Review on 💾 PNY CS900 250GB SSD: High-Performance 3D NAND SATA III Solid State Drive by Stephanie Martel

I made a RAID 5 home security system with 5 of these. A drive failed after 5 weeks. (Five is the magic number in this test. 5 drives in RAID 5 failed in 5 weeks.) Instead of repairing RAID 5, I figured if the drive is failing that quickly, it's just not worth repairing. I also built a RAID 0. in a Linux home install for high performance computing to help me with my PhD in Computational Electromagnetism. A drive failed in just 4 weeks. Instead of rebuilding, again using the reasoning why rebuild the same configuration when its reliability was so low, I bought an LSI (now BroadCom) NVME host bus adapter and one of the insanely fast and insanely reliable ones Samsung 970 Pro (M.2 NVMe form factor) SSD non-volatile memory modules (with SAS NVMe cable and M.2 drive bay housing). The build with the LSI HBA and 970 Pro was AMAZING - extremely high performance and impeccable reliability despite only using this configuration for 4 months. To be fair, I think the reliability comment should be given after at least one year of service, preferably after 4 or 5 years. enough raw power for a 5 disk RAID. A month after removing 5 drive RAID 5 and installing standalone SATA III SSDs for each of my security cameras, I wanted to improve the performance of this build. The maximum system capacity is 32 GB DDR3. The cameras are a mix of old H.264 and new H.265. I record everything with 24 bit color depth, 2 MPi and 20 fps. I'm transcoding two old H.264s to H.265 in realtime. I had the P1000 and CUDA libraries installed on this setup before getting the P1000 up and running for my Linux HPC. Now I only transcode H.264 to H.265 in real time (where possible) using Intel QuickSync on the i5-4430. With both of the two older cameras being triggered at the same time, my 32GB storage can store files fairly quickly. I'm using Windows 10. I also instantly mirror files to a remote server for added security. If the OS starts swapping frequently, the video files will get corrupted as this 4-core QSync setup just can't work in real time when CPU time is multiplexed for swap content. I could probably tweak some things to swap out the OS and all unnecessary processes from memory. Instead, I took the risk. Despite my two recent bad experiences with RAID failures, I took 5 Samsung 860 Pro SATA SSDs and created a RAID 0 from the MAIN (SYSTEM) drive - a very scary thing to do and highly undesirable in general. That being said, my experience (even before I knew or read the specs) with the Samsung Pro series has been very solid. I used a couple of 840 Pros to create a RAID 10 in an office a few years ago and had no problems with it. Since the new 860 Pro has an MTBF of 1.5 million hours, a written guarantee of 300 terabytes and 512MB of cache, I was willing to take the risk. I also used a block size slightly larger than the default in hopes of speeding up swap operations. That was 3 months ago and since then I haven't had any corrupted video files from my security system. It wasn't that the video files were mirrored. The point is that processors had to spend a lot of time organizing paging and the operating system could only page so fast. This RAID consumes 16.5W peak power and 0.25W standby power. My PSU had no problem meeting the power requirements. As expected, they support TRIM as well as AES-256 and IEEE1667 encryption. Defect. Samsung's Pro Series SATA III SSDs are significantly more expensive than many low-end SOHO SATA III SSDs at $88 versus $40. When creating a 5 disk RAID the price difference is $240 OR 120% more, but in my experience cheap SOHO SSDs just can't be used in RAID configurations. If a user has many PCIe lanes, I highly recommend NVMe. The reliability is fantastic and the performance is significantly better than RAID. I also test and experiment with real NVMe, SATA RAID and SAS RAID scenarios. I haven't seen the performance of a 6-disk SAS RAID even come close to that of NVMe, both in personal testing and personal real-world experience. At this point, Intel doesn't offer enough channels to satisfy my insatiable appetite for data. I have an i9 setup with 44 lanes for an extreme HPC server. I would like a x16 display, my Tesla x16, my x4 NVMe OS drive, x4 10Gbe network adapter, x4 NVMe storage, x4 mirror as system drive and x4 mirror as data drive. That's 52 lanes. AMD offers processors with over 52 lanes, but I've already put my money into the i9. In addition, AMD only supported DDR3 at the time. Now they support DDR4. AMD's slow adoption of DDR4 really hurt them, although they managed to outperform Intel in PCIe lane counts, core counts, clock speed and sometimes outperformed the Hunt, albeit with an overall weaker cache and a bad platform control node. traditional. AMD appears to be picking up steam. However, motherboard makers don't seem to be in a hurry to capitalize on AMD's latest achievements. I'm also a big fan of QuickSync. I find this to be fairly comparable to NVidia GPUs when scaling up to a 64-bit bus, although on the ever-growing bus NVidia can load and unload large amounts of data between onboard memory and the compute cores very quickly - very handy for iterative computing . Solutions. NVidia can't yet accommodate 128GB like QSync. While sharing onboard and external ("outside the kernel") memory is possible with OpenMP and even many message-passing interfaces by treating the GPU as a node and the CPU as the parent node, efficiency takes a hit great influence and negates the value. Intel needs to get past 44 PCIe lanes and NVidia needs to go beyond 48GB DDR5 to 64GB and hopefully 128GB very soon - assuming NVlink/NVbridge is available for many HPC cards, but I can only find a few of them. Therefore, these cards are cheap, ie affordable, and of very low quality. The net effect is close to putting money straight into the shredder. Don't waste your precious time, money or data. Don't be fooled by the sirens sweetly singing the low prices of these SSDs.