OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid First Thoughts Review

OCZ recently announced availability of the 1TB RevoDrive Hybrid, which marries a 1TB 2.5" hard drive with a 100GB OCZ SSD and caching software to deliver SSD like speeds across the larger storage volume. The hybrid idea of course isn't new, Seagate's Momentus XT has shipped over one million units and there are several client and enterprise solutions that use a combination of hardware and software to accomplish similar goals. OCZ's going for simplicity though, a self-contained solution that is easy to set up and leverages the PCIe interface to deliver reads up to 910 MB/s, writes of 810 MB/s and 4KB random write IOPS of 120,000. 

While the thought of a hybrid SSD and hard drive solution may conjure up thoughts of slapping together a Vertex 3 and 1TB notebook drive onto a PCIe card; the solution is substantially more elegant. The RevoDrive Hybrid is actually more like the RevoDrive 3 X2 we recently reviewed; though the Hybrid has two SandForce SF-2281 processors compared to four, and less NAND. The point is, the RevoDrive Hybrid is a performance car, with minivan capacity.

As it stands, the RevoDrive Hybrid is available in a single 1TB capacity. The 2.5" hard drive can be removed though, meaning the drive capacity could be upgraded as manufacturers release higher capacity 2.5" drives - however this does require BIOS support from OCZ. The MSRP is $499, which if measured on a combined performance and capacity scale, is actually pretty favorable. 1TB of SSD storage is going to run into the $2500+ area, a 1TB 2.5" hard drive is roughly $100.

The value proposition is pretty clear, the likelihood of success though resides firmly on OCZ's ability to integrate the Dataplex caching software from NVELO to deliver the heady performance enthusiasts expect.

OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid Specs

• Usable Capacities (IDEMA) - 100GB SSD+1TB HDD
• 25nm MLC NAND
• PCI-Express Gen. 2 x4
• PCIe FullHeight
• SandForce SF-2281 x 2
• Hard Drive Rotational Speed - 5,400 RPM
• Dataplex Caching Software
• Size: 167.64 x 98.42 x 22.15 mm (dimensions do not include bracket)
• Weight: 289g
• Power Consumption - Idle: 8.1W Active: 10W
• MTBF - 600,000 hours
• Read unrecoverable bit error rate (UBER) 10e-16 (<1in 1016 bits read)
• 128-bit & 256-bit AES-compliant
• 3-Year Warranty

Design and Build

The OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid is built on the same platform as the RevoDrive3 X2 we reviewed earlier this year, with the main difference being the daughter board has a hard drive installed on it versus another half of an SSD. The base section of the card still includes two SandForce SF-2200 controllers, with MLC NAND split up between both.

The card offers sixteen OCZ branded NAND pieces with a capacity of 16GB each. This gives the card a raw capacity of 128GB with 100GB visible by the end-user. This level of over-provisioning is more aggressive than what is usually found in consumer products, but aligns with what you might find in an enterprise setting. Since the NAND is seeing more write cycles in a hybrid setting over a standard boot drive, it needs to cope with more wear over its lifespan.

Caching System

The OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid has a unique caching system unlike what we saw in place on other hybrid platforms such as the Seagate Momentus XT. On the XT, all the user saw from the hardware level was a single 500GB hard drive, with the internal software hiding the 4GB SLC NAND from the outside. The software then picked up on what data was being used frequently and cached accordingly. On the OCZ hybrid solution the user sees both the SSD and HDD hardware devices from the start, with software installed to handle caching. This presents a few problems, although most are related to benchmarking, not the standard user experience.

From a consistent benchmarking perspective, we work with raw unpartitioned drives, with the drive being tested always being secondary. This leaves out any I/O interaction with the drive during tests and removes the software layer from slowing down or skewing results between runs. The OCZ caching solution needing an OS to be installed to function puts our standard benchmarking processes in a bind, pushing us from IOMeter to higher-level system benchmarks such as PCMark Vantage to show the differences in performance.

First Thoughts Wrap-up

We're diligently running the RevoDrive Hybrid through our testing methodology now and will post a full review with detailed benchmarks soon. Please post any questions or comments for the full review in our forums.

SanDisk Ultra SSD Review (240GB)

The SanDisk Ultra SSD was announced just earlier this year. Our 240GB unit has a $420 street price and features a SandForce SF-1222 processor. It also uses the company’s own NAND flash memory. Check out our review where we compare it to other SSDs in its market segment and see how it compares.

The Ultra SSD is the first SanDisk SSD we’ve reviewed here at StorageReview. The Ultra 240GB SSD is somewhat unremarkable; the specifications aren’t much different than those from other vendors that use SandForce controllers such as OCZ or OWC. Any performance differences will likely lie in the fact this drive uses SanDisk’s own NAND flash memory and the optimization of the processor/controller.

The SanDisk Ultra SSD is also available in 60GB and 120GB sizes starting at MSRP $129.99.

Sandisk Ultra 240GB SSD Specs

• Interface: SATA 3Gb/s
• Capacity: 240GB (60GB and 120GB also available)
• Processor: SandForce SF-1222
• NAND Flash: 16x 16GB SanDisk 05070 016G, 124ddzogp pieces
• Max Sequential Read: 280MB/s
• Max Sequential Write: 270MB/s
• Power Active: 0.43W
• Weight: 96.4g
• Shock Resistant: 1500G @ 0.5 msec
• Vibration: 2.17gRMS, 5-700Hz
• TBW: 40, 80, and 128TB for 60, 120, and 240GB models respectively
• 2.5-inch drive, 9.5mm form factor

Design and Build

The SanDisk Ultra SSD has a stamped metal case like the Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue and Viking Modular Enterprise SSD; although instead of being bare silver it is painted matte black. The case is very sturdy, in fact one of the strongest designs we have seen, and conforms to the 2.5-inch hard drive spec to fit in all tight-fitting 2.5-inch enclosures.

Both sides have horizontal mounting points for securing the drive in a hard drive bay, as well as screws that hold the two case halves together.

The bottom of the drive is pretty basic outside of the additional tray mounting holes and some screw threads visible that are used to hold the internal circuit board to the bottom half of the case.

The front of the drive features a standard SATA power and data connection, with no visible service pins.

Disassembly

The SanDisk Ultra SSD is easy to take apart, although doing so will void the warranty. The two metal case halves are held together with some friction and four small Phillips head screws along the sides of the case. With the screws removed (one screw covered by a warranty voiding sticker), you can carefully pry the two case halves apart.

Inside the SSD we immediately see sixteen SanDisk-sourced 05070 016G 16GB NAND pieces flowing through a SandForce SF-1222 controller. As a NAND producer, it was good to see SanDisk using their own flash inside the Ultra SSD.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Our reviews start with synthetic benchmarks, which provide a glimpse of what can be expected from the drive on its best day. These benchmarks will show off the maximum performance capabilities of each drive and highlight strengths and weaknesses.

SanDisk says the Ultra SSD can read up to 280MB/s sequentially and write 270MB/s sequentially; our numbers measured in at 263MB/s and 250MB/s, respectively, or about 7% less. While the read number isn’t impressive the write number is above most competitors.

The SanDisk SSD produces nearly the same numbers in this random transfer benchmark, which is impressive; notice how some competing drives like the Intel models lost performance. One way or another the SanDisk isn’t even close to the OCZ Vertex 3 (which is more expensive, however).

And just when I said the SanDisk SSD could not touch the OCZ, the tables turn; it crushes the competition here and the Vertex 3 just barely pulls ahead in write performance.

The SanDisk SSD puts up another great showing here – could this be a sign of things to come?

These numbers are a good deal lower than the IOMeter 2MB sequential benchmarks we ran at the beginning.

This next set of IOMeter benchmarks simulate a server-style load on the drives. This analysis is relevant for enterprise customers looking to integrate these drives into server applications. Typically only enterprise-class SSDs are used for such applications. What we’re looking for here is a performance increase from left to right.

The SanDisk SSD outperforms nearly all of the competition, even the more expensive OCZ Vertex 3. However, the OCZ takes over once the queue depth increases to 32+.

Real-World Benchmarks

The first real-life test is our HTPC scenario. In this test we include: playing one 720P HD movie in Media Player Classic, one 480P SD movie playing in VLC, three movies downloading simultaneously through iTunes, and one 1080i HDTV stream being recorded through Windows Media Center over a 15 minute period. Higher IOps and MB/s rates with lower latency times are preferred. In this trace we recorded 2,986MB being written to the drive and 1,924MB being read.

The SanDisk SSD manages to stay just above middle of the pack. The Intel SSD 510 makes a surprise showing and outperforms it (the SanDisk beat it in a good number of the synthetic benchmarks). The SanDisk SSD has a low latency – it’s good to see some of our synthetic findings translated in to real-world results. A low latency most certainly helps read and write performance alike.

Our second real-life test covers disk activity in a productivity scenario. For all intents and purposes this test shows drive performance under normal daily activity for most users. This test includes: a three hour period operating in an office productivity environment with 32-bit Vista running Outlook 2007 connected to an Exchange server, web browsing using Chrome and IE8, editing files within Office 2007, viewing PDFs in Adobe Reader, and an hour of local music playback with two hours of additional online music via Pandora. In this trace we recorded 4,830MB being written to the drive and 2,758MB being read.

The drive falls a bit further behind in this test versus the last, only outperforming the mainstream Intel SSDs. Again it maintains a low latency which is good and makes for a responsive drive even under load. The SanDisk SSD is outclassed by the enthusiast-level Intel 510 and OCZ Vertex 3 though – there’s no hiding the fact.

Our third real-life test covers disk activity in a gaming environment. Unlike the HTPC or Productivity trace, this one relies heavily on the read performance of a drive. To give a simple breakdown of read/write percentages, the HTPC test is 64% write, 36% read, the Productivity test is 59% write and 41% read, while the gaming trace is 6% write and 94% read. The test consists of a Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit system pre-configured with Steam, with Grand Theft Auto 4, Left 4 Dead 2, and Mass Effect 2 already downloaded and installed. The trace captures the heavy read activity of each game loading from the start, as well as textures as the game progresses. In this trace we recorded 426MB being written to the drive and 7,235MB being read.

It is possible the SanDisk SSD’s SATA 3.0Gb/s interface is holding it back, evidenced by the differences between the OCZ Vertex 3 6.0Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s models. The SanDisk SSD doesn’t make a notable showing here.

Power

The SanDisk SSD uses a relatively small amount of power, even for an SSD. The read and write numbers are especially low.

Warranty

The SanDisk Ultra SSD is backed by an industry-standard three-year limited warranty. SanDisk also rates the 240GB Ultra SSD for a whopping 128TB of total data written to it over its lifespan. The 60GB and 120GB versions are rated for 40TB and 80TB, respectively.

Conclusion

The SanDisk Ultra SSD 240GB is a good buy. It provides an attractive mix of performance, capacity, and price which are all things people shopping for an SSD are looking for. Slightly over $400 street for a 240GB drive is reasonable, although the price is on the higher side given the last-generation SandForce processor. In some of our benchmarks it actually outperformed the class-leading OCZ Vertex 3, but ultimately stayed below SATA 6Gb/s-enabled models.

On the topic of performance, it’s unfortunate the SanDisk opted to use the older SATA 3.0Gb/s interface instead of the new SATA 6.0Gb/s standard. Our real-world benchmarks especially showed it is likely a limiting factor in certain scenarios where maximum disk performance is required. That said, the drive still has more than reasonable performance and isn’t slow by any means.

At the end of the day we can give the SanDisk Ultra SSD 240GB our recommendation for an ideal mix of performance, capacity, and price. We're also enthusiastic to see SanDisk in the client SSD space and can't wait to see what comes next.

Pros:

• Good overall performance
• Good value
• Low power consumption

Cons:

• Older SATA 3.0Gb/s interface holds back performance

Corsair Force Series GT Review (240GB)

Back in July we reviewed the 120GB Force Series GT and now we finally get our hands on the larger 240GB model. With the 240GB SSD market getting extra attention these days, we put it to the test, stacking it up against other 240GB models, as well as its smaller 120GB brother.

Corsair posts serious performance numbers for the Force GT series: 85,000 IOPS and up to 555MB/s read and 525MB/s write. It features a SandForce controller and uses the latest 25nm synchronous NAND flash memory.

 

Corsair Force Series GT Specs

• Formatted Capacity - 111.79GB
• SandForce SF-2281 Processor
• 25nm Synchronous IMFT NAND
• 555MB/s Read, 525MB/s write, 85k IOPS (240GB Capacity)
• Power Consumption: 0.6w idle, 2.5w active
• 240GB, 120GB and 60GB Capacities
• MTBF - 2 Million Hours
• 3 Year Warranty
• 2.5" Form Factor - Includes 3.5" Bracket

Be sure to check out our Corsair Force Series GT Review (120GB) for the full tear-down of this drive.

 

Synthetic Benchmarks

 

These synthetic benchmarks do not necessarily represent real-world performance; rather, they test specific areas of the drive such as maximum read and write speeds to show how well the drive can perform on its best day.

The 2MB sequential transfer benchmark represents how fast the drives can transfer large files. We can see essentially no difference between the Force GT 120GB and 240GB versions here save for the random run where the 240GB version almost doubles the 120GB’s score. The random benchmark uses incompressible data; SandForce controllers like the one the Corsair Force GT use compress data to improve performance (less reading/writing). Not all data can be compressed. The Force GT 240GB seems to be better at doing this than the 120GB.

The Force GT and the OCZ Vertex 3 are almost identical in this benchmark.

Think of the 2MB random transfer benchmark as transferring a number of separate 2MB files. The Force GT 240GB again shows the same performance as the 120GB version except in the random benchmark, where we have a repeat of the last benchmark.

IOPS – or input/output operations per second – test the SSD’s controller. The Force GT 120GB and 240GB have almost interchangeable benchmark numbers; also, we can see the Corsairs finally gaining some ground on the OCZ Vertex 3.

 

We have similar numbers here as well. More significant is the fact the OCZ Vertex 3 continues to fall behind – check out the maximum numbers.

The Force GT 240GB posts great performance here and is significantly better than its 120GB counterpart; we measured 295.9MB/s and 290MB/s for the sequential write and random 512k write, respectively; for comparison, the 120GB version only posted 170.4MB/s and 170MB/s, respectively, or about 42% less.

Our last synthetic benchmarks cover how the drives perform in an enterprise environment; the drives are subjected to server-style workloads. For the general consumer these benchmarks are not as relevant. We normally expect to see a performance increase from left to right as the queue depth increases from 1 to 128.

The Force GT 240GB does a lot better here, performing anywhere from 22-39% better than the 120GB version.

 

Real-World Benchmarks

 

Our real-world benchmarks are precisely that; we run actual applications and perform operations on real data to show exactly how these drives perform in the real world. There are three StorageMark 2010 benchmarks: HTPC Disk Capture, Productivity, and Gaming.

The first real-life test is our HTPC scenario. In this test we include: playing one 720P HD movie in Media Player Classic, one 480P SD movie playing in VLC, three movies downloading simultaneously through iTunes, and one 1080i HDTV stream being recorded through Windows Media Center over a 15 minute period. Higher IOps and MB/s rates with lower latency times are preferred. In this trace we recorded 2,986MB being written to the drive and 1,924MB being read.

We’re seeing about a 9% performance difference between the 240GB and 120GB Force GT SSDs. This is a noticeable difference in our synthetic benchmarks but not likely a noticeable difference in the real world.

Our second real-life test covers disk activity in a productivity scenario. For all intents and purposes this test shows drive performance under normal daily activity for most users. This test includes: a three hour period operating in an office productivity environment with 32-bit Vista running Outlook 2007 connected to an Exchange server, web browsing using Chrome and IE8, editing files within Office 2007, viewing PDFs in Adobe Reader, and an hour of local music playback with two hours of additional online music via Pandora. In this trace we recorded 4,830MB being written to the drive and 2,758MB being read.

Now we’re seeing some bigger performance differences between the 240GB and the 120GB, to the tune of 29%. Additionally the latency is 19% lower. This may be due to the fact more data is written to the drives in this benchmark.

Our third real-life test covers disk activity in a gaming environment. Unlike the HTPC or Productivity trace, this one relies heavily on the read performance of a drive. To give a simple breakdown of read/write percentages, the HTPC test is 64% write, 36% read, the Productivity test is 59% write and 41% read, while the gaming trace is 6% write and 94% read. The test consists of a Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit system pre-configured with Steam, with Grand Theft Auto 4, Left 4 Dead 2, and Mass Effect 2 already downloaded and installed. The trace captures the heavy read activity of each game loading from the start, as well as textures as the game progresses. In this trace we recorded 426MB being written to the drive and 7,235MB being read.

The Force GT 240GB does incrementally better than the 120GB version; it has a 5% lower latency (a good thing) and is about 6% faster overall. In all likelihood, this is not a difference that would be noticed in the real world.

 

Power Consumption

 

SSDs are notable for their low power consumption and the Force GT 240GB is no exception to the rule. It’s more or less the same as the 120GB version in this regard. At idle the drive uses just 0.47W; a common notebook hard drive might use twice as much. The highest values we measured were 1.93W for read and 3.56W for random reads (which is kind of high for an SSD).

 

Conclusion

 

The Force GT 240GB is a slightly different animal than the 120GB model; it posts significantly better write performance across the board and was especially noticeable in our real-world benchmarks. The Force GT 240GB goes for about $460 street, making it one of the more enthusiast-level SSD offerings (budget 240GB offerings are closer to the $400 mark). The 120GB version for comparison is about $205, so slightly less per GB. Naturally the highest-capacity model carries a slight premium.

 

Overall the Force GT is one of the best-performing SandForce-based SSDs available today; it doesn’t have a problem keeping up with the OCZ Vertex 3. If you need more space than the 120GB version offers and the 240GB is within your budget, we highly recommend it.

 

Pros

• Better write performance than the 120GB version
• Blistering overall performance

Cons

•  Slightly more money per GB than the 120GB version

Bottom Line

The Corsair Force GT 240GB is an enthusiast-level SSD through and through, keeping up with the best-performing offerings on the market today. It has even better write performance than the 120GB version.

Buffalo CloudStor Review

Personal Cloud - that's going to be an increasingly popular storage motif over the coming years as consumers figure out exactly how to manage their increasingly large and complex libraries of digital media files. Buffalo's take on the personal cloud space is the CloudStor, a two-bay NAS that's equally accessible within the home network or on the road via applications on mobile devices. 

Buffalo has a lot right in their approach with the CloudStor. Consumers want devices that are easy to configure and manage, that's a key point of home storage products. The CloudStor is essentially taken out of the box, plugged in and configured through a web interface. From there the storage volume is pretty much immediately available to all networked devices and over the Internet via mobile apps. Part of the ease of use is thanks to the integration with PogoPlug, who provides the software backbone to make the cloud functions and mobile apps work.

Another key factor is price - the single disk 1TB CloudStor has a street price of around $130. The single-disk 2TB version is $180 or $230 with the newer 1.6Ghz processor. While we'd certainly recommend a two-disk RAID1 setup for those wanting redundancy, Buffalo's low cost of entry on the single disk model makes the CloudStor appealing for those looking to get their feet wet with more robust home storage solutions. 

