Re: ext4 FS Crash
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 07:32:03AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
While I am saying that my results with earlier Samsung have been less
than glorious. triple layer nand's turning into half capacity for
instance.
There's simply no real value in looking at historic bad models as a
guide to future performance (or the opposite). I can remember entire
lines of hard drives from reputable manufacturers which were plauged by
premature failures to the point that I replaced some multiple times
under warranty before pulling them all (e.g., the IBM Deskstar 75GXP). I
can also remember SSDs which had problems with repeated file corruption
(OCZ Vertex, the only SSDs I ever saw reliably corrupt stored data).
Bottom line is that sometimes you'll get a dud, and it doesn't really
matter if you had a positive (or negative) experience with a
superficially similar product decades ago. The Samsung 980 pros with the
bad firmware were a ticking time bomb, but they haven't been sold with
that version for years, and they haven't had issues since the fix. Other
Samsung SSDs have been fine. The 860s have relatively low write
endurance, but that's why they're as cheap as they are. You can either
avoid using them in write-intensive settings and get a drive advertised
for that role, or you can dramtically underprovision to lower the write
cycle of individual cells and create space for caching. That's true for
most low-cost drives, which is why they're low-cost, and why
high-write-cycle drives are fantastically expensive. The average
consumer will never write enough data to matter, but it is possible in
pathological cases if something on the system goes nuts and starts
sync-writing a really large number of small blocks.
Reply to: