A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Samsung QVC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 20, 08:23 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default 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  
Old August 2nd 20, 09:13 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default 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  
Old August 2nd 20, 09:45 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default 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  
Old August 2nd 20, 02:33 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default 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  
Old August 2nd 20, 09:38 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.