Buffalo CoudStor Specs

• One drive included, two drive bays
• Drive Interface SATA 3 Gb/s
• Hard Drive Sizes 1.0 TB (CS-WX1.0/1D)
• 2.0 TB (CS-WX2.0/1D & CS-WV2.0/1D)
• Supported RAID levels 1, JBOD (individual disks)
• Ethernet port
• USB 2.0 port
• File Sharing CIFS/SMB, AFP, HTTP/HTTPS
• Management HTTP
• Time Synchronization NTP
• Dimensions (WxHxD in.) 8.1x 5.1 x 3.4
• Weight (lbs) Average 5.1
• Power Consumption (Watts) Average 26 W, Maximum 48 W, 0.7 W Standby

Design and Build

The Buffalo CloudStor has a rather unassuming design which is easy to hide away on a shelf and forgot about it once you get it up and running. The look puts function over form, with an easy to remove front panel for hard drive access, and and uncluttered feel that gives vital information without any fluff.

After removing the front cover, both hard drives are easy to swap out if the need should arise. The drives are held in with a plastic retention clip and with a small tug from the bar on top slide out with ease. Stock configuration the CloudStor comes with a single drive, with the extra bay configurable as either RAID1 for some data protection or a spanned setup to increase available capacity.

The rear of the Buffalo CloudStor shows off the small cooling fan, USB 2.0 port for an external hard drive, power switch, power connection, and Ethernet connection. The power switch has three settings; auto, on, and off. We decided to leave the device in "on" during our testing to prevent it from shutting down to save power.

In Use

Setting up a storage device might be intimidating for someone with little or no experience. Buffalo has tried to mitigate any concerns with online documentation that's thorough - from a setup guide to support videos. Buffalo claims setup can be done in 60 seconds, which isn't too far away from the truth. After model plugged in and on our internet-accessible network, the CloudStor was visible through the online interface after entering in the device ID listed with our system. Once pair with your newly created account you can access the NAS wherever you are located, be it sitting next to the unit in your office or halfway around the world.

One of the big draws to the CloudStor interface is being able to remotely manage downloads no matter where you are presently located and have files ready for use when you return to the system. Buffalo includes a BitTorrent client for torrent downloads, which worked great in our testing. The client was quick to saturate our 10/1.5 business-class cable connection, topping out at roughly 1.1MB/s.

You can also access the CloudStor remotely from desktop and mobile apps. We included screenshots from the PogoPlug iPhone and iPad client for reference. The interface was very usable and you could access media very well remotely. Depending on your mobile device's connection speed your experience may vary.

You can also use the CloudStor to backup files from local media via the USB 2.0 port on the back. When you insert a device into the rear USB port the function LED lights up, and when you press the function button during the first three seconds it dumps all of the files into a 'directcopy' folder.

Performance

Transfer speeds to and from the Buffalo CloudStor were very reasonable in our local network. With a local share mapped to the NAS, we were able to measure speeds up to 42.6MB/s read and 50.2MB/s write using CrystalDiskMark. Using the latest software from Buffalo, we had no trouble working with files larger than 4.5GB. 

Power

Operating on an embedded platform the CloudStor uses power very efficiently, drawing just 13 watts at idle. Startup power peaked at 25 watts during the spin-up of the hard drive with the peak active power rate only rising to 14 watts when the device was being written to over the network.

Conclusion

The Buffalo CloudStor does what it's intended to do and does it well. Buffalo delivers an easy to set up home storage system that helps families or small businesses free their media files. Perhaps the best thing about the CloudStor is the second bay, giving users redundancy via RAID 1 if they choose to add a second hard drive. For whatever reason Buffalo only sells the CloudStor in a single-drive configuration, but adding a second is as easy as slapping it in the unit and working through the settings.

In terms of functionality the CloudStor does what consumers want, delivering their media files to multiple types of devices, ranging from smartphones and tablets to computers and TV screens. For the more technically inclined, the Torrent server is a nice touch, and will appeal to a large base of media consumers. The PogoPlug integration works very well for mobile access, putting all your files at your mobile fingertips, no matter what the network firewall situation might be. Overall for someone that might not be as experienced when it comes to building a home storage solution, Buffalo created a very easy to use platform to access and store media from anywhere.

Pros

• Easy setup and configuration
• Aggressive pricing

Cons

•  No 2-drive models

Bottom Line

The Buffalo CloudStor is a great home storage solution for someone with a lot of media they want to share between home and mobile devices and might not want to deal with a complicated network setup process.