Intel Rolls Out SSD 670p Mainstream NVMe SSD Series

[dragontamer5788]

Even still, is 140GB not enough SLC cache? Are you regularly transferring 100GB+ to your SSD? If so, then yeah, maybe QLC isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it won't work nicely as a system drive for everyone except you apparantly.

That's not how SLC cache works on modern systems. The SLC portion of the drive IS the TLC (or QLC) portion.

All you need to "lose" the SLC portion is to fill your drive to about 80% capacity. When the drive is 0% full, it uses all of the other bits as an SLC cache. But when those bits are filled with data, you've effectively "lost" the SLC portion and the drive begins to perform worse-and-worse.

That's why there are 80% full or 90% full tests. Historically, it may have been for TRIM reasons, but this SLC-cache thing today is yet another reason 80% full tests are useful.

 

[efikkan]

My working theory is that SSDs have higher rates of bitrot than people expect.

Bitrot is a symptom, not a cause. If you leave data on an SSD or flash stick, it will eventually "fade away", even though most people are not aware that this type of data rot happens much quicker on NAND flash than most other medias.

And then you have cells which are "worn out", which retains data for much shorter, or not at all. The problems I've described falls into this second category, I'm talking about getting write errors or whole parts or sectors of the SSD detected as bad.

To be clear, I don't think anyone should use any NAND flash based SSDs for "long term" storage, even SLC.

And typical filesystems (such as NTFS or EXT3) do NOT have bitrot protections. Only things like BTFS, ZFS (Linux/Unix) or ReFS (Windows), which are resilient filesystems that are reserved for enterprise users / higher-paying customers.

Most/all of which I believe bring a lot of maintenance, configuration challenges/pitfalls and potential risks of corruption due to the massively over-engineered file systems, at least for ZFS. (last time I checked it wasn't completely stable for Linux either.) In terms of reliability, I don't see what value this adds vs. a simple low maintenance software RAID1 with scrubbing. Sure these filesystems have advanced features like snapshots which are a pain to use, at least for ZFS and BTRFS. Plus optional features like compression, deduplication etc. which adds unnecessary complexity to a filesystem.

Some of these might be valid choices for a 20 TB storage volume spanning many drives, but for a work drive of 0.5-1 TB for coding, and some 3D-modelling and photo editing, what alternatives are reliable and performant?
The best setup for development workstations I've found so far is;
1 SSD for the OS (potentially another one for VMs)
1 SSD or 2 SSDs in RAID1 for a workspace
1 HDD for daily "snapshots" (perhaps some incremental rsync, with checksums of course)
Any ideas are welcome.

-----

Then there is also the question of how long you should expect a SSD to be productive? (TLS or QLC)
Personally I start planning to replace mine when they get about 2 years old, I've been burned too many times already.

 

[newtekie1]

That's not how SLC cache works on modern systems. The SLC portion of the drive IS the TLC (or QLC) portion.

All you need to "lose" the SLC portion is to fill your drive to about 80% capacity. When the drive is 0% full, it uses all of the other bits as an SLC cache. But when those bits are filled with data, you've effectively "lost" the SLC portion and the drive begins to perform worse-and-worse.

That's why there are 80% full or 90% full tests. Historically, it may have been for TRIM reasons, but this SLC-cache thing today is yet another reason 80% full tests are useful.

Nope, all the drives have a dedicated portion that is always available as SLC(yes it is on QLC but it works in SLC mode). Even when the drive is completely full, a small amount of SLC is still available. For example, on the 660p drive, 12GB SLC is always available even if the drive is 100% full. Even that 12GB is more than enough for a system drive.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Nope, all the drives have a dedicated portion that is always available as SLC(yes it is on QLC but it works in SLC mode). Even when the drive is completely full, a small amount of SLC is still available. For example, on the 660p drive, 12GB SLC is always available even if the drive is 100% full. Even that 12GB is more than enough for a system drive.

Uhm, no...
The SLC cache size depends on the drive size.

Edit: The same applies to the 670p.

 

[newtekie1]

Uhm, no...
The SLC cache size depends on the drive size.

Is that not what I said? The 1TB 660p drive always has 12GB SLC cache available, even when full. It was clear we were talking about the 1TB drive based on the 140GB statement on the maximum size. Do you struggle with understanding context and reading comprehension?

Or do you just like arguing about things that have nothing to do with the point of the discussion? Because so far you've chimed in about copying things over from a NAS when we were talking about installing games and now you are arguing that I'm wrong because the amount of fixed space on the drive varies by the size of the drive which has nothing to do with the point we were discussing about how QLC drives always have some SLC cache even when full(which your information proves I'm correct in, thanks).

 

[TumbleGeorge]

LoL so nerves for fake SLC region in QLC flash

 

[minami]

This SSD still looks better than the WD SN350, but I doubt I'll ever pick it up.

I do not go through the file system to inspect the blocks on the SSD.
I don't get confused by small file accesses. This allows for the highest speed inspection.
Even TLC type NAND has a slow read speed for slightly tired blocks.
What about QLC? The results can be even worse.

I ran the same test on a TLC type SSD that had been sitting for 3 years and 7 months. The total write capacity of this SSD was only 1.67TB. 1.67TB!
Even though we were reading the blocks directly, the read speed was at least 2MB/s and the average speed was about 50MB/s. Even the reserved area, which was prepared as an over-provisioned area, was about 160MB/sec.
We found some small corruptions in the jpeg files stored on the SSD. This is because error correction is not perfect and lost charge cannot be recovered.
With the exception of DRAM-like self-refresh, the more powerful error correction is implemented, the less reliable the NAND cells themselves appear to be.

The Genesis Mini, a reissued gaming hardware, uses SLC Flash inside, despite its high cost.
The reason for this is that not turning it on for a few years can cause it to fail. This is to avoid a situation where the device is already broken before it is even taken out of the box.

It is a good idea to understand the characteristics of QLC before using it. The temp folder is a temporary place to store games.

It is not recommended to use it as a boot drive.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Intel claims 370 P/E cycles or 0.2 DWPD for these drives...

Wow. That's a lot worse than I thought. I was of course erroring on the side of being optimistic when I stated 600...

My working theory is that SSDs have higher rates of bitrot than people expect.

I'll agree with this. However, there must be a caveat stated, it depends greatly on the manufacturing process, the quality of materials used and the attention taken to keep the entire process running with precision.

Personally, I'd like to see all makers of SSD's provide a utility that can allow the end user to manually lock the drive into SLC, MLC or TLC mode, at the cost of storage space.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Is that not what I said? The 1TB 660p drive always has 12GB SLC cache available, even when full. It was clear we were talking about the 1TB drive based on the 140GB statement on the maximum size. Do you struggle with understanding context and reading comprehension?

Or do you just like arguing about things that have nothing to do with the point of the discussion? Because so far you've chimed in about copying things over from a NAS when we were talking about installing games and now you are arguing that I'm wrong because the amount of fixed space on the drive varies by the size of the drive which has nothing to do with the point we were discussing about how QLC drives always have some SLC cache even when full(which your information proves I'm correct in, thanks).

You said the 660p, you didn't specify drive size, which clearly matters, as each drive size has a different SLC cache size.

 

[newtekie1]

You said the 660p, you didn't specify drive size, which clearly matters, as each drive size has a different SLC cache size.

The fact we were talking about the drive with 140GB maximum cache and the 1TB drive was mentioned in the conversation before should be enough context to figure out what size I was referencing.

But does the drive size change the point I was making? Like I said, do you just like arguing about things that have nothing to do with the point of the conversation or is there some other reason you constantly go off point?

Wow. That's a lot worse than I thought. I was of course erroring on the side of being optimistic when I stated 600...

Yeah, but that's literally just the TBW rating of the drive divided by the capacity of the drive. The reality is that drives are always underrated. A manufacturer would be stupid to warranty the drive for right on the edge of it's actually endurance.

