Trying Out One Of The Cheapest, Sub-$40 SSDs On Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Trying Out One Of The Cheapest, Sub-$40 SSDs On Linux

If you are in the market for a new solid-state drive but aren't too concerned about speed or storage capacity but just need something very affordable to get the job done, the ADATA SP600 is available in a 64GB model for less than $40 USD.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21818

[jagoly]

Considering that it would been utterly blazing just a few years ago, that looks like a real bargain. I wonder how much these will be in Australia.

[M@GOid]

Speaking in SSDs, do you guys know if the kernel patch, to correct the TRIM support of the latest firmware in the Samsung 840 Evo, got back-ported in old kernels, like 3.13 and 3.16 in Ubuntu?

[schmidtbag]

I have a similar model, except a little more high-end. I got mine about 2 years ago and it was roughly $70 including shipping. Performance was a little disappointing but still good enough. The motherboard I put it in uses the first generation SATAIII controller AMD supplied, where you can't take full advantage of the performance of SSDs (however, the controller scales very well with RAID).

[laceration]

I bought one 2 1/2 years ago, they were $60 then. It has been flawless and it boots in 20 seconds for Ubuntu Gnome. I've got my system and home folders on it and just simply make symbolic links to video and other large data on a couple of disc drives.

[torsionbar28]

My concern with the bargain basement SSD's is not so much the performance, but rather durability. Durability is the main difference between a consumer and an enterprise SSD, and one area where SSD's still lag waaay behind mechanical hard drives.

For example, the Western Digital RE series of mechanical hard drives are rated for 550 TB per year of writes, and they come with a 5 year warranty. So 550 TB x 5 years = 2750 TB. So the WD RE drives are guaranteed for a minimum of 2750 TB of total lifetime writes.

A Prosumer SSD like the Samsung 850 PRO is rated for only 300 TB of total lifetime writes. It comes with a 10 year warranty, but that works out to only 30 TB per year of writes.

So while the Samsung 850 PRO beats the pants off a WD RE hard drive in terms of IOPS and read/write throughput, the WD RE drive has more than 900% more lifetime write durability. Annualized over the warranty period, the WD RE looks even stronger, with 1800% annualized write durability as compared to the Samsung 850 PRO.

And that's on a better quality "prosumer" level of SSD. For the bargain basement jobs like this $39 one that don't even provide write durability specifications, I'm guessing the difference is even more pronounced.

So whether or not this $39 SSD is a good purchase, will depend entirely on *your* intended usage pattern.

[uid313]

Does the cheapest SATA SSD perform better than SD and eMMC?

[johnc]

My concern with the bargain basement SSD's is not so much the performance, but rather durability. Durability is the main difference between a consumer and an enterprise SSD, and one area where SSD's still lag waaay behind mechanical hard drives.

For example, the Western Digital RE series of mechanical hard drives are rated for 550 TB per year of writes, and they come with a 5 year warranty. So 550 TB x 5 years = 2750 TB. So the WD RE drives are guaranteed for a minimum of 2750 TB of total lifetime writes.

A Prosumer SSD like the Samsung 850 PRO is rated for only 300 TB of total lifetime writes. It comes with a 10 year warranty, but that works out to only 30 TB per year of writes.

So while the Samsung 850 PRO beats the pants off a WD RE hard drive in terms of IOPS and read/write throughput, the WD RE drive has more than 900% more lifetime write durability. Annualized over the warranty period, the WD RE looks even stronger, with 1800% annualized write durability as compared to the Samsung 850 PRO.

And that's on a better quality "prosumer" level of SSD. For the bargain basement jobs like this $39 one that don't even provide write durability specifications, I'm guessing the difference is even more pronounced.

So whether or not this $39 SSD is a good purchase, will depend entirely on *your* intended usage pattern.

That WD drive doesn't guarantee anything. I've got one sitting here with 1,453 bad sectors and the thing isn't even mounted anymore. It lasted about three years until it decided to throw up.

Consumer SSDs aren't going to run into endurance problems except in the rarest of use cases. It's all the firmware bugs you have to worry about with SSDs.

[schmidtbag]

My concern with the bargain basement SSD's is not so much the performance, but rather durability. Durability is the main difference between a consumer and an enterprise SSD, and one area where SSD's still lag waaay behind mechanical hard drives.

For example, the Western Digital RE series of mechanical hard drives are rated for 550 TB per year of writes, and they come with a 5 year warranty. So 550 TB x 5 years = 2750 TB. So the WD RE drives are guaranteed for a minimum of 2750 TB of total lifetime writes.

A Prosumer SSD like the Samsung 850 PRO is rated for only 300 TB of total lifetime writes. It comes with a 10 year warranty, but that works out to only 30 TB per year of writes.

So while the Samsung 850 PRO beats the pants off a WD RE hard drive in terms of IOPS and read/write throughput, the WD RE drive has more than 900% more lifetime write durability. Annualized over the warranty period, the WD RE looks even stronger, with 1800% annualized write durability as compared to the Samsung 850 PRO.

And that's on a better quality "prosumer" level of SSD. For the bargain basement jobs like this $39 one that don't even provide write durability specifications, I'm guessing the difference is even more pronounced.

So whether or not this $39 SSD is a good purchase, will depend entirely on *your* intended usage pattern.

Funny you should mention that, considering enterprise SSDs are notorious for losing data if left unused for too long (usually a span of several weeks to several months). Meanwhile, consumer SSDs are rarely known to lose data if left untouched for YEARS. Just because something is more expensive and/or enterprise-focused, that doesn't make it better. Case in point: Matrox GPUs. Sometimes what you're paying for is the warranty, not the reliability. In an environment where failure is inevitable, companies would rather buy something with predictable failure and immediate servicing. That being said, even if an enterprise SSD is to fail, it's failures can be prevented with proper housekeeping. The only way you can prevent a HDD failure is redundancy.

Also, comparing to stuff like lifetime writes isn't a good metric of durability, for PC users. 30TB of writes per year is more than enough. Most people probably wouldn't exceed 0.5TB.


I'm not saying you're wrong, because you bring up valid points. I'm just pointing out that cheap SSDs aren't as bad as you might think.

[torsionbar28]

That WD drive doesn't guarantee anything.

Sure it does. A five year manufacturer's warranty means if the drive fails, they will replace it free, for five years. Warranty = guarantee. Are you not familiar with how warranties work? A bargain basement SSD that has a 90 days warranty means you are SOL when it fails a year later.

I've got one sitting here with 1,453 bad sectors and the thing isn't even mounted anymore. It lasted about three years until it decided to throw up.

Great, so open an RMA, get your free replacement under the manufacturers guarantee, and keep on computing. What is it you think you're gaining by "sitting on" this failed drive?

Consumer SSDs aren't going to run into endurance problems except in the rarest of use cases. It's all the firmware bugs you have to worry about with SSDs.

Sorry, you do not understand how drive write endurance works.