If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial bit-rotted not
Crucial_CT256MX100SSD1, released for first MLC 16nm SSD. Bought it possibly five years ago, and implemented for data storage considerations three or more years ago. The smallest consideration is then a 30G directory in storage stasis for the hypothesized time: Info - date: 12/4/2019 - process: Compare - source: Crucial_CT256MX100SSD1:\com\ - reference: :\com\ - reference volume label: 960 EVO Basic statistics - time elapsed: 00:06:23 - overall transfer [kB/s]: 102,033 - folders processed: 1179 - files processed: 29856 - source bytes read: 37.3 GB (40,039,430,581 bytes) - source average transfer [kB/s]: 148,098 - source clean transfer [kB/s]: 151,099 - reference bytes read: 37.3 GB (40,039,430,581 bytes) - reference average transfer [kB/s]: 228,348 - reference clean transfer [kB/s]: 231,992 Errors - errors: 0 - warnings: 0 - other: 0 The above mechanics are actually a little different, as I'm migrating partitions for reconstruction. The Crucial is a copy from an original 500G plattered HDD, whereas the above operative is a bit-by-bit comparison of the 29856 processed files -- Product: CDCheck Version: 3.1.3.0 stable release Author: Mitja Perko Viz: Crucial to 960Evo, then 960Evo to comparison of files from original HDD storage location. If to say, estimably so within a minimal framework of 3 years residence on the Crucial, that there's no bit-parity errors evident (nor needless to mention perhaps a decade on the actual "source", a WD from pre-Terabyte vintage). I only work in FAT32, i.e. from OEM non-Microsoft partition utilities, which I've several such to circumvent Microsoft later constraints in deference to NTFS;- At and up to certain points, of course, where and should the a)O OS declares FAT32 illegal, or b) for but a singular instance of a NTFS drive permitted files not normally approaching 4G, at FAT32 limits, and beyond. As I would as well realize a SSD ought not be unplugged needlessly from an otherwise active state SSD controllers would normally engage to maintain their data health status. (I do however minimize OS augmentation of such routines through such as TRIM command initiations;- as some references are given to understand they're as well a contingency of the controller itself in a fallback-state, usually run in duplicity after a specific time state of SSD inactivity.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial bit-rotted not
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 19:21:59 -0500, Flasherly
wrote: I'm of the opinion they really ought to invent a 12- or 24-bay effectively RAID array, just not for the usually price of $15,000/US. This should be of my own design, exclusively for SSDs in permanent stasis with optionally USB3 connectivity solely for consumer application. $50/US should then about cover it, as the 24 SSD drives will be controller maintained within ongoing equilibrium provided by a couple, maybe four fine Sanyo/Panasonic Eneloop AAA NiMH. There will a low-power indicator and/or operational charge characteristics in normal override whenever a USB connection is present. And it should altogether be no bigger than any average 900-pp book not already scanned. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Crucial Adrenaline | Roy Colson | General | 4 | March 25th 12 09:26 PM |
Are the DIMMs on the Crucial websites the only Crucial ones that will work? | mm | General | 5 | December 5th 10 04:43 PM |
Crucial Ballistix and Crucial Ballistix Tracer | Daave | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | January 31st 08 10:10 PM |
crucial memory | Christo | General | 1 | April 26th 05 11:18 PM |
A8N-SLI with Crucial RAM | Rob Nicholson | Asus Motherboards | 26 | February 8th 05 12:30 AM |