 

[TheLostSwede]

The fact we were talking about the drive with 140GB maximum cache and the 1TB drive was mentioned in the conversation before should be enough context to figure out what size I was referencing.

But does the drive size change the point I was making? Like I said, do you just like arguing about things that have nothing to do with the point of the conversation or is there some other reason you constantly go off point?


Yeah, but that's literally just the TBW rating of the drive divided by the capacity of the drive. The reality is that drives are always underrated. A manufacturer would be stupid to warranty the drive for right on the edge of it's actually endurance.

You seem to think it's ok to be fast and loose with what is and what isn't a fact, I don't, as details matter. Blanket statements aren't helpful.
Clearly the smaller drive capacity doesn't have 12GB of SLC cache even when full.
Also, only Intel drives does this, other drives actually runs out of SLC cache, such as this lovely thing.

Samsung 870 QVO 1 TB Review - Terrible, Do Not Buy

The Samsung 870 QVO is the company's new QLC-based SSD that reaches capacities of up to 8 TB. In our Samsung 870 QVO review we're taking a close look not only at synthetics, but also real-life performance, which is surprisingly weak, especially considering they want $115 for the reviewed 1 TB...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[newtekie1]

You seem to think it's ok to be fast and loose with what is and what isn't a fact, I don't, as details matter. Blanket statements aren't helpful.
Clearly the smaller drive capacity doesn't have 12GB of SLC cache even when full.

But that wasn't the point of the conversation now was it? The point was that the drive will always have at least some SLC cache, which is always true regardless of drive size.

Also, only Intel drives does this, other drives can actually run out of SLC cache.

I have yet to see a drive that runs out of SLC cache completely when the drive is full.

 

[TheLostSwede]

But that wasn't the point of the conversation now was it? The point was that the drive will always have at least some SLC cache, which is always true regardless of drive size.



I have yet to see a drive that runs out of SLC cache completely when the drive is full.

See my update above.
Or this, even if it's not nearly as extreme.

Sabrent Rocket Q 1 TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review

Priced at $130 for the 1 TB version, the Sabrent Rocket Q SSD is one of the most affordable SSDs on the market. It uses a new Phison E12S controller, which has better thermal performance and can operate with smaller DRAM cache. Write speeds are impressive due to 250 GB of pseudo-SLC cache.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[newtekie1]

See my update above.
Or this, even if it's not nearly as extreme.

Sabrent Rocket Q 1 TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review

Priced at $130 for the 1 TB version, the Sabrent Rocket Q SSD is one of the most affordable SSDs on the market. It uses a new Phison E12S controller, which has better thermal performance and can operate with smaller DRAM cache. Write speeds are impressive due to 250 GB of pseudo-SLC cache.

www.techpowerup.com

I don't see anywhere in either of those reviews that say the SLC cache completely goes away when the drive is full, or actually the originaly statement was that the SLC cache is gone when the drive is just 80% full.

Please, show me exactly where in either of those two reviews it says the SLC Cache is entirely gone when the drive is 80% full.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I don't see anywhere in either of those reviews that say the SLC cache completely goes away when the drive is full, or actually the originaly statement was that the SLC cache is gone when the drive is just 80% full.

Please, show me exactly in either of those two reviews where it says the SLC Cache is entirely gone when the drive is 80% full.

Uhm, then you clearly have not understood how the SLC cache works on most drives. Unlike Intel, other companies do NOT have a fixed minimum amount of SLC cache, they have a set amount and when you run out of that, you're writing straight to flash, be it TLC or QLC, at that NANDs native speed.
It makes me wonder if you understood anything of what you wrote yourself above, about Intel's SLC cache being a minimum fixed size.
Who mentioned anything about 80% full? The Samsung drive runs out of SLC cache after you write 42GB to it, as that's how large the SLC cache is. Hence why the write speeds drop to ~100MB/s.
The Sabrent drive has a much larger SLC cache at 240GB, but once you run out, you're down to ~150MB/s.
Intel's 670p never drops that low, as their small, fixed SLC cache prevents that. As you can see below, the 670p never really drops below 400MB/s.

