![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,434
I have read about the write speed issues with the 660p, but I have 3 of them in service in my computers. 2x 1TB and 1x 512GB. They have issues, but they also work well in 2 of 3 cases I use them in (and they are very low power usage, which makes them good for laptops).
But here was my bad usage case.
I used a 1TB drive as a Primocache cache drive in order to buffer a 10TB HDD. I set Primocache to only use 800GB of the drive, leaving the rest alone. Initially, it did this job very well. But as Primocache did it's magic and filled up the drive, it finally got to using the 800GB of allocated space. By that time I noticed that all writes to the drive came in at 95-100MB/s. It was a consistent speed for sure, but clearly pretty disappointing.
So I removed that drive and put a regular TLC NAND NVME drive on Primocache duty for the 10TB. I moved the 660p over to a Hackintosh I'm putting together as a dedicated iTunes volume and copied about 350GB of music to iTunes. But I messed up the folder path, so I re-set the iTunes location on the drive and re-consolidated the library which means it copied the songs to the new location. So now there was about 700GB of usage on the drive. It very quickly dropped down to 95-100MB/s and thus took a LONG time to copy all the data.
Now read speed is still fine. And it that regards it's far superior to a HDD (since some people will say a HDD is better than this drive). For system drives, or application drives I have not had any issue with it. But for drives where you are transferring bulk media or expect heavy writes you need to look at TLC (3D) drives, they don't cost much more and do not suffer from this problem. The prices are falling on them very quickly, and that has usually been what has suckered me into buying them (expect for the one in my Macbook, which I got due to low power use). But you do need to take into consideration the usage case.
But here was my bad usage case.
I used a 1TB drive as a Primocache cache drive in order to buffer a 10TB HDD. I set Primocache to only use 800GB of the drive, leaving the rest alone. Initially, it did this job very well. But as Primocache did it's magic and filled up the drive, it finally got to using the 800GB of allocated space. By that time I noticed that all writes to the drive came in at 95-100MB/s. It was a consistent speed for sure, but clearly pretty disappointing.
So I removed that drive and put a regular TLC NAND NVME drive on Primocache duty for the 10TB. I moved the 660p over to a Hackintosh I'm putting together as a dedicated iTunes volume and copied about 350GB of music to iTunes. But I messed up the folder path, so I re-set the iTunes location on the drive and re-consolidated the library which means it copied the songs to the new location. So now there was about 700GB of usage on the drive. It very quickly dropped down to 95-100MB/s and thus took a LONG time to copy all the data.
Now read speed is still fine. And it that regards it's far superior to a HDD (since some people will say a HDD is better than this drive). For system drives, or application drives I have not had any issue with it. But for drives where you are transferring bulk media or expect heavy writes you need to look at TLC (3D) drives, they don't cost much more and do not suffer from this problem. The prices are falling on them very quickly, and that has usually been what has suckered me into buying them (expect for the one in my Macbook, which I got due to low power use). But you do need to take into consideration the usage case.
Last edited: