-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
ammaross
Distinguished
- Jan 12, 2011
- 269
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]Todd Sauve[/nom]This is the performance mode and performs more like SLC NAND rather then a normal MLC drive would, resulting in amazingly high write speeds on the 128gig drive (350meg per second or more).
I don't know about you guys, but to me this looked mighty ingenious on OCZ's part.[/citation]
Todd, thanks for providing such a good detailed explanation of what I was trying to stay high-level on. I think quite a few people appreciate it. But yes, it looks more like OCZ treating the drive as SLC then consolidating to MLC at 50%. Toms should fill a drive until the tipping point, pause for a while, then resume and see what the drive's "storage" mode runs at. The 1/4th speed is likely due to the consolidation process that's running (at a fairly high priority level it seems).
I don't know about you guys, but to me this looked mighty ingenious on OCZ's part.[/citation]
Todd, thanks for providing such a good detailed explanation of what I was trying to stay high-level on. I think quite a few people appreciate it. But yes, it looks more like OCZ treating the drive as SLC then consolidating to MLC at 50%. Toms should fill a drive until the tipping point, pause for a while, then resume and see what the drive's "storage" mode runs at. The 1/4th speed is likely due to the consolidation process that's running (at a fairly high priority level it seems).
- Jul 4, 2008
- 1,878
- 9
- 19,795
[citation][nom]Todd Sauve[/nom]According to OCZ this is the way the firmware for the Vertex4 128GB is designed to work and part of the reason is because of the way MS made the NTFS file system. They say the SSD will only slow down for a short time and then go back up to near normal speeds.They also tell me that Tom's Hardware is actually aware of this.Read about it here: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/ [...] erformance[/citation]
Todd, we received no statement from OCZ regarding our findings. The author was in contact with one of the company's forum moderators, who shut him down.
[citation][nom]Todd Sauve[/nom]So why is Tom's even printing an article like this? To create a controversy where there really isn't one?[/citation]
To educate the folks who might not know. Telling folks that a new firmware boosts performance to xxx MB/s suggests that it affects performance positively all of the time. We're simply telling the rest of the story, which is left out by the vendor.
If you have the full story and still choose to buy a Vertex 4, confident that your workload will never invoke this situation, you're making a more informed decision. And that's why we're here.
Thanks for the feedback,
Chris
Todd, we received no statement from OCZ regarding our findings. The author was in contact with one of the company's forum moderators, who shut him down.
[citation][nom]Todd Sauve[/nom]So why is Tom's even printing an article like this? To create a controversy where there really isn't one?[/citation]
To educate the folks who might not know. Telling folks that a new firmware boosts performance to xxx MB/s suggests that it affects performance positively all of the time. We're simply telling the rest of the story, which is left out by the vendor.
If you have the full story and still choose to buy a Vertex 4, confident that your workload will never invoke this situation, you're making a more informed decision. And that's why we're here.
Thanks for the feedback,
Chris
Well I still ordered mine, and I may buy a few more in the future, I do not think it is that much of an issue to be honest. it purely depends on your needs and that is pretty much the case, and that will be it. No matter what consumer it appeals to and what you do on this drive, or with your drives. Just remember to get extra storage, either an usb drive, HDD set up for storage or god knows what.
Does anyone want to recommend possible ways not to fall into situations like this? what would you recommend what are you guys planning on doing. I am going to test a single drive out then consider buying another I see no need for another for a reason though... and that is preferably the no trim in raid mode, and the current drivers are in beta and only for raid 0 I hear? No plans for the other raid modes at all?
If I do raid 0 i'll most likely back up like ever day.
Does anyone want to recommend possible ways not to fall into situations like this? what would you recommend what are you guys planning on doing. I am going to test a single drive out then consider buying another I see no need for another for a reason though... and that is preferably the no trim in raid mode, and the current drivers are in beta and only for raid 0 I hear? No plans for the other raid modes at all?
If I do raid 0 i'll most likely back up like ever day.
richard hart
Honorable
- Jun 16, 2012
- 11
- 0
- 10,510
Todd, we did not claim that this was a world exclusive and our article clearly referred to the OCZ forum discussions about the issue.
OCZ have introduced a SSD that performs very differently to any other SSD. We did not make judgment if this was good or bad, we only tried to highlight when a slow down could occur and how to avoid it. We did this to provide information that enables our readers to make informed purchasing decisions.
We are not privy to any information about OCZ algorithms. In addition firmware 1.4 was issued as a release candidate that was rapidly replaced with firmware versions 1.4.1.2 and 1.4.1.3. We did not think it appropriate to comment on a release candidate firmware version.
With regards to how Nand is programmed the controller can decide which Nand block to program, but the pages within the Nand flash block cannot be programmed randomly, they have to be programmed in an incrementing order.
From our tests performance recovered immediately and without a reboot, as long as a new write operation did not extend beyond 50% of the drives available capacity when the write operation commenced. We stand by the results of our testing, which were repeated numerous times to ensure we got the same results each time.
As far as we could determine the drive is not file system aware. If that is the case the only difference (of interest) between a RAW drive and a formatted drive is that a formatted drive will receive TRIM commands, assuming the drive is being used with an OS system that sends the command and that the drive is not part of a raid array. The drive does appear to carry out real time garbage collection when a TRIM command is issued, which can induce very high write amplification. The drive did not appear to carry out real time garbage collection when TRIM was disabled, which would appear to explain why a RAW drive is impacted more than a formatted drive. A formatted drive can however be impacted, as we demonstrated in our testing.
Ndurance 2.0, which is a feature of the Vertex 4, claims to extend the life of Nand. The only way to extend the life of Nand is to reduce the amount of programs erase cycles. This can be achieved by reducing write amplification, throttling writes or via compression. Perhaps you could clarify which mechanism OCZ use?
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
OCZ have introduced a SSD that performs very differently to any other SSD. We did not make judgment if this was good or bad, we only tried to highlight when a slow down could occur and how to avoid it. We did this to provide information that enables our readers to make informed purchasing decisions.
We are not privy to any information about OCZ algorithms. In addition firmware 1.4 was issued as a release candidate that was rapidly replaced with firmware versions 1.4.1.2 and 1.4.1.3. We did not think it appropriate to comment on a release candidate firmware version.
With regards to how Nand is programmed the controller can decide which Nand block to program, but the pages within the Nand flash block cannot be programmed randomly, they have to be programmed in an incrementing order.
From our tests performance recovered immediately and without a reboot, as long as a new write operation did not extend beyond 50% of the drives available capacity when the write operation commenced. We stand by the results of our testing, which were repeated numerous times to ensure we got the same results each time.
As far as we could determine the drive is not file system aware. If that is the case the only difference (of interest) between a RAW drive and a formatted drive is that a formatted drive will receive TRIM commands, assuming the drive is being used with an OS system that sends the command and that the drive is not part of a raid array. The drive does appear to carry out real time garbage collection when a TRIM command is issued, which can induce very high write amplification. The drive did not appear to carry out real time garbage collection when TRIM was disabled, which would appear to explain why a RAW drive is impacted more than a formatted drive. A formatted drive can however be impacted, as we demonstrated in our testing.
Ndurance 2.0, which is a feature of the Vertex 4, claims to extend the life of Nand. The only way to extend the life of Nand is to reduce the amount of programs erase cycles. This can be achieved by reducing write amplification, throttling writes or via compression. Perhaps you could clarify which mechanism OCZ use?
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
*****************************************
Hi Chris and Richard,
Since you both replied I'll address my reply to both of you.
I had a problem with my 128 gig Vertex 4 when I used G-Parted to align it. My writes dropped very drastically and it appears that the problem was just like you experienced. G-Parted wrote data across the entire drive two times to do the alignment. So I took my problem to the OCZ forum. The guys there did a great job helping me figure out what happened and showed me how to get it up and running great once again. I then read your article on the problems you had in writing raw data to your 128 gig and took it to the folks at OCZ. You can read the whole thread here.
This is what Tony, an official staffer at OCZ told me. You can read it for yourself both here and there as well.
Its not a fault, read the thread Hallo linked you to...in normal use you will never notice what the drive does, only when looking for the issue can you reproduce it.
Toms are aware this is how the drive works now, as are most reviewers.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?102559-Vertex-4-128GB-Writes-Very-Slow-After-Alignment/page2
In the thread they linked me to the following thread, dated June 13, 2012--two weeks old, as I said in earlier posts.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?102254-Anormal-128GB-Vertex-4-Performance
Thus OCZ acknowledged the issue two weeks ago. I suspect that if you took your findings to them they would have referred you to that thread.
But you tell me in your reply that OCZ has actually snubbed you by shutting down communications with Tom's over the issue!
