The next set of tests simulates different enterprise workloads, including database, file server, Web server, and workstation configurations.
Our Iometer database workload (also categorized as transaction processing) involves purely random I/O. Its profile consists of 67% reads and 33% writes using 8 KB transfers.

The Intel SSD 910 starts to struggle compared to the R4 when it comes to mixed workload tests. Considering how close the two were in our random read benchmarks, we expected them to finish closer here. As it turns out, the R4 is two times faster at a queue depth of 16, and it pushes that margin to 3x at a queue depth of 64.

The file server profile is also completely random, but biased even more to read operations. The relative difference between the SSD 910 and R4 remains the same, 2x at a queue depth of 16 and 3x at a queue depth of 64.

With a workload set to 100% random reads at various transfer sizes, the Intel SSD 910 is much more competitive, finishing slightly ahead of the R4 at lower queue depths. As queue depth increases, though, the R4 starts to pull away.

The workstation profile consists of 80% reads and 80% random operations. In this mixed workload, the R4 once again moves past the SSD 910 at higher queue depths.
- SSD 910 Gets A True Enterprise-Class Workout
- When One SSD Is Actually Four
- Default Versus Maximum Performance Mode
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Testing Methodology
- Write Endurance
- 4 KB Random Performance
- Enterprise Workload Performance
- Sequential Performance
- Enterprise Video Streaming Performance
- Power Consumption
- Temperature
- Is Intel's SSD 910 Right For Your Enterprise Application?
Review sites never cover real world use - that is to live with it day in day out (reliability), its not all about raw speed and performance.
As best I understand it as it was descibed by the company that analyzed these failed drives, a block of NAND flash either went bad or became inaccessible by the controller rendering the drives useless and unable to be accessed by normal means of hooking it up to a SATA or USB port. Two drives, different NAND (50 nm for the G1 and 34 nm for the G2), same failure mode.
Once again, this is not definitive, just my observations but to me, I think review sites need to be a little more cautious about how they qualify intel's reputation for quality and reliability because from my perspective, intel has neither and I have since began using crucial SSD's. Hopefully, I will see much longer life from these new drives.
Intel, you should test these drive in that real world application. EMC, VM-ware and several data bases carve out some LUN's and Push the envelope. In this situation, should the device prove worthy, the 4000 price tag will come down very fast, and the data center will put it trust in product, So for those reading this for your personal home workstation and gaming ridge, you need not apply in this arena.
Intel is just about 18-months 2 years of owning the data center, Even EMC is powered by intel.
That's because this was not designed for consumers. It's not like they're marking the price up 1000% for shits and giggles. Enterprise hardware costs more to make because it must be much faster and much more reliable.
This drive, and every other piece of enterprise hardware out there, was never meant to be used by consumers.
Check out the Sequential Performance page, lists both compressible and incompressible. For all the other tests, random (incompressible) data was used.
I agree that we shouldn't use blanket statements, especially on quality, without going through the proper process. Intel has had many issues with their consumer lines, X25-M, 320, etc. I have personally worked with large distributions of their enterprise drives and they are rock solid. Other studies, including articles on this site, have shown the same in real-world scenarios.
Best of the best NAND ? firmware? overprovisioning ?
I have to admit I lol'ed at this
As best I understand it as it was descibed by the company that analyzed these failed drives, a block of NAND flash either went bad or became inaccessible by the controller rendering the drives useless and unable to be accessed by normal means of hooking it up to a SATA or USB port. Two drives, different NAND (50 nm for the G1 and 34 nm for the G2), same failure mode.
Once again, this is not definitive, just my observations but to me, I think review sites need to be a little more cautious about how they qualify intel's reputation for quality and reliability because from my perspective, intel has neither and I have since began using crucial SSD's. Hopefully, I will see much longer life from these new drives.
So in other words, you are saying that because of your experience with TWO drives, that reviewers "need to be a little more cautious about how they qualify intel's reputation for quality and reliability", in spite of the fact that Intel drives are universally acknowledged to be the most reliable in the industry.
Obviously, you got a bad break on the drives you purchased, but things like that can happen, and if you want to change drives, try Samsung, because they also are establishing a reputation for above average reliability.
True, Intel is the reliable choice, but for consumer systems this is not necessarily the 'right' choice. My wife's system drive died last year (mid Aug), and I replaced it with a 60GB OCZ Solid3 which ran $80 on sale at the time ($100 retail). Today I can get a newer, faster, more reliable 60GB SSD for ~$50, which is ~1/2 of the cost per performance on the same size drive. Next year the 60GB drives will not halve again, but we are going to see something more like what we see with traditional drives where there is a base floor of, say, $40 for a 60GB drive, and then $50-60 for 120GB, and $75-100 for 240GB. In fact we are already beginning to see this sandwiching of prices. But because SSDs are simpler to make than HDDs (no motor, no actuator, etc.) the floor may actually be lower than what HDDs hit.
But my point is that for the same cost of your single drive I can re-purchase ~2-3x over the same period and still have saved money over the same time period, and get a massive upgrade in performance and/or size with each upgrade. And because everything lives as an image, it is just a matter of a few hours of down time to hike up to Microcenter and deploy the new drive.
Buying for stability makes sense in a mission critical environment, or in a slow moving or mature technology. But in a market that is moving so quickly, it really makes more sense to buy cheap and plan on replacing it in a year or two. Otherwise it is more like being attached to a boat anchor where your initial investment ties you to antiquated technology.
BTW, 1 year out and the Solid 3 still runs great.
Early MLC OCZ drives (Core?) 2 x 128GB & 1 x the smaller one (forget capacity) = all returned. Refund not given, so when RMA replaced, straight to Flea-bay, un-opened, I pity the buyers.
Intel 1 x X25M MLC 160GB, arrived DOA. Replacement sent quickly: 3 yrs later, not a hiccup. Running as an OS drive with databases in the background too. Installs were not as fast as hoped for, due to lower write performance, but no real complaints, and 160GB was a nice size.
Intel 1 x X25E SLC 64GB, really what you would hope for in terms of performance: Absolutely no problems to date. Same usage as X25M. Installs are lightening quick. Nothing to fault except capacity.
Kingston: 2 x MLC SSD Now V+ (100GB ?) Both failed within 6 months. Yet to return second one. Usage: CrapBook, email, general usage.
Patriot: 1x MLC Wildfire 240GB, waited until BSOD issue resolved before purchase, updated FW right from the start, fault-less to date. Usage: same as Intel drives above. Under SATA-2 I reckon the X25E is faster though. No space problems.
Hope that helps someone...
The technology needs to mature still.
Hard drives were the same way... (MFM/RLL: notorious for bad sectors out of nowhere,snail performance. IDE: getting better, bad sector problems starting to go away. SATA: Bad sectors are caused by YOU now =P Interface now outpaces theoretical maximum physical speed limit.)
In a couple of years, you all will be only complaining about the size of the chips and wish that they were the size of your thumbdrives.... =P
No manufacturer will offer a 5 year warranty if less then 99% of the drives will meet this criteria... it is expensive to RMA product that expire during the warranty period.