Crucial RealSSD 300 Instructions... Don't use it.

[TheFocusElf]

Just... don't use it for now.

I had posted down below about other things, but among them was this Crucial RealSSD I am swapping for my P256 which I put in my bosses PC and shipped off yesterday.

So I have this SATA 3.0 compatible mobo and this SATA 3 SSD drive. Apparently they've determined that there is a new firmware that needs to be released before the drives can be safely used. Also, the reason according to Crucial for the last firmware being pulled is folks not following instructions, not a matter of motherboard compatibility (that was just so they didn't have to say, 'Firmware pulled, you are all idiots.').

The... whole idea is just silly to me. Here, put this $700 paperweight on top of your bass amplifier and... do nothing with it. Don't use it until we release a new firmware. Feels like Asheron's Call 1 patchday! =D

[Kougar]

Yes, this entire problem of new SSDs always falling into severely poor performance ruts, with the firmware fix then "bricking" drives, and the second firmware update required to resolve the problem. Intel had this problem twice, now Crucial.

The original firmware has a slight chance of bricking the drive, but generally should be okay to use... the firmware fix had a better chance of bricking drives during the update process, and then it was discovered their software program itself had an issue with certain motherboard configurations.

They stated they would begin tested of a final solution on May 10th with the update to go live this month if no more issues popped up.

So far the only new controller to not have a performance/reliability snafu has been Sandforce. Intel, Indilinx, and Micron have each endured theirs (Not counting JMicron)... so I'm wondering if something's going to crop up with Sandforce given it has with everyone else. Jumping to bleeding edge technology does have its risks, especially for the first SSD to incorporate the C300's controller and the first SSD to use SATA 3.

[TheFocusElf]

I just thought it was funny, Kougar =D I know what I am getting into being an early adopter and all of that. I spoke to some techs at Crucial the other day and aside from that instruction 'just don't use it for now' I got some stats out of them. Only about 1% of the drives were bricked, perhaps a little more than that Mexican flu (no I will not call it H1N1). Though every time a drive got bricked I am sure a new irate post in the Crucial forums would pop up. It certainly can't be good for their marketing campaign! It is a great drive though and I look forward to using it!

[madmat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssd_drive

Looking up disadvantages in the above linked article will underline why I think SSD will not be found in mainstream computing for a good while. Flash memory is good for a finite number of reads/writes. When using a SSD for windows with the swap file on the drive it hits the drive quite often and each hit is a nail in the coffin for the drive.

To help extend the life of the drive you can transfer the swap file to a conventional disk type HDD and save thousands of read/write cycles to the SSD.

[Kougar]

TheFocusElf, I'm glad you're keeping things positive! Most people would be highly irritated or simply angry over the matter. Honestly I would be irritated, but as you said the chance of the drive bricking itself is small... small enough I would have used the drive anyway and done regular backups. Hopefully the "fixed" firmware and "fixed" software tool will be free of issues with their upcoming release.

Originally Posted by madmat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssd_drive

Looking up disadvantages in the above linked article will underline why I think SSD will not be found in mainstream computing for a good while. Flash memory is good for a finite number of reads/writes. When using a SSD for windows with the swap file on the drive it hits the drive quite often and each hit is a nail in the coffin for the drive.

To help extend the life of the drive you can transfer the swap file to a conventional disk type HDD and save thousands of read/write cycles to the SSD.

I can say that someone has definitely improved the SSD wiki and removed some errors in the information, but it still isn't that accurate (even for a wiki article). For example to the best of my knowledge this is completely false. The "performance" won't degrade, in fact both of these technologies they name increase the lifespan of the drive.

As a result of wear leveling and write combining, the performance of SSDs degrades with use.[

All these "generalizations" made multiple times in the disadvantages section don't always apply. There are drives that write nearly as fast as they read (Vertex 2 being nearly equal). Even those that do not, a midrange SSD can write to flash faster than many high capacity hard drives can write OR read. Such asymmetric software would have been written with slow hard disks in mind, making such an argument further moot because almost any SSD would write fast enough to meet the minimum requirements.

As erase blocks on flash-based SSDs generally are quite large (e.g. 0.5 - 1 megabyte),[11] they are far slower than conventional disks during small writes (write amplification effect)

This one is not just wrong, but completely false. Hard disk drives are extremely slow at small file operations, in fact they are worse... by far. Any test will show it, but here's one chart: Link Here's another that shows a laptop drive and a Velociraptor: Link

"Write amplification" means something else. Write amplification is where an SSD must erase a "block" to write just a few "pages" of data to it. Say for example each page is 4KB, and each block is comprised of 128 pages (block = 512KB in size). The SSD must write the entire block to write just any of the pages in it. This is because an SSD can read an individual 4KB sized "page", but the NAND is structured (for size/complexity reasons) so only each block is capable of being written to at once.

As far as longevity goes, an SSD is warrantied for 3-5 years which is as much as any hard drive. Most people don't seem to expect HDD's to last 3-5 years, so having a similar expectation for SSDs shouldn't suddenly somehow become a negative. If anything, an SSD that just sits there powered on and only sees reads isn't going to experience wear, but a HDD still would. Admittedly that isn't a realistic scenario, but it should illustrate that drive usage is going to play a large in the SSD's lifespan.... so will the drive capacity, write combining, and write amplification of the drive.

[TheFocusElf]

Ahhh! Pertinent thread-piracy!

I won't get into it here or elaborate on your lovely V2 review Kougar, but have you seen or heard the clamor concerning SATA-3 Drives and mobo/bios settings?

I have not put it in yet, because I want to get this correct firmware in there where TRIM won't cause potential issues with the C300. So it is a paperweight right now, the Sata3 SSD.

Meanwhile I shipped the Sandforce Corsair off with my bosses rig. Grr.

[Kougar]

Originally Posted by TheFocusElf

Ahhh! Pertinent thread-piracy!

Sorry! I couldn't resist the urge to tear apart just SOME of that Wiki article... I've read it before several times and it's still too full of just plain wrong information.

Originally Posted by TheFocusElf

I won't get into it here or elaborate on your lovely V2 review Kougar, but have you seen or heard the clamor concerning SATA-3 Drives and mobo/bios settings?

I have not? I do not have a SATA 3 motherboard and do not have a Crucial C300 drive to test. What's the problem with these settings you speak of? I assumed all it required was using a SATA 3 port and a plugging in a SATA 3 device to work?

Originally Posted by TheFocusElf

Meanwhile I shipped the Sandforce Corsair off with my bosses rig. Grr.

Well, better than shipping him the C300, and risking that 1% chance the drive fails on him... he is your boss after all.