Clearly something is causing a malfunction at the junction between Tom's and OCZ. This may be an interesting issue for you two to resolve and let us on this thread know the solution to.
Is Tom's just angry with OCZ for being snubbed or did OCZ make you aware of how this SSD works, as they claim?
Please follow up on this. I am merely going on the info OCZ has published on their forum. They gave me immediate and cogent help when I contacted them with my problem. Why is Tom's saying they treat them differently?
Todd Sauve
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
PS
I just hate to see a company like OCZ get the short end of the stick over an issue like this, if what they are saying is true. It is hard enough for a company to do business in this economic environment without being blind-sided over a "problem" that may not be true at all.
On the other hand, what I wrote in this forum is what OCZ told me, and what others wrote on the threads I referenced for you.
If OCZ is not being forthright then Tom's would be right to report on this. But Tom's should also have told us in their article that they took the issue to OCZ and were shown the door. Why did you not inform us of this? It might have solved a problem before it got started!
Todd Sauve
I just hate to see a company like OCZ get the short end of the stick over an issue like this, if what they are saying is true. It is hard enough for a company to do business in this economic environment without being blind-sided over a "problem" that may not be true at all.
On the other hand, what I wrote in this forum is what OCZ told me, and what others wrote on the threads I referenced for you.
If OCZ is not being forthright then Tom's would be right to report on this. But Tom's should also have told us in their article that they took the issue to OCZ and were shown the door. Why did you not inform us of this? It might have solved a problem before it got started!
Todd Sauve
richard hart
Honorable
- Jun 16, 2012
- 11
- 0
- 10,510
Todd, we are not trying to do anyone a disservice. We sent our findings to OCZ and they did not reply. We have now posted their official statement, which we were not privy to before, and to the best of our knowledge has not been in the public domain, although we wait for OCZ to confirm this. As far as we can see the drive is performing as intended. Does this mater to an end user? Most likely not, as sustained write activity is not something that typically occurs in a client environment. That said the more used capacity and the larger the xfer the more chance it will occur.
We should also point out that we secure eased the drive after each benchmark, which clears the flash translation layer. In addition the drive did not have an OS installed on it, so it is relatively easy for the garbage collection process to clear up the flash translation layer. This might explain why we did not need to reboot to see performance return. We should also point out that we did not observe extended latency times, but again that might be linked to the above.
We would again like to reiterate that all we tried to do in the article was show how it can occur and how it can be avoided, which enables our readers to make an informed choice.
We will test again when firmware 1.5 comes out.
Cheers
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
We should also point out that we secure eased the drive after each benchmark, which clears the flash translation layer. In addition the drive did not have an OS installed on it, so it is relatively easy for the garbage collection process to clear up the flash translation layer. This might explain why we did not need to reboot to see performance return. We should also point out that we did not observe extended latency times, but again that might be linked to the above.
We would again like to reiterate that all we tried to do in the article was show how it can occur and how it can be avoided, which enables our readers to make an informed choice.
We will test again when firmware 1.5 comes out.
Cheers
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
Alright. I asked OCZ for their side of the story and here is what they have to say over this.
******************************
Ok. I took Tom's to task over this issue on their forum and they tell me that you guys at OCZ have shut them out of communications with them over this issue.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/32...irmware#t96171
Alas, we have a good old fashioned "he said, she said." If Tom's does contact you once again over their article on write performance, please let me know with an update here.
__________________
Tom's were not shut out of communication with us, the new reviewer they were trying out approached support staff here on the forum for info that right now is NDA for the staff here, he went outside normal channels and as far as I am aware has been told so also...he just asked the wrong people/person. Now did he do this on purpose to pump for info OCZ marketing would not give him? I personally think so as he has asked me for info before (I am marketing) and he was shown the door for fishing to deep.
Because of this we will now be 200% more cautious who we talk to and info may flow a little slower to the forum than it used to.
*******************************
So, who is telling the truth?
******************************
Ok. I took Tom's to task over this issue on their forum and they tell me that you guys at OCZ have shut them out of communications with them over this issue.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/32...irmware#t96171
Alas, we have a good old fashioned "he said, she said." If Tom's does contact you once again over their article on write performance, please let me know with an update here.
__________________
Tom's were not shut out of communication with us, the new reviewer they were trying out approached support staff here on the forum for info that right now is NDA for the staff here, he went outside normal channels and as far as I am aware has been told so also...he just asked the wrong people/person. Now did he do this on purpose to pump for info OCZ marketing would not give him? I personally think so as he has asked me for info before (I am marketing) and he was shown the door for fishing to deep.
Because of this we will now be 200% more cautious who we talk to and info may flow a little slower to the forum than it used to.
*******************************
So, who is telling the truth?
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
By the way, it is Tony of OCZ's marketing staff that has posted this reply. You can read it yourself here:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?102559-Vertex-4-128GB-Writes-Very-Slow-After-Alignment/page3
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?102559-Vertex-4-128GB-Writes-Very-Slow-After-Alignment/page3
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
Tony of OCZ's marketing staff has this to add:
Richards big issue is he came to support staff for info when he should have gone to marketing....he does this every time and really needs to learn its not how things are done when you are reviewing for a top site. If you are just a forum poster then you go where you need to to get the info you need, when you transition to a reviewer things change....he has lessons to learn imo.
Also he still does not fully understand how these drives work,like most he feels SSD's have to all work in exactly the same way, so fixed variables can be tested and reported upon..Vtx4 is way way different, its built for volume testing only, no RAW, its built with multiple modes of operation that enhance what the drive delivers BUT there are rules...and the best part is the normal end user will always fall within these rules if the drive is used normally. You review it, you test it outside these rules and you will find what he found....totally normal and expected from OCZ's point of view.
As Ryder posted further down this thread,
Before 1.4 the 128's writes were 210MB/s, now with the newer firmware they are 400MB/s before the "storage mode" kicks in (after 50% of the blocks are written to all in 1 go). So most of the time you get higher writes, we could go back to the 210 and leave it there all the time
So we give you all a massive speed increase as long as you stay within the rules...go out of the rules and you will see a speed drop, but you have to do really silly/weird things to go out the rules which a normal end user will never do.
Part of this mode is the reason you get 400 at all. This is a 2 edged sword, increased performance, but more aggressive GC when you get to a write that is 50% of available blocks.
This mode (more aggressive garbage collection) requires processing cycles from the controller, hence it writes the data slower as it performs GC. Before 1.4 we didn't have this and the controller wrote slower all the time.
so you write to the drive filling over 50% of the available blocks, the SSD processor enters its aggressive GC mode, its working harder....BUT you continue to push writes from it as you are benchmarking it...of course its going to show a slow down.
If you fill a drive to over 50% in 1 go or use up over 50% of available free clean blocks then let it do its thing while surfing the net or typing emails etc the drive enters AGC, does it thing, and then settles back down to be near 100% as fast as it was before. So without looking for the issue you never see the issue... its really that simple.
I feel you all have enough now to deduce exactly what is going on here....the short of it is this, do not look for issues, they are not there unless you look really very hard for them and by that i mean create them.
Maybe Tom's should just withdraw the article now and start over again, eh?
Richards big issue is he came to support staff for info when he should have gone to marketing....he does this every time and really needs to learn its not how things are done when you are reviewing for a top site. If you are just a forum poster then you go where you need to to get the info you need, when you transition to a reviewer things change....he has lessons to learn imo.
Also he still does not fully understand how these drives work,like most he feels SSD's have to all work in exactly the same way, so fixed variables can be tested and reported upon..Vtx4 is way way different, its built for volume testing only, no RAW, its built with multiple modes of operation that enhance what the drive delivers BUT there are rules...and the best part is the normal end user will always fall within these rules if the drive is used normally. You review it, you test it outside these rules and you will find what he found....totally normal and expected from OCZ's point of view.
As Ryder posted further down this thread,
Before 1.4 the 128's writes were 210MB/s, now with the newer firmware they are 400MB/s before the "storage mode" kicks in (after 50% of the blocks are written to all in 1 go). So most of the time you get higher writes, we could go back to the 210 and leave it there all the time
So we give you all a massive speed increase as long as you stay within the rules...go out of the rules and you will see a speed drop, but you have to do really silly/weird things to go out the rules which a normal end user will never do.
Part of this mode is the reason you get 400 at all. This is a 2 edged sword, increased performance, but more aggressive GC when you get to a write that is 50% of available blocks.
This mode (more aggressive garbage collection) requires processing cycles from the controller, hence it writes the data slower as it performs GC. Before 1.4 we didn't have this and the controller wrote slower all the time.
so you write to the drive filling over 50% of the available blocks, the SSD processor enters its aggressive GC mode, its working harder....BUT you continue to push writes from it as you are benchmarking it...of course its going to show a slow down.
