Seagate Ironwolf SSD 110 960GB/1.92TB $171/$330

Better options are cheaper

Samsung 860 EVO 1TB $139.99
https://www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Internal- ... B078DPCY3T

No need for NAS-oriented for SSD

v3dg666 wrote: ↑ Better options are cheaper

Samsung 860 EVO 1TB $139.99
https://www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Internal- ... B078DPCY3T

No need for NAS-oriented for SSD

Newegg eBay store has this for $129.99
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/202269476753

I'm a bit weary of the model number... Seagates website does not carry any info on the particular model number sold here ZA960NM10011. Only the 10001 version.
https://www.seagate.com/ca/en/internal- ... onwolf-ssd
I've heard ample warnings of companies pulling a fast one with this junk when they gather up all the positive reviews, then start cutting corners on the SSD, give it a similar model number, call it part of the same "family" and then trick new customers :/

Also, instead of DRAM cache, it uses a portion of your TLC cells as a SLC. This prevents data-loss in case of power-loss, but adds extra wear on your drive AND it comes at a cost of your total capacity (you can configure how much you want of it provisioned for that purpose).
Uses same TLC as the Samsung EVO (though, Samsung QVO gets even worse with a QLC).

rokask wrote: ↑ Also, instead of DRAM cache, it uses a portion of your TLC cells as a SLC. This prevents data-loss in case of power-loss, but adds extra wear on your drive AND it comes at a cost of your total capacity (you can configure how much you want of it provisioned for that purpose).
Uses same TLC as the Samsung EVO (though, Samsung QVO gets even worse with a QLC).

Nearly everything in this comment seems to be wrong or misleading. It does have dram cache, according to https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/se ... 0-sata-ssd. Also, nearly drive uses a SLC cache. Just search for "SLC cache" eg. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sa ... 446-2.html. As for your comment about SLC cache taking up storage, I can't confirm for this particular product but most drives already have the SLC cache factored into total size, or is dynamic (it gets smaller as the drives fill up), so there's no loss of storage. Any loss you experience might just be because of the GB -> GiB translation on your PC.

The endurance numbers are pretty strong, in the multiple petabytes.

I'm skeptical about @rokask's concern regarding cutting corners on SSD components. There's greater liability associated with shorting business clients on critical storage hardware, if a drive failure(s) hits. I wouldn't be surprised if this drive is employed by many more SMB clients than your typical SSD.

SamuelNapper wrote: ↑ Nearly everything in this comment seems to be wrong or misleading. It does have dram cache, according to https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/se ... 0-sata-ssd. Also, nearly drive uses a SLC cache. Just search for "SLC cache" eg. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sa ... 446-2.html. As for your comment about SLC cache taking up storage, I can't confirm for this particular product but most drives already have the SLC cache factored into total size, or is dynamic (it gets smaller as the drives fill up), so there's no loss of storage. Any loss you experience might just be because of the GB -> GiB translation on your PC.

Yeah, I might be wrong on that a bit :/ My bit of research didn't really have the DRAM cache come up but did find much chatter about the SLC stuff. Would kinda make sense in a NAS that you'd stay away from volatile memory.
I mean... I even skimmed and "Ctrl+F" the tech-sheet on the Seagate website and didn't find anything about DRAM on it. Assumed they are avoiding talking about it since it's not there.

redflagdealsguy wrote: ↑The endurance numbers are pretty strong, in the multiple petabytes.

I'm skeptical about @rokask's concern regarding cutting corners on SSD components. There's greater liability associated with shorting business clients on critical storage hardware, if a drive failure(s) hits. I wouldn't be surprised if this drive is employed by many more SMB clients than your typical SSD.

It's not just paranoia :x See this Linus discussion citing Tom's hardware as the source:

@rokask, I'm familiar with the backstory. I just don't buy it with this Enterprise line from Seagate, until I'm presented with evidence.

redflagdealsguy wrote: ↑ @rokask, I'm familiar with the backstory. I just don't buy it with this Enterprise line from Seagate, until I'm presented with evidence.

I envy your purity. I guess I've just been corrupted beyond possible belief that there is such a thing as a wholesome corporation.

v3dg666 wrote: ↑ Better options are cheaper

Samsung 860 EVO 1TB $139.99
https://www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Internal- ... B078DPCY3T

No need for NAS-oriented for SSD

Please, use it(evo drive) in NAS or DAS, I am wondering how fast it will fail.
NAS gear meant to be abused to next level, and it is an interesting deal, especially as more and more people building home storage.
SSD of this type is used as cache in NAS and DAS, really important for project loads

v3dg666 wrote: ↑Better options are cheaper

Samsung 860 EVO 1TB $139.99
https://www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Internal- ... B078DPCY3T

No need for NAS-oriented for SSD

That's not true as endurance is going to be superior. My 850s are about half worn after a year as L2ARC.

rokask wrote: ↑ Yeah, I might be wrong on that a bit :/ My bit of research didn't really have the DRAM cache come up but did find much chatter about the SLC stuff. Would kinda make sense in a NAS that you'd stay away from volatile memory.
I mean... I even skimmed and "Ctrl+F" the tech-sheet on the Seagate website and didn't find anything about DRAM on it. Assumed they are avoiding talking about it since it's not there.

It's not just paranoia :x See this Linus discussion citing Tom's hardware as the source:

Sorry but you are wrong, it does have dram and program tlc as slc cache is must for tlc based ssd, dedicated slc was very old and costly design and no longer needed.

Linus is simply a show for entertainment only, don't trust whatever their claims

Why is anyone paying $330 for a 2tb sdd? Get an NVMe for $260 that's 8x the speed.

destruct0 wrote: ↑Why is anyone paying $330 for a 2tb sdd? Get an NVMe for $260 that's 8x the speed.

NAS usage for a lot of people requires endurance more so than speed. Endurance is what this drive provides.

v3dg666 wrote: ↑Better options are cheaper

Samsung 860 EVO 1TB $139.99
https://www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Internal- ... B078DPCY3T

No need for NAS-oriented for SSD

There's very much a need for NAS oriented SSD drives. It's all about endurance.

HarryMuscle wrote: ↑
NAS usage for a lot of people requires endurance more so than speed. Endurance is what this drive provides.

HarryMuscle wrote: ↑
There's very much a need for NAS oriented SSD drives. It's all about endurance.

One would think so, right? Let's see if that holds up.
860 EVO 2400 TBW for $140 (EDIT: apparently, it's for the 4TB variant), while Ironwolf 110 (IF ZA960NM10011 equals the performance of ZA960NM10001 in the manual) 3070 TBW for $171. That's 17.11 TBW/$ vs 17.95 TBW/$. I guess it barely holds up if they didn't nerf the performance of the new rerelease. Maybe the added data backup support gives more of a heads up.

rokask wrote: ↑ One would think so, right? Let's see if that holds up.
860 EVO 2400 TBW for $140, while Ironwolf 110 (IF ZA960NM10011 equals the performance of ZA960NM10001 in the manual) 3070 TBW for $171. That's 17.11 TBW/$ vs 17.95 TBW/$. I guess it barely holds up if they didn't nerf the performance of the new rerelease. Maybe the added data backup support gives more of a heads up.

Your number is all wrong. For 860 1tb vs 110 960gb, TDW is 600 vs 1750, please do your math again. Also 110 has PLP, don't think 860 has

rokask wrote: ↑ One would think so, right? Let's see if that holds up.
860 EVO 2400 TBW for $140, while Ironwolf 110 (IF ZA960NM10011 equals the performance of ZA960NM10001 in the manual) 3070 TBW for $171. That's 17.11 TBW/$ vs 17.95 TBW/$. I guess it barely holds up if they didn't nerf the performance of the new rerelease. Maybe the added data backup support gives more of a heads up.

Which 860 has 2400tbw endurance? Is there some special part you have access to?

rokask wrote: ↑ One would think so, right? Let's see if that holds up.
860 EVO 2400 TBW for $140, while Ironwolf 110 (IF ZA960NM10011 equals the performance of ZA960NM10001 in the manual) 3070 TBW for $171. That's 17.11 TBW/$ vs 17.95 TBW/$. I guess it barely holds up if they didn't nerf the performance of the new rerelease. Maybe the added data backup support gives more of a heads up.

Kasakato wrote: ↑ Which 860 has 2400tbw endurance? Is there some special part you have access to?

4TB model and it is $599 on Amazon.ca


"Warrantied TBW for 860 EVO: 150 TBW for 250 GB model, 300 TBW for 500 GB model, 600 TBW for 1 TB model, 1,200 TBW for 2 TB model and 2,400 TBW for 4 TB model."
https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/m ... er/860evo/

Kasakato wrote: ↑ Which 860 has 2400tbw endurance? Is there some special part you have access to?

PRO 2TB model and is $529.99 on Amazon.ca

"Warrantied TBW for 860 PRO: 300 TBW for 256 GB model, 600 TBW for 512 GB model, 1,200 TBW for 1 TB model, 2,400 TBW for 2 TB model and 4,800 TBW for 4 TB model."
https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/m ... er/860pro/