If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Samsung QVC
Formatted it for a single logical partition, and transferred a couple of files. Not initially impressive, and considerably slower than expected for comparable SATA, though smaller, 256G SSD drives that do well enough for a third faster. Including another but better Samsung EVO non-Pro series, both similarly sized, as the QVC, at 1T. Shouldn't be much longer and I'll have ready additionally material to supplement a temporary HP 256G, almost filled, where the QVC is intended. Three older mechanical 1T drives kept in reserve and largely unused, failed miserably for extended usage, as they're unstable if at best marginally even suited for continued "shelf storage" units able to power themselves up. I'll know then, over a 300G transfer session, what the QVC thruput is capable to sustain. Not at any critical juncture, as it'll serve largely for a read application, by far and below from a 500 minimal cycled redundancy rewrite capacity it's rated. However, the QVC price was the same as the EVO purchased on a sale. And whereas the EVO may range now from 25-50% at an additional cost premium, that 25%, possibly lower, becomes increasingly a token of speed benefits rated for 5 or 6 times higher for write redundancy. Of course for simply everyone things do always seem to fly ecstatically along, if faster than believable, at least on review benchmarks they're thrilled to post. DRAM caching, possibly not and withstanding, I'll settle for hypothetical long-term storage security, over the three unreliable mechanical HDDs. I don't see the reason to call Samsung and question their quality control for questionable QVC speeds, if and sustainability quite skewed apart from the EVO model, when I bought the QVC on principle for quality assurances. Doubtful or not, I expect to know upon moving 300G data off the HP SSD unit, whether might that occur over closer to 15 or longer by 30 minutes. (With a fan: unfortunately the HP's partiality is to overhead at 130F, at which juncture the apparently design is to drop read transfer thruputs by half;- haven't run it hot on writes yet. The thought of turning the HP into alternative design usages, from new and cheap USB2/3 SDD adaptors, is certainly among reasonable allowance to adopt it for a stepchild.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Samsung QVO
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 03:23:36 -0400, Flasherly
wrote: No need to go farther -- and the model is QVO (not a misstated "QVC"). Looking a little closer, apart from the greater most, a substantiality with little apparently to negatively say, are those whom regardless prefer to deal in the reality of a notable deficiencies given Samsung's QVO cache implementation design -- in that they concur in the instantaneousness of the moment I powered this drive up, only to notice significant speed discrepancies. An aspect which would get longer, as there are both provisional Samsung software supplements, as well an actual explanation to limits of any greater expectancy for perceived performance. None of which affect to mollify what I suspected -- that the Samsung QVC is a bad, bad doggie -- past, I should dare say, ostensibly neither to corrupt data or provide sustained long-term usability upon a premise of care exercised within reason not to exceed rated limits and specifications. Want more than to read, then why not just shake it on over, shell up, and instead buy the EVO. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Samsung QVO
Flasherly wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 03:23:36 -0400, Flasherly wrote: No need to go farther -- and the model is QVO (not a misstated "QVC"). Looking a little closer, apart from the greater most, a substantiality with little apparently to negatively say, are those whom regardless prefer to deal in the reality of a notable deficiencies given Samsung's QVO cache implementation design -- in that they concur in the instantaneousness of the moment I powered this drive up, only to notice significant speed discrepancies. An aspect which would get longer, as there are both provisional Samsung software supplements, as well an actual explanation to limits of any greater expectancy for perceived performance. None of which affect to mollify what I suspected -- that the Samsung QVC is a bad, bad doggie -- past, I should dare say, ostensibly neither to corrupt data or provide sustained long-term usability upon a premise of care exercised within reason not to exceed rated limits and specifications. Want more than to read, then why not just shake it on over, shell up, and instead buy the EVO. Initialize the entire drive, then do a read benchmark again. In Linux, this would be: sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=65636 Many other cloning methods, don't cause every block to be written, while "dd" can be made to write every block. That would write all the sectors up to the end. And helps reduce the number of errors in each block that need correction. And why would you buy a QLC drive in the first place ? SLC MLC === includes "MLC-like" ones TLC ? QLC ??? I had a TLC drive already, with "un-smooth" performance, and I took it back to the store. The SLC or MLC don't use fake "Flash Cache" during writes and don't have two write phases. Those drives just do plain writes, at a constant rate. The higher density flash chips, cannot sustain performance, so they have to "cheat". Yes, you didn't pay a lot for the QLC drive, but you also should not be benchmarking the drive, knowing how poorly the results will turn out. If you want to bench it, you'll need to write it from end to end, every sector, first. Then the performance will match (some) of what it says on the tin. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Samsung QVO
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 04:45:33 -0400, Paul
