Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:22:36PM -0500, Dale wrote: > >> Thanks for the additional info. As I figured, they got most of the >> kinks worked out by now and we got some dependable SSDs to buy. >> >> I found a 240GB for a little over $42.00 USA. Not bad at all. For >> those curious: > Careful, you get what you pay for. > > When I built my first PC from scratch (had laptops before that), I bought a > 128 GB Sandisk SDSSDP128G. I didn’t have a lot of money back then, it was > relatively cheap, but not the very cheapest. It doesn’t even have real > branding to speak of. No series or model name, just a label with “Sandisk”. > > I’ve been using it for 5 years for a dual-boot system (2×64 G for Windows > and Gentoo). By the end of last year it became slower and slower when > writing. Especially eix-update became sloooow. My main suspicion is that it > was quite full and there probably is no overprovisioning for wear-leveling > built into the drive. So it was writing the same cells over and over when I > did my world updates. > >> Sandisk SDSSDA240GG26 >> >> Should last me a good long while. It's the /home that keeps growing. o_O > When I built my NAS 2 years ago, I wanted the cheapest (but still from a > notable brand) SSD for the OS. So I bought a Sandisk SDSSDA120G, so > apparently from the same series you mentioned. > > A simple read test with hdparm -t reveals: > 500 GB Crucial from 2016: Timing buffered disk reads: 1596 MB in 3.00 > seconds = 531.46 MB/sec > 128 GB Sandisk from 2014: Timing buffered disk reads: 1532 MB in 3.00 > seconds = 510.60 MB/sec > 120 GB Sandisk from 2017: Timing buffered disk reads: 968 MB in 3.00 seconds > = 322.42 MB/sec > > The theoretical maximum of SATA-III is around 550 MB/s. As you can see, even > a very simple read test already shows a considerable performance drop, even > though it is the newest in the bunch (by date of purchase). > A good SSD should always be able to saturate SATA-III when reading. Most do. > Sequential writing on the cheap Sandisk topped off at around 90 MB/s, IIRC. > This is slower than an HDD. For a NAS system drive this is enough, but not > for a desktop, methinks. > > So my message is: don’t by the cheapest. >
I generally go by the model number. If a model number is the same between two different sellers but one has a better price, I'll go for the better price. If it's the same model, it shouldn't matter. One thing I did try to do, avoid the much older versions. I found some older models that were cheaper but I wanted a newer model since most of the kinks and quirks should be fixed in the newer ones, according to what folks posted on here anyway. I still haven't bought it yet. I ordered some toner cartridges a while back for my printer. The site said that the ones I ordered fits my printer. Well, it appears they found out that was a error because they removed that page and relisted it but did not include my printer model. So, I had to order a whole new set, at about $100.00 each for high yield. Needless to say, I'll be paying on that for a while. I'll try to sell the wrong ones later. I only opened one color so the others are still sealed. BTW, next time I'll find a printer that allows refilling and such too. I don't like that chip thing. It counts against my page count on color even if I print a black and white page. Still, printer does a awesome job. Beats those ink jet thingys by a country mile. Dale :-) :-)
