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

OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD Problem

fdeldongo said:
The bug I still have with 360 firmware is when my Mac Pro wakes from automatic sleep. Then it behaves as if the SSD was not connected anymore (I see the finder, can move the mouse, but can't do anything else, except hard reboot).
Wake from sleep works only when the mac is put to sleep "manually" (with the sleep command from the apple menu)

You're right, the way fw is updated is not very macfriendly.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Just want to confirm I am also experiencing this. Manually putting it to sleep via finder, or folding down the lid of the MBP is fine, it wakes up with no problem at all.
However, letting it sleep automatically, and then waking up; after a few seconds this results in a beachball, and having to force a reboot (luckily the reboot is quick with the SSD albeit inconvenient!)

Exactly what I experienced with the 343 firmware; so I cant see what this version has solved?

Just set my energy prefs back to never sleep automatically.
 
luchazo said:
Hi!

Just a question.... What is your setup?

THe first partition of the OWC SDD with Mac OSX and the 2nd partition with Windows 7?

Thanks
Luciano
Click to expand...

I just created a new partition today using the Boot Camp assistant so I could run the new fw updater tool. So yes, my Windows partition is 2nd (not counting my boot partition or whatever that first volume is). When updating the firmware in Windows, it ended up wanting to reboot twice (be sure to run the updater exe as Administrator).

Code: 
  Volumes:
  Capacity:	209.7 MB (209,715,200 bytes)
  Writable:	Yes
  BSD Name:	disk0s1
Macintosh SSD:
  Capacity:	219 GB (218,999,996,416 bytes)
  Available:	124.27 GB (124,267,552,768 bytes)
  Writable:	Yes
  File System:	Journaled HFS+
  BSD Name:	disk0s2
  Mount Point:	/
BOOTCAMP:
  Capacity:	20.71 GB (20,712,521,728 bytes)
  Available:	10.26 GB (10,264,432,640 bytes)
  Writable:	No
  File System:	NTFS
  BSD Name:	disk0s3
  Mount Point:	/Volumes/BOOTCAMP
 
muirm said:
I just created a new partition today using the Boot Camp assistant so I could run the new fw updater tool. So yes, my Windows partition is 2nd (not counting my boot partition or whatever that first volume is). When updating the firmware in Windows, it ended up wanting to reboot twice (be sure to run the updater exe as Administrator).

Code: 
  Volumes:
  Capacity:	209.7 MB (209,715,200 bytes)
  Writable:	Yes
  BSD Name:	disk0s1
Macintosh SSD:
  Capacity:	219 GB (218,999,996,416 bytes)
  Available:	124.27 GB (124,267,552,768 bytes)
  Writable:	Yes
  File System:	Journaled HFS+
  BSD Name:	disk0s2
  Mount Point:	/
BOOTCAMP:
  Capacity:	20.71 GB (20,712,521,728 bytes)
  Available:	10.26 GB (10,264,432,640 bytes)
  Writable:	No
  File System:	NTFS
  BSD Name:	disk0s3
  Mount Point:	/Volumes/BOOTCAMP
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
Guy Mancuso said:
http://macperformanceguide.com/. Lloyd is a friend of mine and he does test for OWC

OWC Begins Transition to 25nm Flash Memory With Big Price Drop for 400GB SSD PERMALINK

OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 400GB SSD
Looks like OWC has begun transitioning to 25nm flash, dropping the price of a 400GB solid state drive from about $1500 to about $920 for the 400GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD as I write this. However, shipping date is noted as “10 Days”.

Presumably we will soon see the 60/120/240GB capacities migrate to the 25nm flash chips as well, but whether these will be 56/115/230GB capacities is unclear.

The new 25nm flash apparently requires more over provisioning, hence the 400GB instead of 480GB capacity (both with 512GB flash memory). But perhaps that will change as well— I don’t yet know.

Note that I have not yet tested the new versions based on 25nm flash, but I expect to do so in the next week or two.

Also, 6Gbps SSDs based on the 6Gbps Sandforce controller are due sometimes in the next month or two. Though the Mac Pro still has only 3Gbps SATA ports, the new 2011 MacBook Pro has one internal 6Gbps SATA port, and assuming no compatibility issues (I doubt that OWC would ship without ensuring compatibility), then of course a 6Gbps SSD would be preferable, but how much faster is an open question. Few programs can use the speed of even the current 3Gbps SSDs, so if you already have one, sleep well and no worries.

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011
Click to expand...

Hmm. But per comment 20 to this post, it may not be a capacity bump; it looks like the 400 is really the 480, just with a price reduction (to get under the Intel 600 GB drive being released in a week?).
 
Question about running the firmware update.Does the Bootcamp partition have to be on the ssd? My setup is ssd in HD bay and OEM HD in optical bay.
Right now I have the bootcamp partition is in the OEM HD.
Thanks much!
 
New firmware still has problem

Just thought I'd post again as well as edit my original post. After updating to the new firmware I still experienced the beach-ball lockup (as also reported by a previous poster).

I usually sit on the sidelines when it comes to issues like this, but this time I may have to send OWC an email letting them know how disappointed I am to have wasted my time updating the firmware to a version that doesn't actually fix the problem.
 
Fw 310

Get FW version 310. No wakeup issues there.

There have been three releases with the wakeup problem and somehow I can't believe the 10% problem rate from Grant at OWC in his only post here. 10% may report it, but from data collected on-line, it seems a higher percentage is having issues.

We know that FW 310 lacks the wakeup issue. We cannot find out, though, that problem FW 343, 350 and 360 were supposed to fix. OWC will not release that information despite being asked directly in a number of forums.

There is still no Mac flash tool and even with Windows, we have seen only one person successfully upgrade.

Instead of discussing issues with the OWC SSD, they publicize a dissection of a competitor's product. I will agree the customer service at OWC is friendly, as with Grant's post above. But I have not experienced nor heard reports of them being particularly helpful or forthcoming with useful information.

Again, ask for FW 310 and enjoy the reduced boot time.
 
Guy Mancuso said:
http://macperformanceguide.com/. Lloyd is a friend of mine and he does test for OWC



OWC Begins Transition to 25nm Flash Memory With Big Price Drop for 400GB SSD PERMALINK


OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 400GB SSD
Looks like OWC has begun transitioning to 25nm flash, dropping the price of a 400GB solid state drive from about $1500 to about $920 for the 400GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD as I write this. However, shipping date is noted as “10 Days”.

Presumably we will soon see the 60/120/240GB capacities migrate to the 25nm flash chips as well, but whether these will be 56/115/230GB capacities is unclear.

The new 25nm flash apparently requires more over provisioning, hence the 400GB instead of 480GB capacity (both with 512GB flash memory). But perhaps that will change as well— I don’t yet know.

Note that I have not yet tested the new versions based on 25nm flash, but I expect to do so in the next week or two.

Also, 6Gbps SSDs based on the 6Gbps Sandforce controller are due sometimes in the next month or two. Though the Mac Pro still has only 3Gbps SATA ports, the new 2011 MacBook Pro has one internal 6Gbps SATA port, and assuming no compatibility issues (I doubt that OWC would ship without ensuring compatibility), then of course a 6Gbps SSD would be preferable, but how much faster is an open question. Few programs can use the speed of even the current 3Gbps SSDs, so if you already have one, sleep well and no worries.

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011
Click to expand...

Thank you for providing this link, that is interesting information.

Unfortunately, I took a look at the most recent post on that website, which happens to address the Hibernation issue: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2011/20110321_1-OWCSSDHibernate--news.html --

I found the contents (and the tone) unhelpful. The author essentially pooh-poohs the idea that there are issues with Sleep and/or Hibernate with Sandforce-based SSDs.

1. First, he claims that there is no sleep issue, period. That seems to directly contradict reports in this thread (see #349 and #351), which describe system hangs when a computer is left to go to sleep automatically.

2. Second, he does not say in fact whether he has found hibernate to be actually broken. He suggests that he has never actually tested it (since he has not let his battery run down to that point). He also has a lot of language about how hibernation uses up disk space, is only invoked in really rare situations, is responsible for lost puppies and childhood cavities, etc etc etc.

3. Third, he insinuates that whatever the problem is/was, it is now "resolved" by this latest firmware bug. That again seems to contradict reports in this thread (#349 and #351).

As someone who:

1. is contemplating spending $1000 on a SSD for my Macbook Pro, and
2. recognizes the utility of having a hibernate mode (I run my computer off the battery quite often, and it is important that if I run out of juice and I can't get to a power adapter in time, that my data be safe),

this does little to help me with my purchasing decision at all.

I have been a big OWC fan, and have recommended them to many, many people. But to the extent that OWC is associated with macperformanceguide.com, reading this article, which seems disingenuous, and perhaps even intentionally misleading, actually hurts my opinion of them.

Tim

UPDATE: according to a mention here (http://blog.macsales.com/tag/diglloyd), OWC and macperformanceguide appear to be independent. So my post is more a criticism of diglloyd's blog entry.
 
Last edited:
Actually was not a fan of his last post either. Seemed a little off target as there are hibernation issues for sure. I have never tested it myself but plenty of data out there to say there is which is good enough for me. As always with anything read with skepticism. I don't believe everything CNN says either nor this or any other forum and I own a photo forum as well. LOL

I like the 25 percent retention clause. ROTFLMAO
 
OCZ has handled this right on their forums - they've acknowledged the issue and reported that they were going to beta test the firmware they received from Sandforce over the weekend before releasing it, something which OWC didn't bother to do.
 
where the heck is the Vertex 3 have money in hand. I 'm ready for whoever comes out first. LOL

Seriously thinking the Intel 510 for now. But they are having issues too it seems with the MBP.

I do like my OWC extreme Pro 200gb BTW as it has worked great from day one but I do not hibernate and rarely even sleep the thing so for meit is fine . I just want a Sata 3 now in the main drive spot as the OWC is in the optibay for storage and backup when I get the Sata 3 drive
 
Weaselboy said:
There is a difference. OCZ did it (switch chips) on the same model and continued to sell that 25nm crippled model as if it had the same chips it did originally. Very dishonest in my view. Now, in addition to the chip swap, it looks like they are using unrated memory chips.

OWC and it looks like Intel on their new 320 series SSD are moving to 25nm chips because they cost less. But both OWC and Intel are not hiding this fact like OCZ did. That for me is the key difference. As I understand it the 25nm chips will have a shorter life expectancy due to lower write cycle rating on the 25nm. In normal usage though, you are likely to have long dumped your SSD before it hits these limits.

Here is a good article on what OCZ did. Is this a company you want to do business with?
Click to expand...

I'm not an SSD expert but SSD chips work in a RAID like fashion. More chips = more simultaneous writes.

What OCZ did was that on their 25nm drives, they used half the channels (8) of the 32nm drives, which had 16 channels or chips. Hence performance dropped pretty badly. RAID setups were affected and customers weren't getting what they paid for. It was a botched implementation with a switch and bait tactic.

Horrible.

But I'm also hearing that the OWC article about the second class chips aren't entirely correct. The "S" logo is a SpecTek logo and the chips have been rebinned and passed quality control. AL means that the chips passed or are above specs.
 
They just said to me, via chat, that a new version 400 is available

Hey guys, just chatting with OWC, they told me a new version 4.00 is available (I assume he meant 400) that replaces the 360...

someone to confirm this?

Hope this helps


BTW, at OWC they really answer my doubts every time... I impressed!

hopefully this ends the hibernation/sleep problems I've been having...
 
KJmoon117 said:
But I'm also hearing that the OWC article about the second class chips aren't entirely correct. The "S" logo is a SpecTek logo and the chips have been rebinned and passed quality control. AL means that the chips passed or are above specs.
Click to expand...

Interesting. If this turns out to be the case, one would think OCZ would respond publicly somehow.
 
kobyh15 said:
Confirmed. Someone flash their drive and see if it works and let us know! Hellhammer mentioned this in another thread about an hour ago.

http://blog.macsales.com/
Click to expand...

Downloaded the FW update, and, sadly, it's still the same 360 version, dated saturday 19th, the one some of us already tested and that still has the wake from automatic sleep bug :-(
 
" Monday, March 21st, 2011 | Author: OWC Grant

..............

So, you can get this new firmware update in one of two ways: "

So, the fw you download today is not the last. Just wait " one or two days "

Luis
 
celina20 said:
" Monday, March 21st, 2011 | Author: OWC Grant

..............

So, you can get this new firmware update in one of two ways: "

So, the fw you download today is not the last. Just wait " one or two days "

Luis
Click to expand...


ok, cool.. Then it confirms what they told me.... but they wrongly said to me that the new firmware (aka 400??) was already available...

So let's wait 1 or 2 days then...:D
 
celina20 said:
" Monday, March 21st, 2011 | Author: OWC Grant

..............

So, you can get this new firmware update in one of two ways: "

So, the fw you download today is not the last. Just wait " one or two days "

Luis
Click to expand...

If you click to download it says that the firmware is current as of March 18, 2011. So you think they blogged and announced a new firmware and then linked a way to download the old firmware? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do that.
 
kobyh15 said:
If you click to download it says that the firmware is current as of March 18, 2011. So you think they blogged and announced a new firmware and then linked a way to download the old firmware? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do that.
Click to expand...

I think the guy from OWC that chatted with me assumed the new 400? firmware was available already.... and it's not..

The last message seems to suggest that indeed, there is a new firmware, to be available in 1 or 2 days...
 
Last edited:
luchazo said:
I think the guyu that chetted with me assumed the new 400? firmware was available already.... and it's not..

The last message seems to suggest that indeed, there is a new firmware, to be available in 1 or 2 days...
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I see. Well I sincerely hope that is the case as do many others I am sure. I have been following this situation pretty closely because I am in the market for a new SSD soon. I was hoping they would get this resolved so that the new SATA III drives that OWC comes out with will also be bug-free. Here's hoping!
 
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