OWC SSD's Die Fast? [Archive]

mangrove

Aug 28, 2010, 03:24 PM

there is a two year warranty on it.

SSDs should last years so I'm not sure why it died so fast

The OWC warranties are either 3 or 5 years-not 2 years. I do not know where you heard about 6 months and die. Never heard that before your post. If that where the case all the SSD manufacturers (and that is most) with 3 year warranties will be replacing them 6 times during the first units warranty period.

Fact is things break. I have had plenty of platter drives go in my lifetime so far-maybe 12 to15 up until now-that's one a year on average.

CountlovE

Aug 28, 2010, 03:37 PM

Well I guess time will tell. My friend thought the same thing until it happened to him.

Honumaui

Aug 28, 2010, 03:42 PM

Hellhammer

Aug 28, 2010, 03:45 PM

mangrove

Aug 28, 2010, 04:30 PM

I've seen several OCZ Vertex 2's dying quite soon and some being DOA so it could be an issue with SF-1200 controller. However, both, OCZ and OWC have great customer service so just give them a call and your issue will be solved

Good point about the controllers. Many months back on the high priced OWC's they had a SF-1500 controller issue and dropped back to the 1200's. I confirmed that about 7-10 days ago with OWC. They are still using the 1200's until the 1500 issue is worked out-what ever that means?

mangrove

Aug 28, 2010, 04:35 PM

look at how many OCZ fail ?

yeah bummer for sure the one thing would love to hear how OWC handles the return so if you can keep us posted how they handle the return would be thankful ;)

they dont call it the comfy cozy snuggles edge :) bleeding fits ;)

I was daisy chaining some OWC mercury elite pro alu enclosures and one of the FW800 ports on one was dead. Called customer service and even on that small item they 2day aired one to me on a cross-over shipment.

No questions asked- just replaced it and the replacement works fine.:D

iSavant

Aug 28, 2010, 06:04 PM

OWC gets all my memory business and most of my drive business based on the fantastic customer service I have received on the few items that had problems.
:)

Honumaui

Aug 28, 2010, 07:21 PM

I have used them a ton and only had one issue with memory when the mac 1,1 came out had to return a stick that the glue holding the heatsink on melted :)

will be curious how the SSD come out in the long run ? like in two years when and if mine die :)

alphaod

Aug 28, 2010, 08:18 PM

I have an SSD from 3 years ago; still working great... I've also owned SSDs that die in a day after using.

barefeats

Aug 28, 2010, 08:23 PM

I've had SSDs and HDDs fail even when relatively new. There is no perfect device. Without a regular backup plan, you are taking a risk with any storage device.

sboerup

Aug 29, 2010, 11:52 AM

I had a Vertex that died on me TWICE. Had to RMA twice. Then I sold it and went Intel. Both my Intel SSDs are still going strong after over 1.5 years.

andreiru

Aug 7, 2011, 04:13 AM

It looks like my OWC SSD just went belly up. It doesn't mount at all and isn't visible anywhere. Under eight months young. We should have a survey of people posting their brand and time of death in a chart somewhere. That would be useful reading before buying one.

highdefw

Aug 7, 2011, 04:36 AM

Had my 120GB OWC since late January. So far so good...

FrankHahn

Aug 7, 2011, 04:54 AM

After reading the posts in this thread, I started to worry about the stock SSD in my 2010 Air. How are the Apple stock SSDs compared to those from OWC, OCZ, etc?

Hellhammer

Aug 7, 2011, 04:55 AM

After reading the posts in this thread, I started to worry about the stock SSD in my 2010 Air. How are the Apple stock SSDs compared to those from OWC, OCZ, etc?

Apple uses Toshiba and Samsung in MacBook Airs and apparently those two brands seem to be the most reliable at the moment. Nothing to worry about.

t0rr3s

Aug 7, 2011, 06:39 AM

mine went at 6 months. back to my trusted scorpio black.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1170854

maflynn

Aug 7, 2011, 06:46 AM

Mine is still chugging and while not a year old. I expect it to last, there was a reason why I opted for OWC. Great reputation and solid products.

Macshroomer

Aug 7, 2011, 01:54 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I buy my Mac's stripped down, bone stock with exception to processor version and then max them out with drives and ram from OWC. I have had ram go bad, sent my SSD in for a firmware upgrade. In return I get brand new sets of ram and they even gave me a brand new SSD instead of the old one with firmware, they are truly above and beyond in product support and customer service, I don't bother with anyone else...

That said, I do regular backups of my boot drives via Time Machine and off site storage, my intel 160GB has been faultless in my MacBook Pro as well...

TheStrudel

Aug 7, 2011, 02:52 PM

At the risk of repeating a common piece of forum wisdom, I'd point out that web forum posters tend to be the most tech-savvy, unsatisfied, unlucky subgroup of users...because the 90% of users who are fine report nothing.

What you may see here as a higher incidence of failure may be nothing more than selection bias.

After all, Intel recently had an issue with their new batch of SSDs. When it comes to storage, I'd just treat SSDs like HDDs - expect failures, back up, view the warranty as nothing more than a free replacement in case of early failure.

chrono1081

Aug 7, 2011, 02:56 PM

I'm pretty sure the OWC 120 I just bought has a 3-year warranty. I think the rule-of-thumb is: any electronics can die at any time.

This.

It doesn't matter the brand, how long you've had it, etc. Any electronic can go at any time. Its completely common believe it or not.

At work the other day we got 20 new laptop hard drives in, 4 got sent back because they were DOA. Its normal with electronics.

reputationZed

Aug 7, 2011, 07:41 PM

Hellhammer

Aug 8, 2011, 02:22 AM

Sensamic

Aug 8, 2011, 10:27 AM

I bought my 240GB OWC SSD on April last year and since then not a single problem ever. Im very very happy with its performance and stability.

I highly recommend OWC. No need for TRIM and the speed is still top top after 6 months since the last time I formatted the drive.

deconstruct60

Aug 10, 2011, 11:16 AM

We should have a survey of people posting their brand and time of death in a chart somewhere. That would be useful reading before buying one.

Actually not. Unless you account for the drives that do not fail you're not getting a useful reading. 100 failed drives out of 100,000 is one thing. 100 out of 1,000,000 is another.

That's why posts about "my acme inc. drive failed so they are all generally bad" aren't all that overall informative. Any drive manufacturer who sells a large number of drives will have a number of field failures.

wsee1

Sep 2, 2011, 04:35 PM

I have two MACbook Pros running OWC SSD 250GB Mercury Extreme Pro SSDs. I just lost my third one today. Purchased in May 2011 first two lasted about three months with two week seperation in failures and the there has just lasted just 6 weeks. We'll see how long the fourth drive lasted. I'm not swapping in one Macbook Pro and using the original HD in the other. Slow but works, for now.

nambuccaheadsau

Sep 2, 2011, 05:42 PM

Mercury Extreme is running just great over 12 months old.

Only thing to be very, very wary of is updating these so-called TRIM patches. Not necessary on Mercury Extreme as they have a built-in 'garbage removal' system. The patch can cause problems and if you have activated it, do a Google on removing.

The Mercury Extreme has a three year warranty so no problems. Over the years have experienced ALL major brand drives failing, even brand new out of the box.

tripleg

Sep 2, 2011, 07:36 PM

powerless

Sep 2, 2011, 08:37 PM

I had a 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 which lasted 2 minutes; refunded.

My OWC 115GB 3G is currently being RMA'd; that lasted just over a month.

CrAkD

Sep 3, 2011, 03:00 AM

not unless its ocz. your lucky if anything ocz even works right out the box.

VirtualRain

Sep 3, 2011, 03:03 AM

Bought an OWC 120GB SSD in January and started having problems with it in April but couldn't trace it to an error on the disk (running all sorts of diags to find out). After yet another disk crash last week I finally got an error code that was reproducible. Set up a live chat with OWC and they sent me an RMA number. Frustrating and definitely not instilling a lot of confidence in me. Not in regards to OWC as they have been great but in the SSD technology itself.

Hang in there. SSD's can be rock solid reliable. Unfortunately, Sandforce based drives (such as OWC, OCZ, and a few others) are notorious for reliability issues.

FWIW, I purchased a WD Green drive at Christmas that's gone tits-up already... So even good old HD's are not infallible. My 3 Intel Gen1 SSD's from 2009 are still working as good as the day I got them (knock on wood).

derbothaus

Sep 3, 2011, 12:57 PM

Hang in there. SSD's can be rock solid reliable. Unfortunately, Sandforce based drives (such as OWC, OCZ, and a few others) are notorious for reliability issues.

FWIW, I purchased a WD Green drive at Christmas that's gone tits-up already... So even good old HD's are not infallible. My 3 Intel Gen1 SSD's from 2009 are still working as good as the day I got them (knock on wood).

Especially "good old HD's". One of the major factors for SSD was the supposed (lack of) premature death. Oh well, growing pains. So far no issues with my SF-2200 OWC's. Time will tell. I've got the 5-year warranty.

J&JPolangin

Sep 3, 2011, 07:03 PM

My intel G2 80Gb SSD (in my HP DM-4) and my crucial m225 128Gb SSD (in my whitebook) have been running great going on a year and a half now...

I originally had the 80Gb intel drive in the whitebook but wanted to dual boot and put the crucial drive in for the extra partition after a few months of using only OSX and having some issues at work not being able to load winXP (unfortunately).

My WD Scorpio blue 64Gb SSD is going on 2 yrs old and its been in an eeePC 1000H (now sold), the HP DM-4 (above that got swapped to the intel drive when I got a deal on the intel drive) and it now resides in an AMD X6 1090 build = still going strong.

I just got a corsair Nova (60Gb SSD) to install in a Core i7 - 2600K build also (and hope it will be reliable like my other 3 SSD's above).

Just some of my own experiences based on my machines with winXP, win7 and OSX, good luck guys and gals.

thorsten

Nov 24, 2011, 01:17 PM

derbothaus

Nov 24, 2011, 01:26 PM

Mine died as well after only 2 months. Mac Book Pro froze while working in Powerpoint, restart stopped with a gray screen. Only after I disconnected the internal SSD I was able to boot from USB drive.

Return was not a problem and got a new one immediately. Still was without a computer for a week and lost productivity. I purchased the SSD for increased reliability, now it seems to be the opposite.

What MBP? The 6G OWC's do not work in the 2008 Models. They die or are not negotiated correctly on the bus only 1.5Gb not 3Gb. There is a super small bit of text on OWC's site mentioning this. Apparently it is a Sandforce thing and 2008 Macbook Pro Unibody.

nambuccaheadsau

Nov 24, 2011, 03:17 PM

Guess it is all a matter of chance like anything else. OWC SSD running as smooth as silk after two years whereas a G.Skill Falcon failed in four days. Still believe G.Skill make reasonable drives.

t0rr3s

Nov 24, 2011, 08:49 PM

ever since my owc extreme pro 120gb went tits up, i've been back to my tried and trusted scorpio blacks for my mbp and mac pro. funnily, i don't really feel much of a diff with the scorpio black on my mbp, app launching and all. i don't reboot much if at all, so that kinda softens the blow a tad.

Tricone

Nov 24, 2011, 10:44 PM

Like the OP, I was very close to purchasing an OWC Mercury SSD to install as a system drive in a MacPro. However, I'm a bit skeptical now. I'm looking for something STABLE. Regardless of superior warranty and support, if an OWC drive goes down, you're up the preverbal creek until it can be replaced.

Having said that, I'm going on 1-year with my 2-drive iMac CTO, one of which is the Apple 256GB SSD. Much slower than the OWC Mercury, but so far, no issues.

Elisha

Nov 24, 2011, 11:14 PM

Darby67

Nov 24, 2011, 11:21 PM

ever since my owc extreme pro 120gb went tits up, i've been back to my tried and trusted scorpio blacks for my mbp and mac pro.

Uh? So you just called it a day and didn't RMA it? Easy to do, one of mine died and OWC customer service was great, back up and running in no time.

Hellhammer

Nov 25, 2011, 06:10 AM

Most of these companies don't actually make these drives, they just buy from original manufacturer and rebrand them. OCZ is a prime example of this! So most times they don't go through the same QC. They are just crossing their fingers here and give you a decent warranty while they are at it.
Stick with OEMs like Crucial, Intel, Samsung and etc...

Not entirely true. There isn't an original manufacturer of SandForce based SSDs. SandForce (soon to be LSI) only makes the controller. The OEM (OCZ, OWC etc) designs and manufactures (or use a manufacturer like Foxconn) the actual PCB. That allows them to choose the NAND supplier and decide the NAND configuration as well.

Besides, there are only a few companies which manufacture everything from the controller to the final PCB. Crucial uses Marvell controllers in their SSDs, but they do manufacture the NAND (subsidiary of Micron). Intel uses Marvell controller in their 520 Series as well, but the other SSDs use an in-house controller.

Actually, OCZ will enter the NAND business next year, so they will also have a unique SSD (Indilinx i.e. OCZ controller + OCZ NAND).

thorsten

Nov 25, 2011, 06:32 AM

What MBP? The 6G OWC's do not work in the 2008 Models. They die or are not negotiated correctly on the bus only 1.5Gb not 3Gb. There is a super small bit of text on OWC's site mentioning this. Apparently it is a Sandforce thing and 2008 Macbook Pro Unibody.

I have the mid 2009 model and bought the 3G OWC model. But it would not work with Firmware 1.7. I had to manually downgrade to Firmware 1.6 which results in only 1.5 Gb SATA speed.
Still great speed improvements.

derbothaus

Nov 25, 2011, 03:37 PM

Still great speed improvements.

And still somewhat irritating. :cool:

dyn

Nov 26, 2011, 10:21 AM

Then go see a doctor or use the proper word ;)

My OCZ drives are running just fine and they are already 2 and a half years old. Speed has stayed stable over time which means that I don't see much difference in benchmarks, real life stuff, etc. They work and they still are fast. Lot's of others have that exact same experience with OCZ and any other brand. It's just like with hdds, everybody has its own experiences and its own favourite. Simply put: there is no good or bad ssd.

t0rr3s

Nov 26, 2011, 11:04 AM

Uh? So you just called it a day and didn't RMA it? Easy to do, one of mine died and OWC customer service was great, back up and running in no time.

Uh yeah I got a replacement. Which I sold off, pronto.

Schismz

Nov 26, 2011, 11:54 AM

Uh yeah I got a replacement. Which I sold off, pronto.
Got 2 of the new 6G 240GB with the Toshiba toggle NAND and SandForce 2282.

1 Worked perfectly. The other one was hosed. I RMA'd it, they replaced it with a unit that works fine. No problems since then.

Except... I paid out a buncha cash for 2 new SSDs, the replacement they sent me was not new (according to SMART readings, it had been powered on for 55 days of continuous use before they shipped it out to me). Kinda ... b-llsh-t, but whatever, they both work extremely well. 484/write, 526/read, when RAID0'd & just slotted into the optical drive bays of a MacPro 5,1. Fastest speed I've ever had off dual SSDs on native Mac Pro controller.

OWC as an entire company is kinda hit and miss for me personally. I've purchased 10 of everything and had no problems, and I've purchased 1 thing, that goes back 3 times and never works right until they finally send a new unit after wasting a lot of my time (and money on return postage, not to mention credit-card holds if you demand they cross-ship immediately).

Edit- To be fair to 'em, I like OWC. Having purchased stuff from 'em since back in the late 90s, my personal experience has been-

85% - Very positive.
15% - WTF, are you kidding me with this ******?

thekev

Nov 26, 2011, 11:58 AM

Hang in there. SSD's can be rock solid reliable. Unfortunately, Sandforce based drives (such as OWC, OCZ, and a few others) are notorious for reliability issues.

FWIW, I purchased a WD Green drive at Christmas that's gone tits-up already... So even good old HD's are not infallible. My 3 Intel Gen1 SSD's from 2009 are still working as good as the day I got them (knock on wood).

The Caviar Green drives seem to have a higher failure rate sadly. I liked the concept of a drive with low power consumption :(. The Caviar Black drives have been much smoother in performance for me than the Seagates I used in the past, but Seagate is really not so great these days.

ActionableMango

Nov 28, 2011, 11:41 AM

I am also hearing that most SSD drives will only run for 6 months before they die.

Never heard of this before. My two SSDs have been running great for 13 months, so I guess OCZ forgot to put in the 6 month death switch in mine.

trajan2448

Dec 26, 2011, 12:54 PM

Hellhammer

Dec 26, 2011, 02:09 PM

Ocw changed their controller in August 2011 to sandforce 2282 with a new Toshiba toggle. I've been using Mercury Pro extreme 6g 240gb in my new 17' MBP and it works beautifully. fast as lightening. Expensive but worth it. 11 second start up to open browser. 5 year warranty.

SF-2282 is the same as SF-2281 but it simply supports two NAND devices per channel. No gain in speed or reliability.

trajan2448

Dec 26, 2011, 11:51 PM

SF-2282 is the same as SF-2281 but it simply supports two NAND devices per channel. No gain in speed or reliability.

Actually not the same. Up graded parts, Toshiba toggle

It has been tested to be superior to previous generation.

cwerdna

Dec 27, 2011, 12:59 AM

I am also hearing that most SSD drives will only run for 6 months before they die. Has anyone experienced this as well?
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

I'm on a PC w/an Intel X25-M G2 160 gig and I checked my Windows 7 install date. It was installed 4/22/10 and this machine is used daily. The SSD hasn't given me any trouble. Win7 was installed directly onto this drive.

Hellhammer

Dec 27, 2011, 02:55 AM

Actually not the same. Up graded parts, Toshiba toggle

It has been tested to be superior to previous generation.

Toshiba's NAND isn't any better than any other NAND. OWC probably told you that their SSD is superior to others but that's BS.

Eastend

Dec 27, 2011, 05:41 AM

Have a 120 GB OWC SSD for over a year and half now, have a 60 and a 40 GB also, there are all in Mac Pro's and still going strong. My SSD's all have a 3 year warranty on them.

Concorde Rules

Dec 27, 2011, 05:57 AM

Actually not the same. Up graded parts, Toshiba toggle

It has been tested to be superior to previous generation.

Proof?

Flocarino

Dec 27, 2011, 07:49 AM

Mine died a little over 1 month I receive it, early november. Now I'm waiting like a clown for the RMA replacement for 3 weeks (I'm in Canada). If the next one dies as fast as the previous one, I'll ask for a regular HDD in exchange. Mine is the 115GB OWC SSD model.

trajan2448

Dec 27, 2011, 08:47 PM

Proof?

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4256/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_240gb_ssd_w_sf_2282_toshiba_toggle_review/index.html

----------

Mine died a little over 1 month I receive it, early november. Now I'm waiting like a clown for the RMA replacement for 3 weeks (I'm in Canada). If the next one dies as fast as the previous one, I'll ask for a regular HDD in exchange. Mine is the 115GB OWC SSD model.

Dont know what model you have but Mercury extreme pro 6g is the hot ticket and definitely worth the few extra bucks if your storage is critical.

----------

Toshiba's NAND isn't any better than any other NAND. OWC probably told you that their SSD is superior to others but that's BS.
Actually it has tested to be one of the top performing SSD's you can put in a laptop.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4256/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_240gb_ssd_w_sf_2282_toshiba_toggle_review/index.html

rocknblogger

Dec 27, 2011, 09:10 PM

trajan2448

Dec 28, 2011, 02:41 AM

Proof?
FROM SSD REVIEW
As we stated, this is the first we have seen of the SF-2282 in a consumer drive and both remain to be 8 channel, however, the SF-2282 can handle 16 byte lanes simultaneously vice the 8 of the SF-2281. Although the difference should be translated to capacity alone, we did find a marked performance improvement with the new 6G in comparison to the original version in our Vantage HDD Test Suite.

Weaselboy

Dec 28, 2011, 06:10 AM

Toshiba's NAND isn't any better than any other NAND. OWC probably told you that their SSD is superior to others but that's BS.

FROM SSD REVIEW
As we stated, this is the first we have seen of the SF-2282 in a consumer drive and both remain to be 8 channel, however, the SF-2282 can handle 16 byte lanes simultaneously vice the 8 of the SF-2281. Although the difference should be translated to capacity alone, we did find a marked performance improvement with the new 6G in comparison to the original version in our Vantage HDD Test Suite.

I believe Hellhammer's point was other vendors use the same controller and the same NAND and there is nothing special about OWC's NAND, despite their marketing speak on their web page about "Tier One Grade A" memory. OCZ, Plextor, and Corsair all make drives using this same Sandforce controller and the exact same Toshiba toggle NAND. Nothing wrong with the OWC you bought, but it is no better than others using the same components.

powerless

Dec 28, 2011, 11:06 AM

Not All SSDs Are Created Equal: The Story Continues (http://blog.macsales.com/9438-not-all-ssd’s-are-created-equal-the-story-continues)

gglockner

Dec 28, 2011, 12:03 PM

Individual posts that say "mine is still working after X months" or "mine died after Y months" don't prove much.

rocknblogger

Dec 28, 2011, 12:06 PM

Individual posts that say "mine is still working after X months" or "mine died after Y months" don't prove much.

Proves that not ALL SSDs die in six months.

Larry-K

Dec 28, 2011, 01:05 PM

I've got 6 of them, ranging in size from 60G to 480G in 5 different machines, all over a year old, and they all run fine.

trajan2448

Dec 28, 2011, 01:45 PM

I believe Hellhammer's point was other vendors use the same controller and the same NAND and there is nothing special about OWC's NAND, despite their marketing speak on their web page about "Tier One Grade A" memory. OCZ, Plextor, and Corsair all make drives using this same Sandforce controller and the exact same Toshiba toggle NAND. Nothing wrong with the OWC you bought, but it is no better than others using the same components.
Not really. my point from the beginning was that it was one of the best and fastest drives ever tested in that space. Read the results before commenting.

Weaselboy

Dec 28, 2011, 02:56 PM

Not All SSDs Are Created Equal: The Story Continues (http://blog.macsales.com/9438-not-all-ssd’s-are-created-equal-the-story-continues)

This is nothing but false info spread by OWC. Anandtech debunked (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4256/the-ocz-vertex-3-review-120gb) this already.

----------

Not really. my point from the beginning was that it was one of the best and fastest drives ever tested in that space. Read the results before commenting.

I did read the results and my comment stands. No need for the attitude.

I get that you like your OWC drive (I can tell by you posting the same comment over and over in different threads here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062840&postcount=4) here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062832&postcount=4) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062824&postcount=51)). There is nothing wrong with your SSD, but it is no better than any other SSD that uses the same Sandforce controller with the same spec NAND.

trajan2448

Dec 28, 2011, 03:08 PM

This is nothing but false info spread by OWC. Anandtech debunked (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4256/the-ocz-vertex-3-review-120gb) this already.

----------

I did read the results and my comment stands. No need for the attitude.

I get that you like your OWC drive (I can tell by you posting the same comment over and over in different threads here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062840&postcount=4) here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062832&postcount=4) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062824&postcount=51)). There is nothing wrong with your SSD, but it is no better than any other SSD that uses the same Sandforce controller with the same spec NAND.
You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I provided independent test results. You provided nothing.

----------

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I provided independent test results. You provided nothing.

Your Anandtech reference was from last April. Not the part under discussion which was released in August.

Weaselboy

Dec 28, 2011, 03:33 PM

Your Anandtech reference was from last April. Not the part under discussion which was released in August.

I was replying to a post by user powerless wherein he linked a March 2011 blog post from OWC. The Anandtech article from April 2011 debunks the March 2011 OWC blog post. It has nothing to do with the Toshiba NAND.

----------

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I provided independent test results. You provided nothing.

Okay... here you go (http://www.storagereview.com/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_ssd_review_toggle_nand). Your OWC compared to OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS and Patriot Wildfire. Read the reviews for all three drives. Same Sandforce controller same Toshiba toggle NAND same speeds.

Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with your OWC drive. But don't buy OWC's hype that somehow their parts are special.

Flocarino

Dec 28, 2011, 05:51 PM

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4256/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_240gb_ssd_w_sf_2282_toshiba_toggle_review/index.html

----------

Dont know what model you have but Mercury extreme pro 6g is the hot ticket and definitely worth the few extra bucks if your storage is critical.

----------

Actually it has tested to be one of the top performing SSD's you can put in a laptop.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4256/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_240gb_ssd_w_sf_2282_toshiba_toggle_review/index.html

115GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD

trajan2448

Dec 28, 2011, 06:23 PM

I was replying to a post by user powerless wherein he linked a March 2011 blog post from OWC. The Anandtech article from April 2011 debunks the March 2011 OWC blog post. It has nothing to do with the Toshiba NAND.

----------

Okay... here you go (http://www.storagereview.com/owc_mercury_extreme_pro_6g_ssd_review_toggle_nand). Your OWC compared to OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS and Patriot Wildfire. Read the reviews for all three drives. Same Sandforce controller same Toshiba toggle NAND same speeds.

Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with your OWC drive. But don't buy OWC's hype that somehow their parts are special.

The very review you used were very complimentary, gave it an editors choice, and applauded their quality. quote OWC has quite a few things going for them; drives are assembled in the US, they offer a best in class warranty of five years and use top quality components. Now they have even better components, from a performance perspective at least.Concluding Overall the updated ME Pro 6G offers everything we loved initially, and now it goes above and beyond.
i trust pro reviewers and real world experience.

Weaselboy

Dec 28, 2011, 07:26 PM

The very review you used were very complimentary, gave it an editors choice, and applauded their quality. quote OWC has quite a few things going for them; drives are assembled in the US, they offer a best in class warranty of five years and use top quality components. Now they have even better components, from a performance perspective at least.Concluding Overall the updated ME Pro 6G offers everything we loved initially, and now it goes above and beyond.
i trust pro reviewers and real world experience.

The point in my linking the article was to show the OWC drive is exactly the same as the other two drives mentioned. You seem not to want to acknowledge that.

trajan2448

Dec 28, 2011, 07:55 PM

The point in my linking the article was to show the OWC drive is exactly the same as the other two drives mentioned. You seem not to want to acknowledge that.
All the reviews Ive seen make a point of quality. You seem unable to comprehend this as a factor.

Darby67

Dec 28, 2011, 09:32 PM

I get that you like your OWC drive (I can tell by you posting the same comment over and over in different threads here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062840&postcount=4) here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062832&postcount=4) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14062824&postcount=51)).
It seems like somebody found a funny form of religion today and wants everybody to know it :)

rocknblogger

Dec 28, 2011, 09:51 PM

Let's play nice boys :D

gpzjock

Dec 29, 2011, 02:03 AM

A friend of mine bought a 240 gig SSD from OWC. After 2 Months the drive died. I am also hearing that most SSD drives will only run for 6 months before they die. Has anyone experienced this as well?

The OP posits a conceit based on rumour and panic in the world of storage. Then asks a leading question on a very narrow band of personal knowledge. Different forum members rush to defend the honour of SSD tech and OWC or deride it. Automatic gainsaying of each others arguments ensues.

This is normal human behaviour when egos outweigh intelligence, now a common occurrence in modern society. Twitter and Facebook have dumbed down the internet to the point where opinions are like arseholes, we all have one and everyone wants to show you their one because it's bigger or better or shinier.

Please remember that we are (or should be) adults and capable of agreeing to differ or respect opinions held by others while countering arguments with clear, rational, fact based thought.

Arguing about SSD reliability while the biggest mechanical HDD manufacturer is still pumping sea water out of his factory is amusing at best, divisive at worst. Kinda like arguing about which brand of car is better when they are all made out of the same materials and have the same engines. It is just personal preference after the tests have shown that they are all fast, all expensive and all have a modest failure rate for an emergent technology.

Rant over, back to calling each other names.

Oh yeah, to answer the OP's leading question: OWC 120 GB SSD 3G Mercury installed as boot drive in Mac Pro at 14:58 on 21.10.10, perfect behaviour every day since and as fast as I could wish on a 2008 mobo. Yup that is a +1 for OWC reliability for what it is worth (very little). Mind, I would buy another manufacturer's SSD in the blink of an eye if it was significantly cheaper. :eek:

fabriciom

Dec 29, 2011, 02:17 AM

I have a Vertex 2 120gb for over a year, used heavily every day. My system is on 24/7 with no problems. Only problems I have had was with power outages. Bought a UPS and 0 problems ever since.

Hellhammer

Dec 29, 2011, 06:15 AM

All the reviews Ive seen make a point of quality. You seem unable to comprehend this as a factor.

OWC is still a victim of SandForce and all its issues. No matter what reviewers say about quality and everything, the controller is no better than the ones used in products mentioned by Weaselboy.

trajan2448

Dec 29, 2011, 08:52 AM

derbothaus

Dec 29, 2011, 03:39 PM

OWC is still a victim of SandForce and all its issues. No matter what reviewers say about quality and everything, the controller is no better than the ones used in products mentioned by Weaselboy.

Hell is right. OWC sales will tell you it is "special". When you get a tech on the phone and press them and convince them you know what you are talking about they will agree that their parts are no different. Their firmwares not "tweaked" enough to overcome the primary problems of sandforce. They absolutely do not re-write the faulty firmware.

trajan2448

Jan 2, 2012, 03:53 AM

Hell is right. OWC sales will tell you it is "special". When you get a tech on the phone and press them and convince them you know what you are talking about they will agree that their parts are no different. Their firmwares not "tweaked" enough to overcome the primary problems of sandforce. They absolutely do not re-write the faulty firmware.

from Guru 3d
t was in a way too late in Q3 when the firmware bug finally got identified and fixed despite numerous fixes and updates. So though the SandForce 2281 based SSDs run fast as heck and are stable now, the reputation damage was done. SandForce products are no longer the #1 choice for end users.

Hellhammer

Jan 2, 2012, 04:03 AM

from Guru 3d
t was in a way too late in Q3 when the firmware bug finally got identified and fixed despite numerous fixes and updates. So though the SandForce 2281 based SSDs run fast as heck and are stable now, the reputation damage was done. SandForce products are no longer the #1 choice for end users.

Read the next sentence as well. You don't want to buy a car that has been in an accident either, even though it looks completely fine but you know that it has gone through some rough times. Besides, the firmware updates don't affect drives that die or arrive DOA, it's only for fixing the BSODs.

trajan2448

Jan 2, 2012, 12:58 PM

Read the next sentence as well. You don't want to buy a car that has been in an accident either, even though it looks completely fine but you know that it has gone through some rough times. Besides, the firmware updates don't affect drives that die or arrive DOA, it's only for fixing the BSODs.
You just keep beating a dead horse. Its now a non issue in reality, as several professional reviewers have noted.

derbothaus

Jan 2, 2012, 01:07 PM

You just keep beating a dead horse. Its now a non issue in reality, as several professional reviewers have noted.
c'mon dude? Firmware fix had NOTHING to do with dying SSD's. It was an entirely separate issue and was publicized as the BSOD in windows. In OS X it was the "wake from sleep freeze". Like patched Video games with time, it is now better, but saying their problems are behind them will need to take even more time. I just replaced my 6G with a 3G because if "new" firmware issue with 2008 Macbook Pro's negotiating to only 1.5Gb/s. Called OWC and they said yes, sorry. It was sandforce's fault. Maybe there will be a fix or maybe not. Wait till you get some drama. You'll change your tune. Admittedly I do have another 240GB 6G in MAc Pro that has been flawless on OG firmware. Mobo's apparently play a great part in your SF based SSD's lifespan and performance.

trajan2448

Jan 2, 2012, 01:12 PM

c'mon dude? Firmware fix had NOTHING to do with dying SSD's. It was an entirely separate issue and was publicized as the BSOD in windows. In OS X it was the "wake from sleep freeze". Like patched Video games with time, it is now better, but saying their problems are behind them will need to take even more time. I just replaced my 6G with a 3G because if "new" firmware issue with 2008 Macbook Pro's negotiating to only 1.5Gb/s. Called OWC and they said yes, sorry. It was sandforce's fault. Maybe there will be a fix or maybe not. Wait till you get some drama. You'll change your tune. Admittedly I do have another 240GB 6G in MAc Pro that has been flawless on OG firmware. Mobo's apparently play a great part in your SF based SSD's lifespan and performance.
Could be your problem is old computers. My 2011 has been flawless from day one. 2008 Mac is 5 generations old.

derbothaus

Jan 2, 2012, 02:22 PM

Could be your problem is old computers. My 2011 has been flawless from day one. 2008 Mac is 5 generations old.

Yeah that's it. :rolleyes:
SATAII is SATAII. No matter what age your computer is. My 2010 Mac Pro is SATAII. My MBP 2008 is SATAII. Only difference is in the host controllers.

trajan2448

Jan 2, 2012, 03:01 PM

Yeah that's it. :rolleyes:
SATAII is SATAII. No matter what age your computer is. My 2010 Mac Pro is SATAII. My MBP 2008 is SATAII. Only difference is in the host controllers.

Good luck with that.

derbothaus

Jan 2, 2012, 03:12 PM

Good luck with that.

Good luck with reality? OK. Fair enough.

Hellhammer

Jan 3, 2012, 10:20 AM

You just keep beating a dead horse. Its now a non issue in reality, as several professional reviewers have noted.

Reviews mean nothing. Reviewers get only one review sample. That's one single SSD, they can't say a word about the lifetime of the SSD in general. This thread is already a good example that OWC SSDs may die only after months of use.

J&JPolangin

Jan 4, 2012, 03:26 AM

...after reading this thread, I'm glad I went with Intel, Crucial, Corsair and Western Digital for my win7 and Mac machines = these SSD's have all been running for between 8 months and 2 years so far depending on what machine they currently reside in...

...not to mention the Intel, Crucial and WD SSD's are all on their second machine they've been installed into:D

Concorde Rules

Jan 4, 2012, 07:13 AM

Could be your problem is old computers. My 2011 has been flawless from day one. 2008 Mac is 5 generations old.

SATA II is a standard. If the SSD does not work correctly within the standards set out for SATA II then it is the SSDs controllers fault. If every other SSD and HDD works absolutely fine with that controller, then it is clearly the SSD...

Plain and simple.

Flocarino

Jan 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

Hellhammer

Jan 5, 2012, 07:13 AM

Got my warranty replacement 115 OWC SSD today and to my dismay, the Geekbench 64bit results are lower(not by much) than those with my Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB hard drive :eek:

I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!

GeekBench doesn't test disk speed so most likely you had more processes open now than you had before. Reboot and don't open anything but GB and try again.

gpzjock

Jan 5, 2012, 07:41 AM

Got my warranty replacement 115 OWC SSD today and to my dismay, the Geekbench 64bit results are lower(not by much) than those with my Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB hard drive :eek:

I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!

Try http://novabench.com/ it might be a more relevant test.
Xbench is very old but includes extensive Hard Drive sampling: http://xbench.com/.

elvisizer

Jan 5, 2012, 02:23 PM

or try the blackmagic speed test (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blackmagic-disk-speed-test/id425264550?mt=12) from the app store

Flocarino

Jan 5, 2012, 07:18 PM

GeekBench doesn't test disk speed so most likely you had more processes open now than you had before. Reboot and don't open anything but GB and try again.

I know this fact and the results with a fresh restart are similar or even lower.

derbothaus

Jan 5, 2012, 10:07 PM

I know this fact and the results with a fresh restart are similar or even lower.

Um. Your SSD is 3-5 times faster than the Spinpoint no matter what a test that does not even test Hard Drives says. ;)
But if you think ANY SSD is slower than a 1TB spinpoint F1, someone will trade you.

philipma1957

Jan 5, 2012, 10:24 PM

Um. Your SSD is 3-5 times faster than the Spinpoint no matter what a test that does not even test Hard Drives says. ;)
But if you think ANY SSD is slower than a 1TB spinpoint F1, someone will trade you.

I have received sand force ssds that ran at half speed.

i have owned 3 corsair 3 patriot and 3 ocz vertex ssd's .

all were pairs for raid.
all raids failed in under 1 month.
in each case 1 drive had to be rma'd ocz and patriot were really slow corsair sent it back quickly.

Since that time I have run 5 different raids with intel and 3 different ones with samsung all work after a year. while the sample is not huge it is more then the average person.
I won't buy from ocz or patriot mostly due to really slow rma's.

elvisizer

Jan 5, 2012, 10:27 PM

I know this fact and the results with a fresh restart are similar or even lower.

geekbench tests CPU and memory performance, neither of which is affected by an ssd. the fact that the geekbench score changed is most likely due to some other factor on your system. check activity monitor to see if any processes are using unusual amounts of CPU or memory.

derbothaus

Jan 6, 2012, 12:54 PM

I have received sand force ssds that ran at half speed.

Exactly half speed? Like the link negotiation is wrong? That's SF firmware issue. If all negotiation and controller links are stable the SSD murders HDD. Are you arguing the opposite? Don't know anything other than the OP is bummed his geekbench score is lower which has nothing to do with hard drive testing.

philipma1957

Jan 6, 2012, 01:01 PM

Exactly half speed? Like the link negotiation is wrong? That's SF firmware issue. If all negotiation and controller links are stable the SSD murders HDD. Are you arguing the opposite? Don't know anything other than the OP is bummed his geekbench score is lower which has nothing to do with hard drive testing.

yes the firmware caused a half speed link. then after the firmware was upgraded and the ssds' were set up as raids one ssd died a month or so later.

derbothaus

Jan 6, 2012, 01:12 PM

yes the firmware caused a half speed link. then after the firmware was upgraded and the ssds' were set up as raids one ssd died a month or so later.

Sorry. I am 50/50 myself. 1 6g still awesome on Mac Pro but had to RMA dead 6G in MBP then get replacement 6G with the jacked up firmware only to call and complain and get a 3G in it's place as they now have a section on their website that states the issues with 2008/ 2009 MBP SATA host controllers. I lost some cash in the process but they were fairly accommodating. Can't say outstanding as they passed the buck a few times. I have since pretty much stopped recommending them. Only problem is when you get good ones they are really rock solid.

philipma1957

Jan 6, 2012, 02:39 PM

Like I posted earlier it is not that the ssd failed the ram process was far too slow. My samsung or intel batting rate is 1000 with over 20 drives. most as raid 0 setups.

derbothaus

Jan 6, 2012, 07:58 PM

Like I posted earlier it is not that the ssd failed the ram process was far too slow. My samsung or intel batting rate is 1000 with over 20 drives. most as raid 0 setups.

RAM process or RMA?

philipma1957

Jan 6, 2012, 08:28 PM

RAM process or RMA?

R M A

the lion auto correct strikes again!

trajan2448

Jan 6, 2012, 08:43 PM

SATA II is a standard. If the SSD does not work correctly within the standards set out for SATA II then it is the SSDs controllers fault. If every other SSD and HDD works absolutely fine with that controller, then it is clearly the SSD...

Plain and simple.

I believe my new Macbook Pro 17" quad uses sata 3. Mercury pro Ex 6g 240gb
works great. controller is sandforce 2282.

oweng

Feb 10, 2012, 07:02 AM

My Kingston 128Gb lasted just a few weeks before reporting serious errors so Ive just bought a OWC 120GB and it failed after 30 mins.

Think I am cursed.

NickZac

Feb 18, 2012, 12:50 AM

My Kingston 128Gb lasted just a few weeks before reporting serious errors so Ive just bought a OWC 120GB and it failed after 30 mins.

Think I am cursed.

Everyone is cursed by SandForce... Get a Crucial or Intel and you won't have to deal with a variety of issues of SandForce design problems or poorly made products :)

nzst205

Feb 23, 2012, 01:59 PM

Just sending back my 60Gb OWC SSD ZIFF drive for the third time, anyone with similar experience. am I wasting my time with their drives for the Gen I MBA. Has anyone had good experience with any alternatives?

----------

Just sending back my 60Gb OWC SSD ZIFF drive for the third time, anyone with similar experience. am I wasting my time with their drives for the Gen I MBA. Has anyone had good experience with any alternatives?

Should have mentioned never got more than 13 days use out of any of the drives before they failed.

ClassObject

Feb 23, 2012, 07:44 PM

Just sending back my 60Gb OWC SSD ZIFF drive for the third time, anyone with similar experience. am I wasting my time with their drives for the Gen I MBA. Has anyone had good experience with any alternatives?

----------

Should have mentioned never got more than 13 days use out of any of the drives before they failed.

I use intel 320 in a mac pro, a mac mini, and a windows laptop. No problems. I think it would be a good choice.

saulinpa

Feb 24, 2012, 08:26 AM

New firmware just came out for OWC drives. Hopefully makes things better.

http://eshop.macsales.com/tech_center/OWC/SSD/PC

Apple Corps

Feb 24, 2012, 08:37 AM

I've just returned my second OWC 6G Pro ssd - latest firmware - will not stay recognized on the desktop or disk utility.

I'm back to Hiatchi enterprise HDDs and life is good again. Huge capacity, quiet, cool, no vibration and fast enough.

Bear

Feb 24, 2012, 09:49 AM

I've just returned my second OWC 6G Pro ssd - latest firmware - will not stay recognized on the desktop or disk utility.
...Choose 2:
Low Price
High Quality
High Capacity
You are not going to get all 3 unless you luck out on a sale.

Apple's are high quality and very high priced. You can get the same quality for less money. Just don't expect to pay bottom dollar for the quality.

Apple Corps

Feb 24, 2012, 10:26 AM

Bear - not sure of your point. The OWC 6G SSD cost $$$ - they are not low price that I know of.

I paid the $$ but have not received a reliable product for my MP 4,1.

smetvid

Feb 24, 2012, 11:06 AM

I think part of the problem is that SSD's are marketed to be much more reliable then normal HDD. A lot of people end up having a false sense of security just by buying one and the fact is that just isn't the case.

SSD's had two advantages:

1. Super fast - They are
2. Super safe - Not as much as we would hope.

There is a reason why SSD's have the same warranty as HDD's. They have about just as much of a chance of failure. It isn't any higher the HDD but it isn't much better either. I own dozens of HDD drives and some of them are 10 years old and still work. This is just the way storage is and why large companies use LTO tape or other data tapes for data storage long term. Even then LTO tapes still are not perfect.

Apple Corps

Feb 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

smetvid - the issue I am having with the OWC ssd is incompatibility with my MP 4,1 on 10.7.2

I have not been able to get the drive consistently recognized - it takes several reboots - works fine until I sleep or shut the MP down - back to multiple reboots.

OWC says the drives check out but clearly some type of "handshake" is not taking place on awakening or restart.

derbothaus

Feb 24, 2012, 01:11 PM

Weaselboy

Feb 24, 2012, 05:15 PM

That now makes 4,1 Mac Pro and 5,1 Macbook Pro (maybe 5,3) that are having link issues with host controllers. So obnoxious. They really need to post a "death list" on the OWC site. Or at least fix the firmware.

Agreed. I really think this is an ongoing issue with the Sandforce controllers. Over a year ago OWC and others vendors were struggling with hibernation issues on their SATA II SSDs. That finally got fixed around the time they came out with new SATA III drives and the cycle started all over again. I honestly don't think Sandforce is capable of making stable firmware.

I noticed the recent Anandtech review of the Intel 520, which uses a Sandforce controller, talked a lot about Intel working with Sandforce to fix bugs in the firmware.

derbothaus

Feb 24, 2012, 05:47 PM

I noticed the recent Anandtech review of the Intel 520, which uses a Sandforce controller, talked a lot about Intel working with Sandforce to fix bugs in the firmware.

Yeah, but at a 150.00 price premium over the existing SF stuff. But I think I may have lost that amount shipping and swapping product anyway so it may be worth it.

Apple Corps

Feb 24, 2012, 05:55 PM

Yeah, but at a 150.00 price premium over the existing SF stuff. But I think I may have lost that amount shipping and swapping product anyway so it may be worth it.

I can't describe the number of hours I have lost due to this instability issue. I really regret having gone down this route. Stability and reliability are so far more important to me than the boot up speed and "snappiness".

NickZac

Feb 24, 2012, 06:28 PM

Bear - not sure of your point. The OWC 6G SSD cost $$$ - they are not low price that I know of.

I paid the $$ but have not received a reliable product for my MP 4,1.

I am sorry to hear you had a bad experience :(

However, you should give SSDs another chance. The SandForce driven one you had is well, SandForce driven and they have been, as a general rule, problematic. Just this time check out the Intel or Crucial drives. Both have demonstrated that they have the support capability for users in general and Crucial has shown, with a timely firmware update, that they are here to serve Mac users, and that when an issue arises, they handle it...and promptly at that.

----------

Agreed. I really think this is an ongoing issue with the Sandforce controllers. Over a year ago OWC and others vendors were struggling with hibernation issues on their SATA II SSDs. That finally got fixed around the time they came out with new SATA III drives and the cycle started all over again. I honestly don't think Sandforce is capable of making stable firmware.

I noticed the recent Anandtech review of the Intel 520, which uses a Sandforce controller, talked a lot about Intel working with Sandforce to fix bugs in the firmware.

I am not sure if I want to buy the 520 or not. The 510 is definitely the pinnacle of excellence when it comes to performance blended with reliability. While I realize the 520 will have Intel behind the support aspect now too, all of the SandForce issues I have read about has left a bad taste in my mouth and I am hesitant to get a 520. At the same time, the speeds are ridiculous which makes it appealing.

wonderspark

Feb 24, 2012, 06:43 PM

I've been very pleased with my Crucial M4 256GB so far. I clone it to the original 640GB HDD from Apple every few days just in case, but I think I'm going on a month so far without a hitch.

That reminds me of a question I've got. I don't have TRIM enabled, as my digging for info says that it runs a little slower with that on, and that the garbage collection runs later when "idle."

What constitutes "idle" in order for GC to activate? Is it milliseconds, minutes or what? I have Geektool that has shells running every ten seconds or so, and Hardware Monitor updating every second or so, and I wonder if it would matter to shut those off now and then.

For what it's worth, speed tests are the same as day one so far, and I have 149GB free on the SSD.

Apple Corps

Feb 24, 2012, 11:13 PM

NickZac - I may revisit ssd down the road, it will take a bit for the sting of wasted time to wear off though :-)

As wonderspark did, I left my HDD boot/apps drive inBay #1 and did a fresh install of everything on the replacement ssd - it was not so painful a process to return the second one this go around - prepared for failure.

Schismz

Feb 25, 2012, 06:38 AM

New firmware just came out for OWC drives. Hopefully makes things better.

http://eshop.macsales.com/tech_center/OWC/SSD/PC

OhMyGawd! NEW firmware!

So, uhm, anybody installed 501ABBF0 to a 6G Extreme with the Toshiba Toggle NAND and SF-2282 yet? Did it... make you Happy Inside or brick your SSDs?

I'm just... not gonna be running the installer when my drives are working. What's the upside?

Also, this burn .iso to optical disk ****** is awful. Just, no. Any reason "burning" it to a HDD connected via FW wouldn't work?

Blah ... it's NEW and therefore must be BETTER, but my drives are working just fine. Whatever will I do. Oh, wait, I know. Wait for somebody else to see what happens. If nothing terrible happens to a handful of people, I may "upgrade" anyway, russian roulette is exciting.

t0rr3s

Feb 25, 2012, 08:20 AM

Bet it gives the OWC people the willies every time this topic gets bumped near the top of the page. Ha.

trajan2448

Feb 25, 2012, 11:32 PM

derbothaus

Feb 26, 2012, 01:18 PM

I have a 240gb Mercury pro extreme 6g in my new late 2011 MBP 17". Absolutely fantastic performance. no issues at all. I'm in no hurry to "upgrade it". I usually wait until a few upgrades have been released before doing anything. Why be a beta tester for Apple, OWC, or any company if your gear is working great?

Your lucky your link and their link are cooperating. Make sure you have backups. When mine died there is no warning. Just DEAD. Nothing.

trajan2448

Feb 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

Your lucky your link and their link are cooperating. Make sure you have backups. When mine died there is no warning. Just DEAD. Nothing.
Of course one should ALWAYS have back up. Any drive can fail. The sad thing is problems are much more prevalent on older gear.

derbothaus

Feb 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

Of course one should ALWAYS have back up. Any drive can fail. The sad thing is problems are much more prevalent on older gear.

That is from general malaise on the firmware writing not because of the age of your SATA controller. They just didn't test it extensively on Nvidia chipsets vs. Intel ones.

joeldadrummer

Feb 26, 2012, 07:12 PM

I've had an OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 120gb in use for about a year now. Works flawlessly with no issues.

Also, OWC service/support is very good.

NickZac

Feb 27, 2012, 06:57 PM

I have one of the original OWC SF1200 100GB SSD's that I bought when they first came out ( @ $4.00/GB), it's still running fine. There was an interesting article on Tom's Hardware on SSD reliability.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

And notice what maker has the highest return rates across the board...

Reviews mean nothing. Reviewers get only one review sample. That's one single SSD, they can't say a word about the lifetime of the SSD in general. This thread is already a good example that OWC SSDs may die only after months of use.

Absolutely...look what SSDs have gotten the most publicity and "professional" reviewer hype. (I'll give you a hint...it's the one with the highest return rates)

Of course one should ALWAYS have back up. Any drive can fail. The sad thing is problems are much more prevalent on older gear.

The largest studies on hard drive failure rates show this to be only partially true. The highest rates, in many cases, are seen during the first year. With all the DOA SandForce SSDs, this makes sense. With all of the OWC failures reported in this thread, there is something other than age at play. Google found HDD failure rates were higher at the 2-3 year mark than the 4-5 year one. While age is certainly related to failure rates, there is more at play.

trajan2448

Feb 28, 2012, 02:07 PM

And notice what maker has the highest return rates across the board...

Absolutely...look what SSDs have gotten the most publicity and "professional" reviewer hype. (I'll give you a hint...it's the one with the highest return rates)

The largest studies on hard drive failure rates show this to be only partially true. The highest rates, in many cases, are seen during the first year. With all the DOA SandForce SSDs, this makes sense. With all of the OWC failures reported in this thread, there is something other than age at play. Google found HDD failure rates were higher at the 2-3 year mark than the 4-5 year one. While age is certainly related to failure rates, there is more at play.

Studies show spinning drives fail at a MUCH higher rate than SSDs, so all one can do is buy from a quality manufacturer with a long warranty and BACK UP!

NickZac

Feb 28, 2012, 06:33 PM

Studies show spinning drives fail at a MUCH higher rate than SSDs, so all one can do is buy from a quality manufacturer with a long warranty and BACK UP!

Agreed partially. How much more reliable the SSDs with less-than-ideal reviews are than high end enterprise grade HDDs may be hard to say though. There are HDDs with far better reviews and fewer reports of failure than some SSDs. OWC advertises their products as 100 times greater data protection than enterprise grade HDDs. Do you believe that? Some SSDs have proven to be utterly unreliable, many of which are still produced today. The initial Micron controllers would be a prime example for when SSDs first got big and the ongoing SandForce issues for today.

This thread in itself shows that there are still some major issues with SSDs, especially SandForce models, which include the OWC. The amount of people who have reported a problem here is totally unacceptable...especially given how the product has been advertised. The issues with the OWC SSDs and their advertising has made me go from a die hard user of their products to not using them at all.

My point in discussing Google's study was to point out that the failure rates were not occurring exactly as expected, as a large majority of failure were within the first year. The only model which I have personally seen enough data for me to say that it is absolutely, positively a super reliable drive is the Intel X25 series.

If we look at trends from SSD reviews (from the owners) we see that DOA models or models that die within the first few months are not that uncommon. However, DOA models are almost non-existant for some brands, where as it is the norm for others. For some models, DOA or dead within a month constitutes as much as 50% of all reviews. While obviously more people report negative experiences than positives, when one SSD has 95% 5 out of 5 star reviews where as another has 60% at 2 out of 5 stars or below, then a flag needs to be raised. This is not just experience bias...this indicates a issue with the manufacturer.

rawdawg

Feb 28, 2012, 09:06 PM

mine has been working flawlessly over a year

trajan2448

Feb 28, 2012, 09:50 PM

mine has been working flawlessly over a year

Mine has been perfect. Some people just have problems. That's life.

Schismz

Feb 29, 2012, 10:04 PM

OhMyGawd! NEW firmware!

So, uhm, anybody installed 501ABBF0 to a 6G Extreme with the Toshiba Toggle NAND and SF-2282 yet? Did it... make you Happy Inside or brick your SSDs?

I'm just... not gonna be running the installer when my drives are working. What's the upside?

Also, this burn .iso to optical disk ****** is awful. Just, no. Any reason "burning" it to a HDD connected via FW wouldn't work?

Blah ... it's NEW and therefore must be BETTER, but my drives are working just fine. Whatever will I do. Oh, wait, I know. Wait for somebody else to see what happens. If nothing terrible happens to a handful of people, I may "upgrade" anyway, russian roulette is exciting.

So, anyhoo... Having 2 more OCZ Vertex 3s which are not doing much at the moment except serving as a mission-critical RAID for faster loading of games on a PC, which I could toss back into the MP if the firmware update from OWC ended up bricking 'em and required an RMA... I went ahead and applied the firmware update to 2, 240GB 6Gs with the SF-2282 controller.

It was mostly painless other than the major annoyance of their "native" Mac support, being booting to an Ubuntu DVD via optical drive (which I tossed out of my MP a long time ago). Can't write OWCs firmware updater to external HDD, can't boot from external optical via FW, basically can't do ****** except boot from an optical directly attached to the SATA bus which is incredibly awful. While the sentiment may be naive, some dude ranting in OWC's blog summed it up nicely, "when I need a firmware update for my iPhone, I click the OK button, it installs, reboots, and just works. This is terrible." For something being described as a "native Mac firmware updater" it is terrible.

I just pulled the SSDs out of Mac Pro, dumped 'em into Windoze box, and ran Windoze updater.

I did not extensively test the individual drives prior to upgrade, nor post, 'cuz I just don't care enough to bother. But running DigiLloyd's DiskTester on the dual SSDs in RAID0, my numbers were:

Before new firmware: Average SSD Write = 484MB/sec, Read 526MB/sec.

After: Average SSD Write = 488MB/sec, Read 555MB/sec.

No issues (with old, or new firmware, so far), no destruction of data on drives, slight speed increase with new firmware (about what OWC states on their blog).

fernando.kreutz

Mar 8, 2012, 05:02 PM

Just unpacked and installed my brand new OWC Mercury Electra 6G. Lasted less than 2 ours and now is dead. I'm running a 5,3 MBP.

weneversleep

Mar 12, 2012, 10:13 AM

My almost-1-year-old OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 115GB SSD that I've happily been running in my 2008 Mac Pro suddenly died last night. EFI can't see the drive at all. Windows BIOS can't see the drive. It's dead as a doornail.

I did notice write speeds steadily decreasing lately. But, this was a boot drive in the MP, and user directories are on a separate disk, so it wasn't getting heavy write action.

Also, it has been living in an IcyDock since new (also purchased from OWC).

I sent e-mail to OWC customer support this morning; hopefully I'll hear something soon.

weneversleep

Mar 12, 2012, 01:28 PM

I sent e-mail to OWC customer support this morning; hopefully I'll hear something soon.

Well, I did hear from OWC this morning, and they gave me an RMA number. So far, I'm pleased with the support...

handheldgames

Mar 14, 2012, 04:37 AM

FWIW.... My Samsung 470ssd is up to 4019 hours and has not crashed once or lost any data. :D

fernando.kreutz

Mar 15, 2012, 05:24 PM

Well, I did hear from OWC this morning, and they gave me an RMA number. So far, I'm pleased with the support...

They're quite nice, but since I'm from overseas, I'm having a big headache, since they won't refund any taxes I'd payed on the drive and also won't pay taxes on a new drive (although other companies do). At this point, I decided to get a refund and forget OWC even exists.

Spacedust

Mar 15, 2012, 06:09 PM

Kingston SSDNow 40 GB is now 6092 hours working ok, 4 reallocated sectors
Intel X-25 80 GB used 24/7 in server about 8000 hours, 11 reallocated sectors
Kingston SS100S2 SSD 16 GB, two of four got some errors, one was constantly removed from array, got money back
OCZ-Vertex 3 120 GB working great, so far 2408 hours 24/7 in server
A-Data AS396S-30GM-C just ordered will see ;)

firefire

Mar 19, 2012, 07:11 AM

I figured I'd post my experience with a 180 GB OWC Aura 3G in a 2011 MacBook Air. A clean installation of Lion was performed on the SSD, and the system was promptly updated to 10.7.3 thereafter.

I'm not sure if the SSD is to blame, but on random intervals, the Air takes longer to wake from sleep in Lion, in comparison to the stock 128 GB Toshiba drive. The difference is especially prominent if I close the lid without manually putting the machine to sleep.

Occasionally, the MacBook also freezes upon waking from sleep with the OWC drive, but I've yet to see this happen with the stock one. The OWC drive was purchased arfter March 2011, and it has the latest firmware according to OWC's site. I'm not sure if I should try requesting a replacement, or if the drive functions "as expected."

On the flip side, the read and write speeds are a bit faster with the OWC drive, and I notice this when transfering large files via Thunderbolt.

I should add that with both SSDs, SmartSleep was installed and configured to sleep only. I prefer this (even with the sacrificed battery life) over Apple's new hibernation rules in Lion and the 2011 models.