Caution! Troubles with 870 evo drives on cMP 5,1 !

[mikehalloran]

Anyone know if a Samsung 870 QVO 4TB will work as purely a storage drive?

QVO is meant to be write little, read many. Storage is its ideal use. I use mine for streaming VIs (virtual instruments), AppleMusic/iTunes and archiving inactive projects.

QVO is not recommended for System drives where the number of writes is many, many multiples that of a storage drive. All work files are on the 4TB System drive of my iMac Pro.

There is no difference between Mac and PC in this regard.

 

[kings79]

QVO is meant to be write little, read many. Storage is its ideal use. I use mine for streaming VIs (virtual instruments), AppleMusic/iTunes and archiving inactive projects.

QVO is not recommended for System drives where the number of writes is many, many multiples that of a storage drive. All work files are on the 4TB System drive of my iMac Pro.

There is no difference between Mac and PC in this regard.

That's exactly what I'm using it for. It just backs up all my Pro Tools sessions. Althout CCC is backing up every hour. Is this ok?

 

[mikehalloran]

That's exactly what I'm using it for. It just backs up all my Pro Tools sessions. Althout CCC is backing up every hour. Is this ok?

Not sure what you mean by "backs up all my Pro Tools sessions". If it means that you move them over when done, then yes, perfect. You aren't working on them on the QVO, just parking them in case you need to retrieve if a client needs.

I park my VIs, on mine, too — USB3 is more than fast enough for Kontakt, SampleTank, UVI etc. AppleMusic/iTunes + Photos likewise through SimLinks or directly in Mojave and later.

I don't understand using CCC for anything anymore. TimeMachine backs up hourly, rotates through an number of backups you specify and you have APFS Snapshots, an incredible tool for instant restore. CCC can only use Snapshots if TM is active so I don't see the point.

 

[kings79]

Not sure what you mean by "backs up all my Pro Tools sessions". If it means that you move them over when done, then yes, perfect. You aren't working on them on the QVO, just parking them in case you need to retrieve if a client needs.

Why? Whats confusing about this? My pro tools sessions are backed up to the QVO disk.

I don't understand using CCC for anything anymore. TimeMachine backs up hourly, rotates through an number of backups you specify and you have APFS Snapshots, an incredible tool for instant restore. CCC can only use Snapshots if TM is active so I don't see the point.

Are you telling me what program I should be using for my backups? ?

Thanks for the lowdown on QVO disks man. Appreciate it.

 

[mikehalloran]

You are not understanding me at all.

I recommend QVO for archiving projects and storing any libraries that you stream—and gave examples. That's write little/read many.

Absolutely not as targets for CCC or any other hourly backups—that's a constant write and not what QVO is designed to do. HDDs are still best for backups.

That I told you I didn't see the point of CCC anymore (it uses Time Machine and adds very little value) and you come back with

Are you telling me what program I should be using for my backups?

means that you probably can't understand anything I write in response.

Sorry that I confused you.

 

[kings79]

You are not understanding me at all.

I recommend QVO for archiving projects and storing any libraries that you stream—and gave examples. That's write little/read many.

Absolutely not as targets for CCC or any other hourly backups—that's a constant write and not what QVO is designed to do. HDDs are still best for backups.

That I told you I didn't see the point of CCC anymore (it uses Time Machine and adds very little value) and you come back with



means that you probably can't understand anything I write in response.

Sorry that I confused you.

Thanks man but I'm not confused. You mentioned you didn't understand. Not me.

Enjoy your virtual instruments and take care.

 

[KeesMacPro]

QVO is meant to be write little, read many.

Where did you get this idea?

Assuming that's the case, what good is a drive I have to be careful with to avoid "too much writing" ?

 

[zedex]

what good is a drive I have to be careful with to avoid "too much writing" ?

It's not "good". It wasn't designed to be "good" - it was designed to be cheap. Also...... it's not for *you* - it's for a market that wants it needs it and values it - specifically the enterprise server market.

FOR EXAMPLE: The netflix library gets loaded (or "written") on to an array of 156,000 SAMSUNG QVO SSDs as little as ONCE! It then gets "streamed" or "read" 724 times a day..

Does it all make sense now or do you need more flesh on the bone..? When vornhub does it's weekly buy of 156,000 SSDs - the crappier but nonetheless 'fit for purpose' QVO series is $11.56 per unit cheaper than the EVO series it saves a lot of money.. That means that the Disney Plus purchasing officer saves the enterprise $1.6m per week with no performance loss.. because QVO is a horrible "write" solution and a lossless "read" solution.

I'm not a moderator and it does seem obvious that @mikehalloran was unnecessarily combative and obnoxiously dismissive BUT he is technically correct - QVO is not for you because over the life of an SSD you do NOT need to save $11.56!!

 

[KeesMacPro]

It's not "good". It wasn't designed to be "good" - it was designed to be cheap. Also...... it's not for *you* - it's for a market that wants it needs it and values it - specifically the enterprise server market.

FOR EXAMPLE: The netflix library gets loaded (or "written") on to an array of 156,000 SAMSUNG QVO SSDs as little as ONCE! It then gets "streamed" or "read" 724 times a day..

Does it all make sense now or do you need more flesh on the bone..? When vornhub does it's weekly buy of 156,000 SSDs - the crappier but nonetheless 'fit for purpose' QVO series is $11.56 per unit cheaper than the EVO series it saves a lot of money.. That means that the Disney Plus purchasing officer saves the enterprise $1.6m per week with no performance loss.. because QVO is a horrible "write" solution and a lossless "read" solution.

I'm not a moderator and it does seem obvious that @mikehalloran was unnecessarily combative and obnoxiously dismissive BUT he is technically correct - QVO is not for you because over the life of an SSD you do NOT need to save $11.56!!

Thx for showing me a point of view from a completely different angle, I appreciate it.
You're right: this is not for me.
Even if I could use a SSD in this limited way, I prefer not to be forced to consider the limitations of a drive if I'd like to use it for another purpose in the future.

 

[zedex]

Perhaps it goes without saying but I don't know why anyone (i.e. individual users) would choose a QVO-style SSD (4-bit MLC NAND) for personal use (though - in fairness - prior to becoming obsessed with SSD speeds, controller types, protocols etc, I could easily have purchased a disk like this not knowing the typical use case).

 

[zedex]

Lets get this thread back to something resembling the TITLE because I think the 860 EVO series was brilliant (it saturated the read/write ceiling of the SATA III interface and cost next to nothing) and I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the 870 series at all - I think it all boils down to Apple abandoning any further commitment to improving the APFS kexts relying on AHCI protocols (i.e. all SATA-based SSDs).

First, we need to answer the question of whether 870 EVO works under "normal conditions" for anyone thinking about an upgrade for the cMP.

For me 'normal conditions' are HFS+ and GUID partitioning.. if something is going wrong ONLY because 870 EVO volumes are formatted with APFS then it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

SATA II and SATA III promise conformance with AHCI protocols and all it's revisions. Therefore, it is the obligation of Apple to make APFS compatible with SATA technology and my reading of this thread so far suggests that Apple has dispensed with any further plans to optimise APFS kexts based on SATA protocols.

This is the most likely factor behind a series of issues that seem to crop up endlessly in this forum. Things like incorrect disk health diagnostics and inaccurate calculations of 'free space available' ALL seem linked to APFS volumes.

If this is correct then maybe Samsung still makes a perfect (SATA-based) SSD and only Apple can fix the problems described at the beginning of this thread. Any thoughts..?

 

[MarkC426]

I don't understand using CCC for anything anymore. TimeMachine backs up hourly, rotates through an number of backups you specify and you have APFS Snapshots, an incredible tool for instant restore. CCC can only use Snapshots if TM is active so I don't see the point.

It also useful/sensible to have a bootable clone of your os disk, which is where ccc or sd come in.

 

[MarkC426]

Thanks Lou. Yeah I took the plunge and opened the packet. Seems ok. What would you do again? @flowrider

** Now onto my 870 EVO m.2 in my kryo PCIE slot. Because this is my main work drive. That is all my Pro Tools sessions run from this. I had to free up a few hundred gigs from it. Files/folders have bveen deleted but the space does not show as available.

See below the disk in question.

View attachment 1813989

Shows 40 odd Gig available but when I inspect each folder they add up to around 435Gig

View attachment 1813990

Ive repaired the disk with disk utility and turned Trim on.

Any one have any idea what might be causing this?

Your free space should appear after about 3 days.
It will be held up in TM snapshots.

 

[kings79]

Your free space should appear after about 3 days.
It will be held up in TM snapshots.

Thanks Mark.

Really? 3 days?

 

[MarkC426]

Hopefully this is the issue.
I experienced this when moving data to a different drive.

I have TechTool Pro, which shows the snapshots and sizes, and the default is to delete after 3 days.

If you only moved x amount one day, then more another day, then only a portion of the space would appear after 3 days.

 

[kings79]

Hopefully this is the issue.
I experienced this when moving data to a different drive.

I have TechTool Pro, which shows the snapshots and sizes, and the default is to delete after 3 days.

If you only moved x amount one day, then more another day, then only a portion of the space would appear after 3 days.

Think your right man. Some has come back today.

I looked at that TechTool Pro. Its over $200US! But it looks pretty comprehensive!

 

[Macschrauber]

about the 4TB QVO: #19,555

 

[KeesMacPro]

Lets get this thread back to something resembling the TITLE because I think the 860 EVO series was brilliant (it saturated the read/write ceiling of the SATA III interface and cost next to nothing) and I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the 870 series at all - I think it all boils down to Apple abandoning any further commitment to improving the APFS kexts relying on AHCI protocols (i.e. all SATA-based SSDs).