If you fill a drive to over 50% in 1 go or use up over 50% of available free clean blocks then let it do its thing while surfing the net or typing emails etc the drive enters AGC, does it thing, and then settles back down to be near 100% as fast as it was before. So without looking for the issue you never see the issue... its really that simple.
I feel you all have enough now to deduce exactly what is going on here....the short of it is this, do not look for issues, they are not there unless you look really very hard for them and by that i mean create them.
Maybe Tom's should just withdraw the article now and start over again, eh?
I purchased a vertex 4 128gig when it first came out. I have recently passed 50% full and can honestly say I have not noticed any slow-down. The only problem I had with it was I would get BSODs whenever my pc would wake from sleep. This has been fixed in the latest firmware 1.4.1.3 and I now have no issues at all with it. I think I will re-run my drive benchmarks to see if I am affected by this 50% full issue.
richard hart
Honorable
- Jun 16, 2012
- 11
- 0
- 10,510
Hi mapesdhs, sorry we have not tested the 60 GB drive or the 256 GB version either.
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom´s Hardware
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Ah well, no matter.
I'm exploring SSD issues in non-PC systems, SGIs in my case (many people asking me
about this these days). Makes for some intriguing performance anomalies, eg. Vertex3/4
are slower than Vertex2E in my Fuel by quite some margin for larger block sizes (via
SAS3442X-R), though they're all much the same when within an ARS-2160 SCSI/SATA
bridge. I'm also helping a guy who deals with huge parallel source compiles (24hrs typical
run), looking into using SSDs to speed things up, but they need to be devices which work
well in the long term when TRIM is not available. Vertex2E works very well with IRIX; don't
know yet about V3/4. I've obtained an Agility3, will test that shortly. His workload can scale
to 32 or maybe as high as 128 CPUs, but storage access is critical.
Ian.
I'm exploring SSD issues in non-PC systems, SGIs in my case (many people asking me
about this these days). Makes for some intriguing performance anomalies, eg. Vertex3/4
are slower than Vertex2E in my Fuel by quite some margin for larger block sizes (via
SAS3442X-R), though they're all much the same when within an ARS-2160 SCSI/SATA
bridge. I'm also helping a guy who deals with huge parallel source compiles (24hrs typical
run), looking into using SSDs to speed things up, but they need to be devices which work
well in the long term when TRIM is not available. Vertex2E works very well with IRIX; don't
know yet about V3/4. I've obtained an Agility3, will test that shortly. His workload can scale
to 32 or maybe as high as 128 CPUs, but storage access is critical.
Ian.
- Jul 4, 2008
- 1,878
- 9
- 19,795
[citation][nom]Todd Sauve[/nom]T Maybe Tom's should just withdraw the article now and start over again, eh?[/citation]
Because an employee of OCZ tells you that there's nothing wrong with an OCZ product, we are supposed to back off?
Todd, our job is to tell the complete story. Richard was working with the information available to him. I appreciate your interest in the nature of our vendor relationships. We've worked closely with OCZ for a very long time and in a very productive way.
I don't have time to babysit this thread. Keep it on topic (on technology), or it gets deleted. Thanks,
Chris
Because an employee of OCZ tells you that there's nothing wrong with an OCZ product, we are supposed to back off?
Todd, our job is to tell the complete story. Richard was working with the information available to him. I appreciate your interest in the nature of our vendor relationships. We've worked closely with OCZ for a very long time and in a very productive way.
I don't have time to babysit this thread. Keep it on topic (on technology), or it gets deleted. Thanks,
Chris
Kudos to tom's for re-reviewing this product.
Mediocre products sometimes become great ones because of a firmware upgrade. Sadly, they seldom receive much attention and the product never achieves much commercial success. This review will encourage manufacturers to keep supporting their products in the form of firmware upgrades.
Mediocre products sometimes become great ones because of a firmware upgrade. Sadly, they seldom receive much attention and the product never achieves much commercial success. This review will encourage manufacturers to keep supporting their products in the form of firmware upgrades.
yup... I agree kilobyte, and despite the article I still ordered one. I made an informed decision as was said. I know what to expect, and won't be be bothered, and they should always update firmware, back in the day products rarely ever received them, and support dropped.
I had a vertex III max iops 120 gb hardly used and sold it, and decided to get ocz vertex IV. for multiple reasons. even if I could buy another max iops cheap..
