Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OWC Mercury Extreme Enterprise SSD announced today... are better specs available?

MBHockey said:
That doesn't make sense since end users are having sleep issues.
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing that end users are having sleep issues that are specific to the Sandforce controller. Silvermail's issue from what I can see was resolved by switching hibernate to 0. My understanding is that the hibernation issue is common to most if not all SSD's and not just the Sandforce. Am I confusing two different issues here?

On another note I took advantage of NewEggs price on the Intel 160 and placed an order for one. I'm keeping my order for the OWC 100 though. The Intel will go in my MacPro and the OWC in my uMBP.
 
bob5820 said:
Where are you seeing that end users are having sleep issues that are specific to the Sandforce controller. Silvermail's issue from what I can see was resolved by switching hibernate to 0. My understanding is that the hibernation issue is common to most if not all SSD's and not just the Sandforce. Am I confusing two different issues here?

On another note I took advantage of NewEggs price on the Intel 160 and placed an order for one. I'm keeping my order for the OWC 100 though. The Intel will go in my MacPro and the OWC in my uMBP.
Click to expand...

I have to comment that even if I have set hibernate to 0 I am still having random hangs occasionally.

Last week I've swapped back to the original HDD and it was perfect - sleep works etc and it was the first time I was happy with my Mac without the fear of crashing even things are a bit slow.

Today, I've just swapped back to the OWC again and encountered my first crash. :( Another issue is the HFS is very fragile and every time I have to do a power off/on I will have files/directories corrupted and I will need to boot up from the Recovery Disk and invoke Disk Utility to repair the drive. This is something which I am tired of doing and I'm afraid of possible file corruption if this behavior drags on.

This is also my Xbench results and I am wondering if this is what I should be expecting? The Read/Write Speed doesn't seem to be the promised 250 MB++/s.

PS: I've just performed a SecureATA erase using Ubuntu and have just restored from my Time Machine so the drive should be pretty 'clean'.

Results 282.23
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6 (10A432)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacBookPro5,3
Drive Type OWC Mercury Extreme SSD-E
User Interface Test 300.95
Elements 300.95 1.38 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 265.71
Sequential 157.04
Uncached Write 235.21 144.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 247.11 139.82 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 69.40 20.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 361.64 181.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 862.76
Uncached Write 1225.34 129.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 435.53 139.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2137.79 15.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 946.65 175.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
 
silvermail said:
I have to comment that even if I have set hibernate to 0 I am still having random hangs occasionally.

Last week I've swapped back to the original HDD and it was perfect - sleep works etc and it was the first time I was happy with my Mac without the fear of crashing even things are a bit slow.

Today, I've just swapped back to the OWC again and encountered my first crash. :( Another issue is the HFS is very fragile and every time I have to do a power off/on I will have files/directories corrupted and I will need to boot up from the Recovery Disk and invoke Disk Utility to repair the drive. This is something which I am tired of doing and I'm afraid of possible file corruption if this behavior drags on.

This is also my Xbench results and I am wondering if this is what I should be expecting? The Read/Write Speed doesn't seem to be the promised 250 MB++/s.

PS: I've just performed a SecureATA erase using Ubuntu and have just restored from my Time Machine so the drive should be pretty 'clean'.

Results 282.23
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6 (10A432)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacBookPro5,3
Drive Type OWC Mercury Extreme SSD-E
User Interface Test 300.95
Elements 300.95 1.38 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 265.71
Sequential 157.04
Uncached Write 235.21 144.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 247.11 139.82 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 69.40 20.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 361.64 181.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 862.76
Uncached Write 1225.34 129.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 435.53 139.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2137.79 15.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 946.65 175.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Click to expand...

I'm reconsidering my order for the OWC 100GB. The drive should have shipped a week ago and the only status I can get out of them is that my order is pending and they haven't got a clue when they can fill it. Unfortunately the NewEgg sale on the Intel 160 is over and the drive is back up to $489. I can still get a good deal on the OCZ vertex LE from NewEgg, but it may have the same issues as the OWC considering they are both using the Sandforce controller.
 
hi guys

I'm looking into maybe getting an ssd for my 2009 17" mbp. I was wondering, I understand the owc mercury drive is faster on paper but would you see that difference much on a laptop, or is it more something you would see on a macpro?