First, we need to answer the question of whether 870 EVO works under "normal conditions" for anyone thinking about an upgrade for the cMP.

For me 'normal conditions' are HFS+ and GUID partitioning.. if something is going wrong ONLY because 870 EVO volumes are formatted with APFS then it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

SATA II and SATA III promise conformance with AHCI protocols and all it's revisions. Therefore, it is the obligation of Apple to make APFS compatible with SATA technology and my reading of this thread so far suggests that Apple has dispensed with any further plans to optimise APFS kexts based on SATA protocols.

This is the most likely factor behind a series of issues that seem to crop up endlessly in this forum. Things like incorrect disk health diagnostics and inaccurate calculations of 'free space available' ALL seem linked to APFS volumes.

If this is correct then maybe Samsung still makes a perfect (SATA-based) SSD and only Apple can fix the problems described at the beginning of this thread. Any thoughts..?

If your suspect is correct, then we should sort out and list all reports and note the corresponding OS it occurs.
I understand your view on APFS , but I'm afraid that the majority of Mac users now run an OS on APFS ...
Besides, within APFS itself there has been a development too, so to speak different generations ....

TBH I'm far from an expert referring drive protocols etc, but I would not exclude the possibility that e.g. a SATA port on a Mac Pro can not be updated to the latest generation of SATA drives , because it's bound to certain other (older) hardware ....

Another possibility I guess (based on your theory), is that Apple lost interest in SATA , and plans to skip this whole protocol in the future , like happened with the diskette and the DVD drives for example...

Just some thoughts...

 

[kings79]

Pro Tools has stopped crashing since I started daily backing up to this QVO SSD instead of the HDD. Which is the theory I had and why I decided to try this switch. So far so good.

Archiving can go to HDD.

 

[mikehalloran]

Where did you get this idea?

I read the specs and reviews that stated plainly the correct uses for QVO.

 

[mikehalloran]

Pro Tools has stopped crashing since I started daily backing up to this QVO SSD instead of the HDD. Which is the theory I had and why I decided to try this switch. So far so good.

Archiving can go to HDD.

That is not a recommended use for QVO. But you have a 3 year warranty if bought from an authorised reseller and if the drive fails in that time, Samsung has good support. Since you're using it for backup, let's hope you don't lose data.

And let's be clear. You kept wanting wrong answers to be correct and I refused to give those to you.

 

[mikehalloran]

Another possibility I guess (based on your theory), is that Apple lost interest in SATA , and plans to skip this whole protocol in the future , like happened with the diskette and the DVD drives for example...

The discussion of Apple Support for 2.5" SATA III SSDs is a bit ridiculous. Except the SATA blades used in certain 2012 iMacs and MacBooks, Apple has never supported SATA SSDs — not once, not ever.

SATA I HDDs in the G5, SATA II HDDs in the Mac Pro and SATA III HDDs in Fusion drives, laptops, Minis and iMacs, yes.

This doesn't mean that SATA III SSDs can't work great in the right applications, of course, but it does help explain why Apple blocks TRIM by default. This is easily defeated by running sudo trimforce enable in Terminal after booting the first time from a SATA SSD (OS 10.10.4 and later). It's not an issue for any blade SSD (SATA, AHCI or NVMe) since the MacOS does not block TRIM in anything other than 2.5"/3.5" drives.

 

[KeesMacPro]

The discussion of Apple Support for 2.5" SATA III SSDs is a bit ridiculous

There is no discussion

 

[tsialex]

The discussion of Apple Support for 2.5" SATA III SSDs is a bit ridiculous. Except the SATA blades used in certain 2012 iMacs and MacBooks, Apple has never supported SATA SSDs — not once, not ever.

SATA I HDDs in the G5, SATA II HDDs in the Mac Pro and SATA III HDDs in Fusion drives, laptops, Minis and iMacs, yes.

This doesn't mean that SATA III SSDs can't work great in the right applications, of course, but it does help explain why Apple blocks TRIM by default. This is easily defeated by running sudo trimforce enable in Terminal after booting the first time from a SATA SSD (OS 10.10.4 and later). It's not an issue for any blade SSD (SATA, AHCI or NVMe) since the MacOS does not block TRIM in anything other than 2.5"/3.5" drives.

Ahn? Apple never supported SATA SSDs?

Don't tell that for all 2010 to 2012 (maybe even later since some iMacs had SATA drives much later and Apple offered SATA SSDs as a BTO) Macs that were sold with SATA SSDs - from the 2010 Mac Pro to 2012 MBPs.

 

[kings79]

That is not a recommended use for QVO. But you have a 3 year warranty if bought from an authorised reseller and if the drive fails in that time, Samsung has good support. Since you're using it for backup, let's hope you don't lose data.

And let's be clear. You kept wanting wrong answers to be correct and I refused to give those to you.

It gets written to 2 or 3 times a day. It's not going to die because of this.