I had a vertex III max iops 120 gb hardly used and sold it, and decided to get ocz vertex IV. for multiple reasons. even if I could buy another max iops cheap..
redgarl
Distinguished
- Jun 4, 2009
- 2,883
- 190
- 21,240
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Because an employee of OCZ tells you that there's nothing wrong with an OCZ product, we are supposed to back off?Todd, our job is to tell the complete story. Richard was working with the information available to him. I appreciate your interest in the nature of our vendor relationships. We've worked closely with OCZ for a very long time and in a very productive way.I don't have time to babysit this thread. Keep it on topic (on technology), or it gets deleted. Thanks,Chris[/citation]
The problem with the complete story is that you refer that every users will have a problem and that the drive will drop half of its speed due to poor optimization which, for that reason, you don't recommend the drive.
Unfortunately, what we wanted to know is if this issue would impact the product for the end user and the answer is no. I am following this article and the forum since last week and I find Tom, once again, crossed the line where they should not go.
I am sorry, but you are not as objective as you want to let know and the only thing I see about this is your inability to admit you went too far and improvised yourself as engineers which you are not.
The problem with the complete story is that you refer that every users will have a problem and that the drive will drop half of its speed due to poor optimization which, for that reason, you don't recommend the drive.
Unfortunately, what we wanted to know is if this issue would impact the product for the end user and the answer is no. I am following this article and the forum since last week and I find Tom, once again, crossed the line where they should not go.
I am sorry, but you are not as objective as you want to let know and the only thing I see about this is your inability to admit you went too far and improvised yourself as engineers which you are not.
Gigahertz20
Distinguished
- Oct 30, 2009
- 57
- 6
- 18,635
Glad tomshardware publishes these updates to show if there are differences with firmware versions, just bought a Samsung 830 256GB for $190 off Newegg the other day and I'm glad I did even though there is a deal on Newegg now running to July 5th for the OCZ Vertex 4 for $199.
All these constant firmware updates are good, but it really makes it look like the first launch Vertex 4 buyers were just guinea pigs. But of course most companies seem to launch beta products now and then correct them later, seems like that's the new thing I guess. It is going to take awhile to convince me OCZ has stable drives.
All these constant firmware updates are good, but it really makes it look like the first launch Vertex 4 buyers were just guinea pigs. But of course most companies seem to launch beta products now and then correct them later, seems like that's the new thing I guess. It is going to take awhile to convince me OCZ has stable drives.
richard hart
Honorable
- Jun 16, 2012
- 11
- 0
- 10,510
We are pleased to announce that preliminary testing of firmware 1.5 beta, which has just been made available to download from the OCZ web site has made a significant improvement in how the drive behaves past 50% of free capacity. We will publish an update imminently to show the results of our testing.
Firmware revision 1.5 beta improvements over 1.4.1.3 are listed as:
• Optimized idle garbage collection algorithms to extend the benefits of performance mode by enabling the feature across a greater percentage of the drive
• Improved HBA / RAID card compatibility
• Further improved compatibility with desktop and mobile ATA security features
Fixes:
• Corrected a corner case issue where the ‘Remaining Life’ SMART attribute could be reported incorrectly
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom's Hardware
Firmware revision 1.5 beta improvements over 1.4.1.3 are listed as:
• Optimized idle garbage collection algorithms to extend the benefits of performance mode by enabling the feature across a greater percentage of the drive
• Improved HBA / RAID card compatibility
• Further improved compatibility with desktop and mobile ATA security features
Fixes:
• Corrected a corner case issue where the ‘Remaining Life’ SMART attribute could be reported incorrectly
Cheers,
Richard Hart
Tom's Hardware
Todd Sauve
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 24
- 1
- 18,520
[citation][nom]Gigahertz20[/nom]Glad tomshardware publishes these updates to show if there are differences with firmware versions, just bought a Samsung 830 256GB for $190 off Newegg the other day and I'm glad I did even though there is a deal on Newegg now running to July 5th for the OCZ Vertex 4 for $199.All these constant firmware updates are good, but it really makes it look like the first launch Vertex 4 buyers were just guinea pigs. But of course most companies seem to launch beta products now and then correct them later, seems like that's the new thing I guess. It is going to take awhile to convince me OCZ has stable drives.[/citation]
damn, i missed out...i'm waiting for exactly that price on the samsung 830 256gb to take the plunge.
how ya liking it? any issues or concerns?
damn, i missed out...i'm waiting for exactly that price on the samsung 830 256gb to take the plunge.
how ya liking it? any issues or concerns?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 201
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram