Hi do you notice that the samsung ssd slow down with time? for example the 840 , 840 evo or even the new 850 evo just google http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887255/samsung-promises-yet-another-fix-for-slowed-840-evo-ssds.html and there are many sites reporting such degrate of performance thanks
Not just Samsung. Not too long ago (April 2015) I'd done speed testing with Crystal Mark on all my SSDs and saw that the Corsair Force 3 120GB SATA3 drive was performing slower than my two Crucial 60GB SATA2 SSDs. It effectively died completely on July 1st (yesterday) i.e. it isn't seen by Windows and doesn't get a letter. However, the Corsair toolbox can 'see' it and reports Total Host Reads = 9.9TB, Total Host Writes = 2.6TB which is pretty high for a 120GB drive (I think). My other two Corsair SATA2 drives are a year older and still seem to have the rated speeds. So depending on your testing you might want to be prepared to replace that drive before you lose your data.
mirmir pointed out an article a while ago that I keep coming back to. Unfortunately there hasn't been an update in the last couple of days. Maybe Samsung needs more time analyzing the problem. Here we're talking about data corruption and broken SSDs! Here's the aforementioned article: https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-state-drives-are-not-that-solid/
Well, since I had the Corsair toolbox open and I saw an option to do a Secure Wipe, I did that. I was then able to open Computer Management in Windows and label and format the drive and I can 'see' it again. I ran the speed test, it is still slow but is working. The contents had been Reflect Full images taken on the first day of the month, so I ran the backup and it took about the same time as before. I have identical backups on my Passport HDD so I'll copy them to the Corsair and see if that breaks anything. It seems that an SSD can be recovered, just without the data. Time will tell....
seems that the intel are the best in this article ,but there are lots of tests and resource with discordant results but all the article is worrying
Samsung did a lot of trick in the controller in order to artificially boost the performance of their SSDs in benchmarking. The end results are their SSDs are always under a lot more stress when powered on. The degradation in performance over time is faster than others. i don't own a single Samsung SSD.
hi yes i agree what brand do you use? by the way Total Host Reads = 9.9TB, Total Host Writes = 2.6TB is not too much for a drive
I'm not sure on these tests or how to compare really. Is my samsung doing ok? I ran hd tach. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6myxtt4jcrz7bgf/hdtach.PNG?dl=0
I have PNY XLR8 120GB, Intel 530 240GB, Toshiba Q series 128GB, and a Toshiba ARC100 Series 120GB. They all work fine. The fastest appears to be the Intel and PNY. The write amount on your SSD is not much at all. Modern SSDs are rated to be at least more than 700TB write for a 120/128GB, and a lot more for larger capacity SSDs.
i did not know about pny , do you know that googling ssd review ,the samsung ssds are rated very high , and the best ssds with the corsair http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-most-reliable-massive-study-sheds-some-light
I have the 840 Evo, never really looked into this so I ran a benchmark, these are the results. I think mine are under performing even with the latest drivers. http://i.imgur.com/obu51pG.png
Samsung Magician Software version 4.6 fix the Samsung SSD 840 EVO read performance bug. = https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/samsung-magician-4-5-released.371094/#post-2488409
Thanks Anon, however Im already using the latest firmware, Magician 4.6 and firmware EXT0DB86Q respectively. Maybe just a case of genuine performance loss. It is more than a 2 year old drive. Magician notes health as good. Im not using any rapid modes or over provisioning. I have only used 50 Gb of a 256Gb drive.
From time to time, you have to perform the Performance Optimization. ------------- Why not? ------------------------- fyi: I have the 840 EVO 120GB, OS:Windows 8.1 x64, 16GB RAM and 850 EVO 120GB, OS:Windows 8.1 x64, 4GB RAM. No problems with both of them.
I have performed the optimisation just prior to taking the screen shot. But I'll try the over provisioning and post another screen shot. See if it makes a difference. I know rapid mode significantly increases performance at loss of 1Gb memory. I suppose I have that to spare. Would would mind posting a screen shot of your performance for comparison? Thanks again @anon Ill post back soon.
SSD 840 EVO with Avira Antivirus ON SSD 850 EVO with Avira Antivirus ON SSD 850 EVO with Avira Antivirus OFF & MBAE OFF
@anon thanks for those screen shots. Here are mine with comparisons, Default settings, with over provisioning and with rapid respectively followed by a comparison of all three. http://imgur.com/a/3yEt0 As you can see there is no difference between default settings and enabling over provisioning. I spoke about this last year for reasons why I did not enable it. But I might as well use Rapid as im not short on RAM. Some quotes from the Samsung SSD user guide; http://www.samsung.com/global/busin.../SSD/global/html/whitepaper/whitepaper05.html "Samsung has chosen to implement a minimum amount of OP in its mainstream drives" "The controller will use any available free space for this, but free space becomes a premium commodity as we fill our drives with data" "Thus, a casual user with a large-capacity SSD may not need to set aside any extra space for OP. The SSD will naturally use any available free space to perform its maintenance algorithms. If you have a small SSD, on the other hand, it is recommended to set aside some OP" " 840 Series, equipped with mandatory OP, will still far outlast the useful life of the hardware it powers" Please see post number 14 for the full conversation https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...ioning-how-much-gb-do-you-dedicate-it.366430/ Thanks again regards.
Yes I do know this. Samsung SSDs look very good on paper, but degrade fast. Its evo product line is made of TLC NAND, which is a inferior NAND as compared to MLC. That's the fundamental reason behind its performance degradation. The only advantage of TLC NAND is low cost (good for manufacturer) and high capacity. It caused performance, or even functional problems for 840EVO and iPhone: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/07/apple-stopping-tlc-nand-flash-iphone-6-6-plus/ http://www.iphonehacks.com/2014/11/...istently-outperforms-ones-tlc-based-nand.html See for yourself why you should avoid TLC like a plague. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell
hi sorry but "fix the bug" , are you talking about the software or the ssd? about that's funny in the new version , because the program does only optimaze the mft nothing more the older version , perfroms a better optimization , creating files and deleting
1) https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/samsung-magician-4-5-released.371094/#post-2488409 2) No, it's not funny at all, imo.
Yes, but the improvement with RAPID mode is obvious. Please have a look, although it's written at Feb 26, 2014: