OCZ Vertex 3 Lifespan?

Associate
Joined
22 Nov 2010
Posts
389
Location
London
Ive been looking at SSD's for many months if not years and i wanted to know if i did buy a OCZ Vertex 3 120Gb/240Gb What is the lifespan on it? Roughly?

Because if its much longer than a HDD i could think of buying a Vertex 3 as more of an investment, because i can put it in any new system i get in the future.

Thanks :)
 
Early SSDs suffered from short lifespans but current ones should last longer than HDDs, on average (with typical OS drive use). I know OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs are rated for 10 years' use. Vertex 3s are presumably similar.

I certainly intend to use my Vertex 2E in another machine in the future when I replace it with a newer SSD a few years down the line.
 
Early SSDs suffered from short lifespans but current ones should last longer than HDDs, on average (with typical OS drive use). I know OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs are rated for 10 years' use. Vertex 3s are presumably similar.

I certainly intend to use my Vertex 2E in another machine in the future when I replace it with a newer SSD a few years down the line.

Thanks mate, i'd use the drive for OS and just general use. No Video Encoding or anything like that :)
 
The move from 34nm to 25nm has effectively halfed the life of a SSD. On 34nm each cell had 10K PE cycles. On 25nm this drops down to 5-3K depending on the chip. Saying all that you should still get at least 5 years of life.

Something that is not written on the tin with the latest drives.
 
The old SSD drives still had enormous lifetimes, even with 10K PE cycles, that would mean you could overwrite the entire drive, byte for byte, every day, for 30 years.

Compared to mechanical drives, SSDs would last a whole lot longer. TRIM etc makes it even better, don't worry about small patches wearing out.
 
As said the wear level algorithms that the drives use should mean that they last far longer than they would be practically useful, you would need to seriously thrash the drive on a daily basis to wear it out within the 10years. It's more likely to die just from random electronic failure.
 
As said the wear level algorithms that the drives use should mean that they last far longer than they would be practically useful, you would need to seriously thrash the drive on a daily basis to wear it out within the 10years. It's more likely to die just from random electronic failure.

Right. And I understood the nand PE cycles to be:

50nm = 10k
34nm = 5k
25nm = 3k

And as the controllers have to get more aggressive to keep the drives using smaller nand alive, they will invoke a LTWT (LifeTime Write Throttle), which seriously slows the drive's performance, if you hammer the drive with too many GBs in a short period of time. The LTWT cannot be reset by secure erasing or a destructive FW flash. It's there for life, but will keep the drive going for a long time.
 
Right. And I understood the nand PE cycles to be:

50nm = 10k
34nm = 5k
25nm = 3k

And as the controllers have to get more aggressive to keep the drives using smaller nand alive, they will invoke a LTWT (LifeTime Write Throttle), which seriously slows the drive's performance, if you hammer the drive with too many GBs in a short period of time. The LTWT cannot be reset by secure erasing or a destructive FW flash. It's there for life, but will keep the drive going for a long time.

LTWT sounds Painful. Especially if you just gave £240/£460 for a Vertex 3 120/240Gb Drive :O

What about when i get it and install windows and put all my stuff on it. (Roughly 100Gb+) Would that turn LTWT on? :(
 
Also Could i store my Music and Pictures / Documents on the drive? or would they be better off staying on my HDD? (For Lifespan. )
 
Lifetimes are plenty long enough, the lifespans of the 25nm G3 Intels are estimated at around 30-60TB of writes depending on size. In 18 months I've used around 5TB on my 34nm G2's, which extrapolates to a lifespan of over a decade, not that I expect to keep them in my primary machine that long.
 
I honestly wouldn't worry about the NAND lifespan, I've yet to see a single person report they had used all the write cycles, it's much more likely the controller will die first, which is what seems to happen to most of the OCZ drives I see reported as failing. It is mostly OCZ drives I read about failing, but that could simply be because they sell more, I don't have the numbers.
 
I honestly wouldn't worry about the NAND lifespan, I've yet to see a single person report they had used all the write cycles, it's much more likely the controller will die first, which is what seems to happen to most of the OCZ drives I see reported as failing. It is mostly OCZ drives I read about failing, but that could simply be because they sell more, I don't have the numbers.

But if the Controller dies within 3 years you get a New Drive? (Because of the Warranty) but if if you run it out of write cycles, would that be covered by the Warranty?
 
Another drive. Especially with a Vertex since video, audio and images are typically incompressible.

So i'd be better off Storing Music + Video on my Hard Drive. Thanks DragonQ :)

So basically leave the drive for just Programs, OS and Games?

And About Page file. Should i just completely turn it off? (8GB RAM) or should i make a 4GB RamDisk and Put a 4GB Pagefile on the RamDisk?

Thanks Again.
 
Leave page file on ssd if windows needs it ...

I ve read up on this and general consensus on here and else where is let windows manage page and leave as is
 
And About Page file. Should i just completely turn it off? (8GB RAM) or should i make a 4GB RamDisk and Put a 4GB Pagefile on the RamDisk?

Thanks Again.

If you are on Windows 7 the general census is don’t mess around with the PageFile and let the system manage it.

.... and from the Windows 7 Engineering Blog

Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that
•Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
•Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
•Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.
 
So i'd be better off Storing Music + Video on my Hard Drive. Thanks DragonQ :)

So basically leave the drive for just Programs, OS and Games?

And About Page file. Should i just completely turn it off? (8GB RAM) or should i make a 4GB RamDisk and Put a 4GB Pagefile on the RamDisk?

Thanks Again.

Ramdisk for the pagefile is pointless, just keep it on the default setting - your system expects a page file and there are few better places than an SSD for it to reside. I'd also keep the documents and images on the SSD, since they are relatively small and you may need to browse/search through large quantities of them. Music and Video files are all should be moved.
 
Steve Gibson had this to say about MS ssd pagefile advise

Leo: Yeah. Very good point. Thank you, Bob. Bob Frankston. Aloke Prasad in Ohio has a question for you. He notes that Microsoft disagrees with you about swap files on SSDs. Okay, this I've got to see. You said it was unwise to use an SSD for the Windows swap file. You're not alone, by the way. We mentioned Allyn Malventano. You talked about your friend, our friend...

Steve: Mark Thompson.

Leo: ...Mark Thompson. The following article from Microsoft says otherwise. It's blogs.msdn.com. It's a May 2009 article, "Support Q&A for Solid-State Drives."
"Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well. In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that, one, pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1." Well, that's good to know. That's interesting. So in other words, there's a lot more reading going on than writing, 40 times more.

"Two, pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67 percent less than or equal to 4KB, and 88 percent less than 16KB. Three, pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62 percent greater than or equal to 128KB and 45 percent being exactly a megabyte in size." This is Windows, of course, only we're talking about. This is how Windows behaves. "In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns" - in other words, SSDs are faster with reads, they're really great with lots of small reads because the seek time is zero - "there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD." Well, that kind of makes sense. The issue really more is this thrashing of the SSD. But if the files are megabyte most of the time, does that ameliorate that?

Steve: Well, this is a perfect example of a person answering a question from their perspective, but not a different perspective. That is, if all you were asking was about performance, then I completely agree. But my focus has never been on performance in this discussion. It's been on burning the things out, which this doesn't address at all.

Leo: So all of those extra writes, regardless of the size of the writes, are not good.
Steve: Correct.

Leo: Reads we don't care about on an SSD. Lots of reading we don't care about. It's the writing we care about.
Steve: Correct, because writing is a physically fatiguing process for an SSD.

Leo: You can say that again. As the author of 13 books - no, I'm just kidding. Never do it again.

Steve: And Mark Thompson and I have discussed this at length. He's performed the experiment of using an SSD for a swap file and watching it burn out the SSD. I mean, in a relatively short time it just killed it. And so, anyway, so my advice stands, which is, if you're using an SSD, hopefully before you have gone to the expense of using an SSD, which is still much more expensive than a hard drive, you will have invested money in as much RAM as your system can handle because RAM is much less expensive, and you'll get much more, you'll get huge benefit from going to the most RAM you can possible get. And if you've done that, then turn off pagefiles. And if the only drive you have is an SSD, I stand by my advice.

I agree that, from a performance standpoint, the SSD is a perfect device for containing the pagefile. Unfortunately, Microsoft thrashes their pagefile. I mean, they're writing to it a lot. Yes, 40 times less than they're reading, but it's something that's going on all the time, pretty much. I mean, we've all seen, we've watched the hard drive light flickering there, like when nothing is going on. It's like, what is it doing? Well, who knows. But we know that it's writing to the pagefile, which it does a lot. So anyway, I think it's a perfect example of two different people with very different aspects of the problem that they're addressing. I'm looking at long-term life. Microsoft's looking at performance.
Leo: That's really great. What a great illustration of that. Depending on your point of view. I love that, yeah. So we stand by our suggestion not to use the SSD for the pagefile unless you don't mind buying SSDs regularly.
Steve: Yeah. Not so much.
 
Steve Gibson talking crap as usual, there's no way you're going to burn out an SSD by storing the page file on it.

I've had my Intel SSD almost a year and I've written less than 2TB to it, so plenty of life left yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom