a note about Michael's past experiences with 980 Pro. (Firefox can be used to search for 980 in the SVGs in the article, while Chrome is displaying raster images).
    Huh, wait, you're right. I had a particularly egregious case of a brain fart.

    Still, the 980 Pro isn't a flagship top-of-the-line model that you'd expect of Samsung anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by onlyLinuxLuvUBack View Post
    bull-sheet, I buy optane or micron max or ash-guard ssds just because of the TBW rating of "long" , or samdung new class of "never ever forever never fail" but "never write well". the 980 pro aint even getting in the club.
    An issue is that the OS and applications are ignoring the technological limitations of SSDs and are ignoring the particular properties of the SSDs installed in the machine. It is left to the user to deal with issues such as SLC cache depletion and sub-optimal performance in case of certain data access patterns. Near-optimal performance is computable - but the OS and the applications aren't computing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post
    This review features the 980 Pro.
    What is the evidence in favor of the review using 980 Pro and not using 980? Not counting the single word "PRO" in the article, which is just part of a note about Michael's past experiences with 980 Pro. (Firefox can be used to search for 980 in the SVGs in the article, while Chrome is displaying raster images).

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by pipe13 View Post

    Okay, but which Samsung 980 here did Michael test, the 980 or the 980 PRO? I recently purchased a 2TB Samsung 980 PRO for a new build, thinking it was one of the faster, more reliable SSD's available. I haven't unboxed it yet, so could return/exchange if I so desired. Should I so desire? Thanks.
    This review features the 980 Pro. It is okay — but definitely not the flagship SSD Samsungs were in the past. Plus, it apparently has issues specific to Linux.

    Phoronix did specifically review the 980 Pro in the past, find it.

    Leave a comment:


  • onlyLinuxLuvUBack
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    I don't have personal experience with Samsung 980 Pro. According to Windows reviews, 980 Pro is one of the fastest drives available (except for the 250GB model).
    bull-sheet, I buy optane or micron max or ash-guard ssds just because of the TBW rating of "long" , or samdung new class of "never ever forever never fail" but "never write well". the 980 pro aint even getting in the club.

    Leave a comment:


  • r1348
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    I don't have personal experience with Samsung 980 Pro. According to Windows reviews, 980 Pro is one of the fastest drives available (except for the 250GB model).
    I have 2x Samsung 980 Pro 512GB in my system and I can confirm it has very good performance in sequential read/write. Random I/O is a bit more of a mixed bag.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by pipe13 View Post
    Okay, but which Samsung 980 here did Michael test, the 980 or the 980 PRO? I recently purchased a 2TB Samsung 980 PRO for a new build, thinking it was one of the faster, more reliable SSD's available. I haven't unboxed it yet, so could return/exchange if I so desired. Should I so desire? Thanks.
    I don't have personal experience with Samsung 980 Pro. According to Windows reviews, 980 Pro is one of the fastest drives available (except for the 250GB model).

    Leave a comment:


  • pipe13
    replied
    ^^^ Admittedly torsionbar28, you certainly make is sound that way.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X