4 ms·

There's a lack of transparency on what you're actually getting with storage these days. Akin to the actual flash architecture, I've been trying to find informat

by wvh 2y ago

There's a lack of transparency on what you're actually getting with storage these days. Akin to the actual flash architecture, I've been trying to find information on the level of OPAL/Sed support in SSDs and many manufacturers don't even mention that information anymore, nor do help desk people have any useful information. The whole flash industry has a shady feel to it when it comes to pricing, capabilities and reliability, not to mention the sheer amount of counterfeit productions flooding the market. That's a bit bizarre, data security is pretty paramount, this is not an industry that should be clouded in a shroud of secrecy and shadiness.

bayindirh 2y ago
From what I understand, Flash manufacturing and management during operation are black arts at this point and nobody wants to give the smallest clue for anything related to Flash management and specifications. For example, Crucial (Micron) doesn't give any TBW for their external SSDs, giving indications that they're using mixed-binning as long as the speed specs are satisfied. Same for lower level Kingston (NV series) SSDs. At least they openly say that the drives can wildly differ from batch to batch (and oh boy, they do). As the industry is pinched by customers for more capacity, QLC becomes the norm, TBW numbers are continuously hidden, and you're only left with the internal endurance counters, if you can access them. Controllers are in the same boat. Wear leveling, write amplification, flash monitoring are all left to whims of the controller designers, resulting in strange situations. Off-shift/dark production is another problem, but it's not new by any means. BunnyStudios has a great write up which has been linked a couple of times.
- userbinator 2y ago
  The datasheets for the early flash memories (SLC) were easily available and loudly proclaimed 100K or even 1M cycles of endurance and 10-20 years of retention. Now they're very difficult to obtain and are rated for only a few hundred cycles and a few months of retention. No wonder they're secretive about it.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    True. I still remember Corsair’s words about original Flash Voyager GT 16GB: “We had to change our flash controller, but the performance is the same. Same 100K write SLC flash, same speed, same endurance, same Flash Voyager” (paraphrase mine). I still have that drive and it has a small file write performance which can rival a low level SSD despite being a USB 2.0 drive. Seriously, no kidding.

by wvh 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago

From what I understand, Flash manufacturing and management during operation are black arts at this point and nobody wants to give the smallest clue for anything related to Flash management and specifications. For example, Crucial (Micron) doesn't give any TBW for their external SSDs, giving indications that they're using mixed-binning as long as the speed specs are satisfied. Same for lower level Kingston (NV series) SSDs. At least they openly say that the drives can wildly differ from batch to batch (and oh boy, they do). As the industry is pinched by customers for more capacity, QLC becomes the norm, TBW numbers are continuously hidden, and you're only left with the internal endurance counters, if you can access them. Controllers are in the same boat. Wear leveling, write amplification, flash monitoring are all left to whims of the controller designers, resulting in strange situations. Off-shift/dark production is another problem, but it's not new by any means. BunnyStudios has a great write up which has been linked a couple of times.

userbinator 2y ago
The datasheets for the early flash memories (SLC) were easily available and loudly proclaimed 100K or even 1M cycles of endurance and 10-20 years of retention. Now they're very difficult to obtain and are rated for only a few hundred cycles and a few months of retention. No wonder they're secretive about it.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  True. I still remember Corsair’s words about original Flash Voyager GT 16GB: “We had to change our flash controller, but the performance is the same. Same 100K write SLC flash, same speed, same endurance, same Flash Voyager” (paraphrase mine). I still have that drive and it has a small file write performance which can rival a low level SSD despite being a USB 2.0 drive. Seriously, no kidding.