wrote: Initialize the entire drive, then do a read benchmark again. In Linux, this would be: sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=65636 Many other cloning methods, don't cause every block to be written, while "dd" can be made to write every block. That would write all the sectors up to the end. And helps reduce the number of errors in each block that need correction. That's true -- earlier in the week, I only cut the box label, removed the drive to hang it from one of a couple a dangling SATA connects from the empty side of the case. Powered back up into Windows 7 to run, offhand, either Easus Partition Master Technician Edition or AOMEI Partition Assistant Professional Edition (or, unlikely, MiniTool PartitionWizard. They're on a boot-arbitrator's partitions flagged for hidden at the moment.) The QVO is a part of an array of audio drive storage, so there's no cloning. I use Total Commander Ultima Prime, which is very decent about handling odd or illegal filenames, skipping especially when moving files because they're then permanently lost. For the most it's integrity for copying is bullet-proof. And why would you buy a QLC drive in the first place ? SLC MLC === includes "MLC-like" ones TLC ? QLC ??? I had a TLC drive already, with "un-smooth" performance, and I took it back to the store. The SLC or MLC don't use fake "Flash Cache" during writes and don't have two write phases. Those drives just do plain writes, at a constant rate. The higher density flash chips, cannot sustain performance, so they have to "cheat". Yes, you didn't pay a lot for the QLC drive, but you also should not be benchmarking the drive, knowing how poorly the results will turn out. If you want to bench it, you'll need to write it from end to end, every sector, first. Then the performance will match (some) of what it says on the tin. Paul Not an option as this about moving into alternative, potential safer and longer-lasting storage considerations. i.e. to do it "right" that means indulging 10G worth of MLC/TLC - high-end, very, even on the prosummer market, upwards of two or three thousand dollars in multiples of 2T, or 4T, enterprise-grade Samsung EVO Profession units. I only threw a few megabytes of files at the QVO, but got to thinking about what I'd written, and went into a huge amount of reviews for just those something negative to say. I needn't bench the drive, no then but, true, now knowing just so that the results are less than spectacular. Of course I'd have bought another EVO model over this QLC, but first reading first wasn't on the agenda. I bought the drive after working a couple of weeks with three or four backup mechanical HDDs, which are significantly, as a class bought roughly together some time ago, exhibiting eminent failure characteristics. Two have outright failed under continued operation, apparently due to heat, as they will come back up once cooled -- biasing me severely against them, including a 2T HDD which regardless is operationally running on continuous basis, and a 1T I haven't yet attempted to duplicate for heat failure, the other two units exhibited. They, all four, would be Samsung mechanical HDDs approaching 10 years storage with little if any usage apart from data initially written to them. As in shake some tail in the immediate sense of now. I can't handle a risk of data loss, so the Samsung QVO was the least costly alternative to attempt to get beyond, not only the four mechanical Samsungs, but a somewhat recent spate of Western Digitals, possibly all "eco-Greens", several of which I've also replaced for what's becoming questionably the most sensible continued course to follow. The Samsung 1T QVO SSD simply and at present, fits. If, however, either the Samsung 2T mechanical HDD mentioned as continuously working, another Western Digital 2T mechanical HDD, as a continued series of failure cases seem to be: continued data read errors on a mechanical drive, subsequently causing pauses and glitches on other drive(s) and related system controller recovery, then I have no choice but to pull two additional 2T mechanical drives, both being newer purchased mechanical drives, respectively containing audio-visual source backup material. And I've been through this a few times. Enough to where I'm questioning the possibility of alternative use of large SSD drives, instead of more 2T drives burning out after a couple years if much longer. As I mentioned awhile ago my first SSD is a Sumsung TLC at 64G. Probably MLC or good memory anyway, but it's now 10 years old and still a perfect for a little boot drive. No need to throw more money than necessary on mechanical drives that aren't holding up near that. Perhaps I'll largely cull them out for SSD replacements, where they'll be placed aside for a backup marginality which the Samsung mechanicals are exhibiting. The HP SSD temporarily in there, by the way, hasn't completely stopped occasional and less frequent glitches. Either or both the 2T WD or 2T Samsung causing them may be slated for outgoing as a continued worsening which eventually reveals itself for the next mechanical drive to be tossed. Mechanicals are getting older quicker, and SSDs aren't dropping in price fast enough. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Samsung QVO
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 09:33:12 -0400, Flasherly
wrote: Mechanicals are getting older quicker, and SSDs aren't dropping in price fast enough. Bottom and short(er) line is with pricing for the two 2T mechanical drives, 2T SDD replacements costs are not feasible. One audio the other video, the audio HDDs are the mechanicals being more often replaced (smaller files and more files). The 1T QVO was simply an extension to exceeding a full 2T mechanical HDD audio storage, which now are split across and a shared 3T load by the QVO SSD unit. If somebody wants to play then at some point that have pay. Two and luckily more years on a mechanical HDD -- that's still what has to be paid. The stash of Samsung mechanicals I bought on various, at the time, good sales -- a 1.5T 7200, two 1T 5400 models, and a 2T 5400 for the time being that even been working for a few months in a 24/7 box -- has turned unacceptably south. As I said the 1.5T and one of the 1T models outright failed, so they're not longer to be considered workable, nor reliable (even for continued intermittent temperature-related usage, where they will nevertheless spin up, once cold to be recognized, at least for awhile or more until they heat back up to normal temperatures, before not long only to fail for perhaps permanently). In the I.T. server world that's analogous to something along a $20 sale, usually $40, for 2T server-class drives pulled from commercial environs and resold on terminal hour-based usage patterns. Me -- I'd as soon add another $10 and try swing a WD blue or green, possibly red, or even to veer into considering Seagates. $200 for another 2T QVO SSD, that's still too rich at this point for my blood. I've only just put my foot in the water, though, with the 1T QVO, as I don't expect to fill it to capacity for some time. Perhaps when hogs fly from ponds and a decent 2T SSD costs $100. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Samsung CLP-510 | master lee | Printers | 0 | May 27th 11 03:53 PM |
samsung 173 P+ | Micha³ Rybiński | General Hardware | 0 | October 4th 06 10:40 AM |
17" Samsung LCD | Burt McGillicutty | General | 0 | October 27th 04 04:23 PM |
Samsung CLP-500 | Timothy Lee | Printers | 0 | August 10th 04 03:39 PM |
Where to buy Samsung SN-308?? | Brian Reynolds | Dell Computers | 1 | December 23rd 03 09:45 PM |