

Intel's New 6Gps 510 series SATA SSD, Tested and It's Fast - MojoKid
http://hothardware.com/articles/Intel-SSD-510-Series-SATA-6Gbps-Solid-State-Drive-Review/

======
PKeeble
Developers do a lot of 4KB operations. Source files tend to be small as do
database updates.

The current market leader in this is the OCZ Vertex 3, a considerably faster
drive than the Intel 510. Indeed intel's X25-M is better at 4KB operations
than the new drive.

The 510 is a disappointment, get an OCZ Vertex instead, its cheaper and faster
for the sorts of operations that matter. See anandtech for more details:

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review>

~~~
justinsb
Avoid OCZ. I had a Vertex 2 SSD fail after about two weeks. What's really a
big gotcha is that it fails 100% immediately; there are no warning signs as
there often are with a hard disk.

I looked into it: I believe that there's actually an assertion that got hit in
the OCZ firmware, and then it goes into a lock-down mode. However, there's no
way for an end-user to exit this mode and recover any data (it simply won't
respond to SATA commands), nor are OCZ willing to unlock it for you.

~~~
moe
_I had a Vertex 2 SSD fail after about two weeks._

Anecdote != data. We have 8 of them in database-server for over 6 months
without problems. Yes, we abuse them for a server workload.

~~~
justinsb
Sure, just sharing my personal experience. The pathological failure behaviour
due to a software bug is not something I'd previously considered when choosing
a drive.

I hope you've got good backups.

~~~
moe
_The pathological failure behaviour_

This is not specific to SSDs. Drives fail. Usually very early (infant death)
or very late, google for 'bathtub curve'.

Spreading FUD about a specific vendor isn't fair unless you can back it up
with data. The failure rate that is commonly cited for sandforce drives is
around 2% - regardless of vendor. If you have different data then I'm curious
to read about it.

~~~
justinsb
I think there's a bigger problem here - this isn't just normal bathub-curve
component failure. What seems to be happening is that the firmware panics due
to an assertion being hit, and what could be a hiccup that requires a reboot
becomes a total data loss event.

"gamble" suggested above that this is related to power-saving modes. That fits
with our different experiences (laptop vs server). Think about how you would
feel if you rebooted your server, it went through a different power mode as
part of shutdown, and when it came back all eight of your presumably nicely
RAIDed drives were dead. Of course a lightning strike could do the same thing,
but you have a surge protector that guards against that. How are you
protecting against your SSD's firmware? That's my real concern.

As to whether it's SandForce or OCZ, I'm just going to go Intel next time.
You're free to go with OCZ or a non-battery-backed ramdisk - it's all the same
to me :-)

~~~
moe
_this isn't just normal bathub-curve component failure_

What part of "unless you can back it up with data" didn't you understand?

 _How are you protecting against your SSD's firmware?_

Just like against any other hardware fault: By having backups and redundancy.
Bugs happen. You're making it sound as if this was somehow specific to OCZ -
which remains bullshit until you provide data beyond anecdotical evidence.

And FWIW I'm neither affiliated with OCZ, nor emotionally tied to the brand.
We also run X-25s in production, my Mac Mini has an X-25 and my Macbook has an
OCZ.

~~~
justinsb
Straight from the horse's mouth, here's OCZ's patch log for v129, which
describes a fix for a software-induced data-loss issue: "Fixed rare corner
case that could cause the drive to reset and clear user data"
[http://www.ocztechnology.com/files/ssd_tools/OCZ_SSD_v129_Fi...](http://www.ocztechnology.com/files/ssd_tools/OCZ_SSD_v129_Firmware_Release_Notes.pdf)

That was less than a month ago. Maybe this was the last bug; I'd guess not.
I'm sure all the SSD vendors have firmware bugs, but my personal choice is not
to go with OCZ in future. As you point out, it seems likely that other
Sandforce vendors will share similar issues, so my understanding is that
basically leaves Intel (?)

In future, before aggressively going on the attack, I think you should
consider the possibility that you may not be as correct as you believe
everyone else to be wrong. Let's keep things civilized around here.

~~~
moe
_In future, before aggressively going on the attack, I think you should
consider the possibility that you may not be as correct as you believe
everyone else to be wrong. Let's keep things civilized around here._

I don't see where I went "aggressive". On the contrary I consider it agressive
to spread FUD about a vendor based solely on anecdotical evidence.

 _I'm sure all the SSD vendors have firmware bugs, but my personal choice is
not to go with OCZ in future._

Exactly. All vendors hit these bugs from time to time. That's why you should
refrain from writing posts "Avoid $FOO" when all you have to contribute is a
single datapoint.

"I had bad luck with OCZ" would have been more appropriate.

------
ghurlman
"Intel’s SSD 510 costs more and it can serve up better sequential numbers than
Vertex 3. However, it’s actually slower than its predecessor in situations
where you’re working with lots of small files. The applications where this 250
GB drive makes sense are fairly clear cut. But again, it looks like you’d get
a better all-around experience from OCZ’s Vertex 3 when it becomes available."
[1]

"My biggest complaints about the 510 actually aren't about Intel's use of a
3rd party controller, instead they are about the drive's lackluster random
read performance. In a horrible bout of irony Intel fixed its sequential
performance and moved backwards in the random department. Random read
performance, as it turns out, has a pretty major impact in the real world.

Random write performance is also pretty low by today's standards, however the
impact on most of our real world performance tests is minimal. It looks like
we may have hit the upper limit of what we need from 4KB random write
performance (at least given current workloads)." [2]

[1] [http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-510-solid-
state-6gbp...](http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-510-solid-
state-6gbps,2881.html) [2] <http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-
ssd-510-review>

From what I can tell, it's worth waiting for the OCZ Vertex 3, which will be
faster, and quite possibly cheaper too.

~~~
gamble
The reliability problems with the Vertex 2 make me wary of anything from OCZ.
There are many, many reports of OCZ drives failing within a few days of use,
some within minutes of booting up. Plus there are well-documented problems
with power-saving modes.

Frankly, SSD failure rates from _most_ manufacturers are so high it should be
a scandal. Intel is the only company I'm remotely comfortable buying an SSD
from right now.

~~~
dablue
That explains why my server OCZ Vertex SSD died yesterday after 1 year of
use... I'm eyeing a Corsair now but still kind of weary of SSDs now.

------
nepenthe2
This 510 series is not considered a successor to the X-25. If you're wanting a
true improvement, hold out for the upcoming 320 series around April.

~~~
listic
I thouht 510 is Intel's temporary solution for high-end, needed because the
delays with newer X-25 (G3); and the true X-25 successor will be the new X-25
whenever that comes out. Now where will the new X-25 fit in this picture?

------
svrocks
Hopefully this will drive X-25 prices into the $1/GB range for those of us
that think reliable 350/100 MB/s read/write is already blazing fast

------
calebhicks
I just got the X25 less than a week ago. Now that I've seen the testing on
this 510 and the Vertex 3, I'm debating returning the X25 and going for one of
these models.

I can preorder the 510 from Amazon for 295, still looking for someone selling
the Vertex 3.

------
zokier
It's Fast? It seems barely keep up with previous generations Vertex 2 in real-
world tests (PCMark), and new Vertex 3 and other SandForces are even faster,
and cheaper.

I really wonder why Intel released a drive that's both more expensive and
slower than competition. Of course they have strong brand, as X-25 were really
successful.

------
ekidd
Temperature, non-operating: -550C.

There are some theoretical physicists who would dearly love to see that test
lab. :-)

------
wmf
I would wait for a comparison between the Intel 320 and Micron C400 (which are
both imminent) before making any decisions.