I'm tossing up the 160gb intel vs the 100gb mercury - that extra 60gb on the intel would definitely come in handy. The 200gb mercury is pretty wild price wise!

thanks!
 
I wouldn't get the OWC as it's so unstable that I am using it as a paperweight until the firmware comes out... :(
 
I called OWC today and they are still out of stock on all their SSDs, though they *promised* they were getting more in tomorrow. I was not really ready to play the run-around with my MBP on the way, so luckily I found that Corsair just released their version of the same drive last week, the F100 and F200. They are in-stock at Tigerdirect and mine will arrive tomorrow!

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...ils.asp?EdpNo=6026791&sku=C13-8297&srkey=f100

Anandtech just did a review today and the performance is within a few % of other Sandforce drives available (Vertex LE, OWC). It is apparently using a new run of controllers (1200) from Sandforce, better than the quasi-prototype (1500) controllers used in the OWC and Vertex LE. Hopefully it will have no problems like Sivermail is getting, or else I will return it for an Intel G2.
 
chopper dave said:
I called OWC today and they are still out of stock on all their SSDs, though they *promised* they were getting more in tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the unavailabilty of OWC's SSD's is related to first pass yeild issues with the Sandforce controller. It's possible that who ever is manufacturing the drives has stopped shipping them until the firmware issues are resolved. IIRC Intel did something similar with their SSD's. I'm going to call OWC today and see if I can find someone who actually knows what's going on.
 
bob5820 said:
Where are you seeing that end users are having sleep issues that are specific to the Sandforce controller. Silvermail's issue from what I can see was resolved by switching hibernate to 0. My understanding is that the hibernation issue is common to most if not all SSD's and not just the Sandforce. Am I confusing two different issues here?
Click to expand...

That is not a solution, and no, it's not a problem common to most/all SSDs.
 
sejanus said:
hi guys

I'm looking into maybe getting an ssd for my 2009 17" mbp. I was wondering, I understand the owc mercury drive is faster on paper but would you see that difference much on a laptop, or is it more something you would see on a macpro?

I'm tossing up the 160gb intel vs the 100gb mercury - that extra 60gb on the intel would definitely come in handy. The 200gb mercury is pretty wild price wise!

thanks!
Click to expand...
I may be able to answer this performance question in a few days. I've got the Intel 160GB in my MacPro and the OWC 100GB which is going in my MBP should be here tomorrow. Performance was not the deciding feature in why I chose a Sandforced based SSD like the OWC. My interest in this drive is more about the garbage collection features that I'm hoping will offset OSX's lack of TRIM support, at least until Steve deems us worthy of such technology. The value of the extra space on the Intel disk kind of depends on how you will be implementing the drive in your MBP. If your pulling the HHD and keeping the super drive then having the extra 60GB would be pretty important. If your ditching the super drive and keeping the HHD then you really only need enough space on the SSD for OSX, your apps, and possibly Windows.
 
MBHockey said:
That is not a solution, and no, it's not a problem common to most/all SSDs.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty widespread to me. Unfortunately it was not a solution for Silvermail but disabling hibernation does seem to be an effective solution in many cases. The added benefit of doing so is not losing 2 - 8 GB of SSD space to copy RAM.

http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?p=576116

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...eep-cycling-problems-with-MacOSX-10.5.6-(9G55)

http://www.123macmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26341&sid=4d0129be648211b5af05d31ee29f4b89

http://www.forum.crucial.com/t5/Sol...-sleep-with-latest-firmware-ver-1711/m-p/3627
 
bob5820 said:
Silvermail, has OWC been working with you on a solution for your problems with their drive?
Click to expand...
I've sent them an email recently to ask on the expected release of the firmware to fix all these issues and they responded with "We don't know". Hate it...
 
silvermail said:
I've sent them an email recently to ask on the expected release of the firmware to fix all these issues and they responded with "We don't know". Hate it...
Click to expand...
Hopefully new firmware will be out soon that will solve you're problem. I've always had good luck with OWC when ever I had an issue with something they sold me but they were probably being honest about not knowing when the firmware will be released. You might want to give them a call and push the issue with them in a polite way. Ask to speak with whoever is in charge of out sourcing the drive, they may have a contact within Sandforce who could shed some light on the subject.
 
silvermail said:
PS: I've just performed a SecureATA erase using Ubuntu and have just restored from my Time Machine so the drive should be pretty 'clean'.

Results 282.23
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6 (10A432)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacBookPro5,3
Drive Type OWC Mercury Extreme SSD-E
User Interface Test 300.95
Elements 300.95 1.38 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 265.71
Sequential 157.04
Uncached Write 235.21 144.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 247.11 139.82 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 69.40 20.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 361.64 181.76 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 862.76
Uncached Write 1225.34 129.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 435.53 139.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2137.79 15.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 946.65 175.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Click to expand...


For comparison, here are my XBench results for a 128GB OCZ Vertex (firmware 1.5) in my MacBook Pro i7:

System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.3 (10D2094)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro6,2
Drive Type OCZ-VERTEX
Disk Test 287.44
Sequential 251.97
Uncached Write 338.73 207.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 331.14 187.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 134.76 39.44 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 402.86 202.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 334.52
Uncached Write 116.82 12.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 541.68 173.41 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2863.84 20.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 831.81 154.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]


Other than the random small block uncached write figure being terribly low, I am very pleased with these numbers. FWIW, I did not give the Vertex a secure erase (I simply erased with Disk Utility). The Vertex had been running in my C2D machine for about 18 months with no issues.

Would ya'll recommend I go ahead and do a secure erase to see if that improves the 4K block random write?

Mark
 
I'll throw my XBench results into the fray

Results 255.44
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.3 (10D573)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacBookPro5,4
Drive Type OWC Mercury Extreme SSD-E
Disk Test 255.44
Sequential 151.11
Uncached Write 225.90 138.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 225.35 127.50 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 67.70 19.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 352.71 177.27 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 825.12
Uncached Write 1215.81 128.71 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 403.66 129.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 2191.75 15.53 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 916.03 169.98 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Perhaps I misunderstood the article on Anandtech but I would have expected my 4K read and writes to be down compared to Silvermails but they look to be fairly comparable, though my overall result is down. Its possible that rev 305 does not imply firmware 3.05. Silvermail what rev is your drive?
 
chopper dave said:
luckily I found that Corsair just released their version of the same drive last week, the F100 and F200. They are in-stock at Tigerdirect and mine will arrive tomorrow!

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...ils.asp?EdpNo=6026791&sku=C13-8297&srkey=f100
Click to expand...


I'm getting F200 also and just to be safe I'm gonna run
secure erase as shown here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/841182/

There are some reports on Corsair forum that it helps
amazingly with those drives, maybe they are setup that way?
 
I just got my 100gb OWC Mercury the other day and haven't had any issues with it (sleeping or otherwise). It's super fast and definitely worth it IMO. Of course, I'm running it on a 2006 Core Duo MBP so the difference in speed is really noticeable.

I ordered it in late March and after asking them about the stock because shipping was delayed they too said they were unsure when they'd be getting more. A day later I got an email announcing my tracking numbers. They're just packed with orders so I'd cut them a little slack unless you absolutely need it. If their numbers are accurate (especially write speeds) compared to the competition, I think its worth a little wait.
 
CaptainKebab said:
I just got my 100gb OWC Mercury the other day and haven't had any issues with it (sleeping or otherwise). It's super fast and definitely worth it IMO. Of course, I'm running it on a 2006 Core Duo MBP so the difference in speed is really noticeable.

I ordered it in late March and after asking them about the stock because shipping was delayed they too said they were unsure when they'd be getting more. A day later I got an email announcing my tracking numbers. They're just packed with orders so I'd cut them a little slack unless you absolutely need it. If their numbers are accurate (especially write speeds) compared to the competition, I think its worth a little wait.
Click to expand...
I've been running mine since yesterday in my 2009 MBP and I'm happy to report no issues so far. The speed is incredible though its hard to quantify any real world difference between the OWC in my MBP and the 160GB Intel in my MP. Judging solely by the seat of my pants I'd guess that any performance advantage the OWC has over the intel is mitigated by the performance delta between the system bus in the MP and the system bus in the MBP. When I ordered my drive from OWC they were predicting a 12 day wait until it shipped. The actual wait was closer to 20 days but OWC did try to make up for the additional wait by overnighting it to me for free. OWC is still my first choice when buying stuff for either of my Macs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back