Choosing the right SSD...

TheMystic said:

Yes, while that is true, the TBW on QLCs are plenty for the average consumer.

300+ TBW would require decades of writing for the average consumer. So most users need not worry too much about durability.

Click to expand...

I was just about to add a caveat to what i said about the endurance. I haven't done the research to determine if the reduced endurance on the QLC justified a shorter warranty

One example of why installing Windows on a HDD can still be feasible is that an energy efficient, low powered, older laptop can still be used as a cheap NAS replacement and isn't held back by the speed of HDD for the intended purpose. So, for this, there's no need to sacrifice one of the ports on an SSD that would only hurt the maximum total storage capacity for nothing, when storage capacity and cost effectiveness are the only goal. It can also be modded to accomodate larger capacity 3.5 inch HDDs that can optionally be placed inside an older desktop PC case if needed. You could actually even decide to use JB Weld to glue two PC cases together, side by side. Also if needed, USB 3.0 hubs and SATA to USB 3.0 adapters can be added to expand the total number of HDDs and to enable easy hotswap capability. If the battery is still good, it gives the extra benefit of preventing data loss in the possible event of a power outage, at least on those specific HDDs that use the laptop for their power source, and, you could also decide to disable write access on the ones that are not, like for example if these are the ones that are full. All of the HDDs don't necessarily have to be designed to be kept spinning 24/7, as it is possible to keep them asleep to prolong their life and to save power, even though not many people are aware of this fact. Or else they just don't know how to prevent Windows from randomly spinning a HDD up again. And before anyone should ask, the reason why I would always prefer to use Windows for this kind of voodoo instead of FreeNas and the like, simply it's because it [Windows] lets you choose a more powerful type of voodoo such as Diskeeper to optimize the I/O, just to name only one example.

NavyLCDR said:

If you are going to leave 25% free in every partition created there is absolutely no reason to leave an additional 10% unallocated for over provisioning. Empty space on the SSD is treated exactly the same by the controller regardless of partitioning. An empty cell is an empty cell. There are no partition boundaries on an SSD.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? From what I have read, only space that is not accessible to the user ( i.e. unallocated ) can be used in that way.

You might have heard something else , do you have a link?

NavyLCDR said:

The OS can only use the space that is partitioned. If the partition is 99% full, then the OS only has 1% of the space in the partition left to be used by the OS. The SSD may be only 10% partitioned or may only have 10% total of its capacity occupied by data. So, the OS sees 99% used space with 1% free in the partition, that is all it has access to. The onboard SSD controller sees the entire SSD, so it is seeing 10% in use and 90% free. The onboard SSD controller accommodates, for the most part, what the OS is requesting. The OS needs a file? The onboard SSD controller retrieves all the segments of that file from the various cells it is stored in on the SSD and delivers the assembled file to the OS. The OS wants to write a file...the onboard SSD controller splits up the file and stores it in various cells on the SSD. During idle time when the OS is not requesting anything, the onboard SSD controller performs trash collection functions - as long as power is supplied to the SSD.

Click to expand...

You are essentially saying Over Provisioning is unnecessary, but free space is essential. That's because efficiency of file operations is dependent on both the OS as well as the onboard SSD controller.

While that makes sense, when is over provisioning useful then? Because if partitions are full, and the OS doesn't have access to partitions it can't read (which can have plenty of free space), file operations would anyway be hampered since they are dependent on what is accessible to the OS too.

I am saying that if partitions are becoming full, over provisioning helps because this is unused space that is available to both the OS and the onboard SSD controller at all times. Which means that over provisioning is the better alternative than to maintain free space in individual partitions, if an user must only choose one of the two.

TheMystic said:

Isn't that dependent on what the partition is used for?

On my T5, I have a total of 10 partitions, of which 8 are APFS+ or HFS+,1 is NTFS and 1 is exFAT. When I connect my T5 to my Windows laptop, the system sees only the last two partitions (NTFS & exFAT).

If these partitions are full, won't it hamper performance since none of the other partitions are visible and therefore it doesn't matter how full or empty they are?

Likewise, I have installed Windows in that NTFS partition. If I boot from it and lets say it is 90% full, won't it hamper performance?