Intel SSD 670p M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Scaling QLC to New Heights

144 layers of QLC flash

www.tomshardware.com

I think you need to take a refresher course on how SSDs and SLC cache works.

 

[newtekie1]

Uhm, then you clearly have not understood how the SLC cache works on most drives. Unlike Intel, other companies do NOT have a fixed minimum amount of SLC cache, they have a set amount and when you run out of that, you're writing straight to flash, be it TLC or QLC, at that NANDs native speed.
It makes me wonder if you understood anything of what you wrote yourself above, about Intel's SLC cache being a minimum fixed size.
Who mentioned anything about 80% full? The Samsung drive runs out of SLC cache after you write 42GB to it, as that's how large the SLC cache is. Hence why the write speeds drop to ~100MB/s.
The Sabrent drive has a much larger SLC cache at 240GB, but once you run out, you're down to ~150MB/s.
Intel's 670p never drops that low, as their small, fixed SLC cache prevents that. As you can see below, the 670p never really drops below 400MB/s.

Intel SSD 670p M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Scaling QLC to New Heights

144 layers of QLC flash

www.tomshardware.com

I think you need to take a refresher course on how SSDs and SLC cache works.

That's not how SLC cache works at all. All drives, including Intel's, will run out of SLC cache if you write a lot of data to them, even TLC drives do this. The cache fills up, and once it is full you start writing directly to the TLC/QLC and speeds drop.

The 6GB minimum is the smallest size the cache will be on the 512GB 660p as space on the drive is used up. It does not guarantee that the 6GB will never be filled or will always be available. If the drive is 80% full, and you write 15GB to it, 6GB will be written at the fast SLC speed, the other 9GB will write directly to QLC at the much slower QLC speed. This is fundamental caching stuff here. The informational pictures you posted just a few posts up explain exactly this. Did you not understand what you were posting?

And if you actually read the Tom's hardware article you posted, they say that the SLC cache is filled on the 670p, the only reason it writes at 400MBps after the cache is full is because the drive can actually write directly to QLC at 400MBps. There isn't always 6GB of SLC cache available on the drive when you are writing large amounts of data to it.

And as for the 80% full, that was the original statement about SLC cache that started this discussion. The original statement was that once a drive is 80% full, there is no SLC cache anymore. Come on, you gotta keep up with the conversation if you're going to participate. That is the statement you are defending and the statement I disagreed with.

At this point it is obvious that your complete lack of understanding on how the technology works and your complete inability to stay on point in the discussion means it is pointless to continue this discussion with you.

 

[TheLostSwede]

That's not how SLC cache works at all. All drives, including Intel's, will run out of SLC cache if you write a lot of data to them, even TLC drives do this. The cache fills up, and once it is full you start writing directly to the TLC/QLC and speeds drop.

The 6GB minimum is the smallest size the cache will be on the 512GB 660p as space on the drive is used up. It does not guarantee that the 6GB will never be filled or will always be available. If the drive is 80% full, and you write 15GB to it, 6GB will be written at the fast SLC speed, the other 9GB will write directly to QLC at the much slower QLC speed. This is fundamental caching stuff here. The informational pictures you posted just a few posts up explain exactly this. Did you not understand what you were posting?

And if you actually read the Tom's hardware article you posted, they say that the SLC cache is filled on the 670p, the only reason it writes at 400MBps after the cache is full is because the drive can actually write directly to QLC at 400MBps. There isn't always 6GB of SLC cache available on the drive when you are writing large amounts of data to it.

And as for the 80% full, that was the original statement about SLC cache that started this discussion. The original statement was that once a drive is 80% full, there is no SLC cache anymore. Come on, you gotta keep up with the conversation if you're going to participate. That is the statement you are defending and the statement I disagreed with.

Seriously? You can't have read a thing about the Intel drives then. See that part at the bottom, static SLC span? It doesn't change and is fixed at all times, hence why the performance isn't utter pants when the non static SLC cache runs out.

From Tom's hardware.

Like the SSD 665p, the 2TB SSD 670p’s cache measures up to 280GB when the device is empty, but the dynamic cache remains available until the drive is 85% full, an improvement over the 75% threshold with the older drive. At that point and beyond, the drive will operate with only a static SLC cache that measures 6GB per 512GB of capacity.

It's clearly no point discussing this with you, as you've made your mind up how things are without understanding the basics.

 

[newtekie1]

Seriously? You can't have read a thing about the Intel drives then. See that part at the bottom, static SLC span? It doesn't change and is fixed at all times, hence why the performance isn't utter pants when the non static SLC cache runs out.

From Tom's hardware.


It's clearly no point discussing this with you, as you've made your mind up how things are without understanding the basics.

You literally just confirmed what I said and proved yourself wrong. Wow. You really don't understand what you are posting do you?

But lets do this. Explain to me this. If your idea of how SLC cache works on Intel drives is true. Why does the 2TB 660P drop to 100MBps write speeds when the SLC cache is full even though it supposedly has the same 24GB minimum SLC cache size(or Static-SLC Span if you want to call it that) as the 670p? Answer me that one question.

 

[TheLostSwede]

You literally just confirmed what I said and proved yourself wrong. Wow. You really don't understand what you are posting do you?

But lets do this. Explain to me this. If your idea of how SLC cache works on Intel drives is true. Why does the 1TB 660P drop to 100MBps write speeds when the SLC cache is full even though it supposedly has the same 12GB minimum SLC cache size(or Static-SLC Span if you want to call it that) as the 670p? Answer me that one question.

Eh? The 660p doesn't have a static cache, that was introduced with the 665p, it only had the dynamic cache.

 

[newtekie1]

Eh? The 660p doesn't have a static cache, that was introduced with the 665p, it only had the dynamic cache.

Yes, it does. See your info graphic above. Here I post it for you in case you forgot or didn't understand what you were posting:

So that is direct from Intel that both the 660p and 670p have the same size static cache.

Both have the same 6GB per 512GB Static SLC cache size.

And from the first Tom's hardware article you posted:

The Intel SSD 670p has the same SLC cache capacity as the 660p

And from the previous page confirming the 660p has the same static 6GB SLC minimum per 512GB:

So, now that we have confirmed that the 660p has the same static SLC cache size as the 670p I'll ask you again: Explain to me this. If your idea of how SLC cache works on Intel drives is true. Why does the 2TB 660P drop to 100MBps write speeds when the SLC cache is full even though it definitely has the same 24GB minimum SLC cache size(or Static-SLC Span if you want to call it that) as the 670p? Answer me that one question.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah, but that's literally just the TBW rating of the drive divided by the capacity of the drive.

That's an assumption on your part. My experience and testing says otherwise.

The reality is that drives are always underrated.

Again, experience says otherwise.

A manufacturer would be stupid to warranty the drive for right on the edge of it's actually endurance.

Are you saying manufacturers make perfect decisions all the time? If so, history would like to have a few words with you.

 

[efikkan]

Yeah, but that's literally just the TBW rating of the drive divided by the capacity of the drive. The reality is that drives are always underrated. A manufacturer would be stupid to warranty the drive for right on the edge of it's actually endurance.

So when manufacturers keeps increasing the endurance ratings while continuously using lower quality flash, and people keep reporting about reliability issues, you don't think they inflate these ratings?

Pretty much in every area, manufacturers are estimating how much their average users will actually use the product.
It's no accident why enterprise SSDs cost up to several times what their consumer counterparts cost. Or some analogs;
Graphics cards - put one under sustained load, and it may burn out after 3-6 months (e.g. mining), while Tesla cards will not.
CPUs - Xeons rated for 24-7 operations tend to cost 20-30% extra or more, for "the same specs".
Or something very different - Internet connections, if everyone used the bandwidth they paid for, ISPs would collapse.
Many products and services are based on the assumption of people not using what they pay for.

