How important is redundant nad these days?

Associate
Joined
24 Apr 2009
Posts
1,942
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
I'm curious, as I haven't touched an ssd in a year, just how important keeping a few GB of nad as redundancy is these days. I've been eyeing up the (Marvel) 128GB M4, but all the SadForce/Intel based drives are 120GB + 8GB reserved for nad failure.

Now, imo, the best form of redundancy is off-site backup, but I'm curious why both Intel and SandForce think it's worth reserving 1/16 of the drive for memory failure. Iirc correctly hard drives don't do this, but rather move data off suspect sectors if the drive thinks something is wrong.

To me this implies that either Marvel is is doing something similar (which isn't ideal) or is confident in the nad being as reliable - or rather their controller - as a good old hd. Or, that SandForce (which still has problems) isn't confident in either it's controller of nad. Or, that Intel is simply being over cautious (and overcharging too :p)

Surly the only difference between 128GB and 120GB + 8 is that if/when a chip dies on the 128GB, is that the user is aware of it while the Intel/SandForce one will quietly use it's backup with the user none the wiser?

Could someone clear this up for me please?
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Oct 2008
Posts
3,834
Location
London
It's not redundancy, it's overprovisioning. From the manufacturers perspective, it's cheaper to throw in an extra chip or two than to have loads of RMAs when individual chips die.

With Intel you pay for reliability, aside from the 320's issues, they are the most reliable brand.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Apr 2009
Posts
1,942
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Even so, it makes no difference how reliable your storage medium is you always backup to something else. An m4 plus some data centre space if only £5-10 more than an Intel drive and more reliable :p

Really I'm just curious about the m4 since it's not running on anything spare. Actually the old c300s had no spare space either did they?
 
Last edited:
Top