In these cases, I think the SSD can make use of over-provisioning since the unallocated space is always accessible.

Click to expand...

SSD are not aware of partitions. They are only aware of occupied and unoccupied memory blocks/cells for the whole drive. memory blocks/cells are not allocated to partitions. The sum of unused space across partitions is pretty much equivalent to the same amount of over-provisioned space. So as long as you are not near filling your partitions you need not over provision.

Above is only true if TRIM is fully supported (as it is on NTFS volumes) so that the SSD actually knows what blocks are actually in use. Without TRIM, the SSD has no way of reusing the cells associated with blocks deleted by the OS until the OS writes new data to the logical blocks.

over-provisioning was very necessary when TRIM wasn't available in order to maintain a pool of free blocks/cells - you do need sufficient free space or write amplification will get worse. Write amplification occurs when the SSD has to move data around for wear leveling and consolidation resulting in more data being written to cells than the original write contained. This gets worse the less free space (according to the SSD) there is.

OP is not as necessary with TRIM unless you are rewriting lots of data rapidly or run your disks near full.

The sum of unused space across partitions is pretty much equivalent to the same amount of over-provisioned space. So as long as you are not near filling your partitions you need not over provision.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link that supports your statement ?

geneo said:

SSD are not aware of partitions. They are only aware of occupied and unoccupied memory blocks/cells for the whole drive. memory blocks/cells are not allocated to partitions. The sum of unused space across partitions is pretty much equivalent to the same amount of over-provisioned space. So as long as you are not near filling your partitions you need not over provision.

Above is only true if TRIM is fully supported (as it is on NTFS volumes) so that the SSD actually knows what blocks are actually in use. Without TRIM, the SSD has no way of reusing the cells associated with blocks deleted by the OS until the OS writes new data to the logical blocks.

over-provisioning was very necessary when TRIM wasn't available in order to maintain a pool of free blocks/cells - you do need sufficient free space or write amplification will get worse. Write amplification occurs when the SSD has to move data around for wear leveling and consolidation resulting in more data being written to cells than the original write contained. This gets worse the less free space (according to the SSD) there is.

OP is not as necessary with TRIM unless you are rewriting lots of data rapidly or run your disks near full.

Click to expand...

Can you explain the previous post #64?

TheMystic said:

You are essentially saying Over Provisioning is unnecessary, but free space is essential. That's because efficiency of file operations is dependent on both the OS as well as the onboard SSD controller.

While that makes sense, when is over provisioning useful then? Because if partitions are full, and the OS doesn't have access to partitions it can't read (which can have plenty of free space), file operations would anyway be hampered since they are dependent on what is accessible to the OS.

I am saying that if partitions are becoming full, over provisioning helps because this is unused space that is available to both the OS and the onboard SSD controller.

Click to expand...

But over-provisioning is simply creating unallocated space on the drive. It is not available to the OS, and it takes away space that would otherwise be available to partitions, so doesn't help there.

It is like a guardband the helps guarantee a level of performance and longevity at the cost of some space. But not necessary if you maintain equivalent free space on your partitions.

I should add that I beleive most SSD have some level of overprovisioning from the factory that is burned in (extra, un-provisionable capacity ).

SIW2 said:

Do you have a link that supports your statement ?

Click to expand...

Nope, but it is fact.

geneo said:

But over-provisioning is simply creating unallocated space on the drive. It is not available to the OS, and it takes away space that would otherwise be available to partitions, so doesn't help there.

It is like a guardband the helps guarantee a level of performance and longevity at the cost of some space. But not necessary if you maintain equivalent free space on your partitions.

I should add that I beleive most SSD have some level of overprovisioning from the factory that is burned in (extra, un-provisionable capacity ).

Click to expand...

Here is one good reason why over-provisioning is more beneficial than distributing free space among partitions:

You have the ability to use it as and when you want!

Let's assume I have 5 partitions on my disk and free space of 100 GB. Instead of apportioning this equally (or any distribution) among the partitions, leaving it unallocated would help more in times of space crunch. Because every OS can access unallocated space.

If I were to instead distribute the free space among the partitions, I am limiting my ability to only the free space that is available on partitions my OS can see.

I am past the stage when I have the mental energy to understand SSD technology. Over the years I have purchased SSD when the price seemed right for a popular name brand.

I have mid-tower PC with at ATX motherboard and 6 SSDs. 3 are NVME. This computer was put together by strip mall computer store which are slowly disappearing. One SSD is dedicated to pictures videos and Music. One is for spare operating system which could be linux but now it has win 10. I do not play games and the 2 PCI slots have PCI adapter with 2 NVME disks

I have always been concerned about SSD failure.

Have any of you experienced SSD failure?

TheMystic said:

Here is one good reason why over-provisioning is more beneficial than distributing free space among partitions:

You have the ability to use it as and when you want!

Let's assume I have 5 partitions on my disk and free space of 100 GB. Instead of apportioning this equally (or any distribution) among the partitions, leaving it unallocated would help more in times of space crunch. Because every OS can access unallocated space.

If I were to instead distribute the free space among the partitions, I am limiting my ability to only the free space that is available on partitions my OS can see.

Click to expand...

No OS can use unallocated space. I don't know where you got that idea. The OS can only access space in partitions.

PCWorld about problems with NVMe SSD:
Windows 11 might seriously slow down your SSD

FDretired said:

I am past the stage when I have the mental energy to understand SSD technology. Over the years I have purchased SSD when the price seemed right for a popular name brand.

I have mid-tower PC with at ATX motherboard and 6 SSDs. 3 are NVME. This computer was put together by strip mall computer store which are slowly disappearing. One SSD is dedicated to pictures videos and Music. One is for spare operating system which could be linux but now it has win 10. I do not play games and the 2 PCI slots have PCI adapter with 2 NVME disks

I have always been concerned about SSD failure.

Have any of you experienced SSD failure?

Click to expand...

I have had ssds since 2009. I've never left unallocated space, I've never avoided writes to my drives. I've historically treated them all like standard hard drives (with exception that I don't defragment them). I haven't used heat sinks of my NVMes (except for my latest box where mobo included cover plate).

Never had a problem with any of my drives.

SIW2 said:

Do you have a link that supports your statement ?

Click to expand...

Here:

An empty cell is an empty cell to the SSD controller. The number of empty cells available for the controller to use will vary with the amount of user data stored on the SSD. If you want to ensure that a certain percentage of empty cells is always available to the controller, then go ahead and manually overprovision by keeping space unallocated, which contrary to one post above, is never available for use by any OS. Only space that is included in a partition is available for use by an OS.

Quote:
Users should also consider that an SSD in service is rarely completely full. SSDs take advantage of this unused capacity, dynamically using it as additional over-provisioning.

Slavic said:

PCWorld about problems with NVMe SSD:
Windows 11 might seriously slow down your SSD

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anything in that article that talks about problems with NVMe SSDs. The article is talking about OS problems.

@TheMystic I fitted the Evo 970 2TB SSD in the enclosure and it is really fast, not up to thunderbolt speed but fast enough not to notice. Still it's not the same as an internal drive. What shall I do with all this free space

The-Hive said:

@TheMystic I fitted the Evo 970 2TB SSD in the enclosure and it is really fast, not up to thunderbolt speed but fast enough not to notice. Still it's not the same as an internal drive. What shall I do with all this free space
View attachment 15859

Click to expand...

Gee.. that's a lot and I love Samsung SSD's.. regardless of the type.

The-Hive said:

What shall I do with all this free space
View attachment 15859

Click to expand...

I thought that question was already answered - you move it out of the partitions so it is unallocated and reserved for over-provisioning!

obelix said:

Today, it doesn't matter if you have ssd TLC or DLC, TBW is important because it keeps ssd correct or not. I have samsung ssd 840 1TB..

Click to expand...

TBW is important, as you say. Your Samsung 840 has 3-bit MLC if it is an EVO, or 2-bit MLC if it's an EVO Pro. The Samsung QVO that is getting such bad reviews in this thread uses 4-bit MLC. For a 4-bit MLC device the TBW is typically half that of a 3-bit MLC device with the same capacity.

The QVO range is fine for long term storage, but not really appropriate for a drive that gets frequent writes.