Companies tries to estimate how much/hard their user base will use a product, and calculates risk for price, warranty terms, RMAs etc. If a company can lower their quality and the increased profits outweigh the RMAs and the reputation isn't too damaged, they may do it.

 

[minami]

個人的には、SSDのすべてのメーカーが、ストレージスペースを犠牲にして、エンドユーザーがドライブをSLC、MLC、またはTLCモードに手動でロックできるユーティリティを提供することを望んでいます。

I agree with you. I too would like to be able to set the level for NAND.

Vendors will not be able to exploit the huge premium price of SLC SSDs, but those who reject the low reliability of QLC will buy more SSDs.
If I could use a 2TB QLC-SSD as a 256GB SLC-SSD, I would happily use it as my boot drive without worrying about the degradation of the NAND cells and the deterioration of data read performance due to degradation.
You can also expect a dramatically longer life for video editing tasks. You won't have to worry about writing a lot of data by browsing video sites.
If it can be applied to smartphones as well, it will maintain its comfort even after more abuse than before.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Some of these might be valid choices for a 20 TB storage volume spanning many drives, but for a work drive of 0.5-1 TB for coding, and some 3D-modelling and photo editing, what alternatives are reliable and performant?
The best setup for development workstations I've found so far is;
1 SSD for the OS (potentially another one for VMs)
1 SSD or 2 SSDs in RAID1 for a workspace
1 HDD for daily "snapshots" (perhaps some incremental rsync, with checksums of course)
Any ideas are welcome.

I've been meaning to experiment with 1TB to 2TB partitions that live on a NAS, served over iSCSI, on a 1Gbps ethernet network. The NAS stuff would be hard drives in striped+mirrored configuration (KISS principle). 4-hard drives x 8TBs for 16TBs of storage (16TBs redundant). That serves "reliable". SMB / CIFS / NFS aren't very "reliable" in my experience. iSCSI seems to be a lot better.

The 1Gbps network connection is the bottleneck: 90MB/s. I've been looking for cheap 10Gbps so that I can actually reach the speed of modern hard drives over the network (~200MBps x2 == 400MBps or 4Gbps required). 2.5Gbit ethernet is beginning to get popular these days, but its hard to find 5Gbit or 10Gbit ethernet at reasonable prices. SFP+ / Fiber Optics might be the better option.

All in all, I probably should just experiment with 1Gbps first and maybe just 2x mirrored hard drives (simplest redundancy setup, no effort to optimizing speeds because of the 1Gbps bottleneck)

--------

All slower than a typical SSD of course. But a dedicated NAS has many "reliability" benefits. SSD-only for the local computer. iSCSI to virtually map partitions on the NAS into the workstation (and if my workstation dies due to SSD issues, I can theoretically just reformat everything and just transfer the iSCSI target over to the next build).

 

[newtekie1]

So when manufacturers keeps increasing the endurance ratings while continuously using lower quality flash, and people keep reporting about reliability issues, you don't think they inflate these ratings?

That does not happen. Every time a higher bit per cell of flash is used in SSDs the endurance ratings are always lower than the previous. When MLC drives came out, their endurance ratings were significantly lower than SLC drives. As MLC matured the endurance ratings increased, but they never got to SLC levels. When TLC came out, the endurance ratings were significantly lower than MLC. As TLC matured the endurance ratings went up, but never matched MLC. Now the same is happening with QLC.

That's an assumption on your part. My experience and testing says otherwise.

Again, experience says otherwise.

Are you saying manufacturers make perfect decisions all the time? If so, history would like to have a few words with you.

And my experience contradicts yours. Of the hundreds of QLC drives I've sold through my shop at this point, not one has come back with a NAND failure(I have had a few come back due to controller failures).