Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel

 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Wed May 06, 2015 10:04 am

cobalt wrote:
(Decent board, but just the slightest hint of flakiness in the Realtek LAN that I've stuck with Intel LAN GigE controllers since. And went back to ASUS, too, though I don't have anything against Gigabyte.)

Realtek LAN drivers seem to have improved significantly in the past few years. Drivers for some of their NICs were definitely problematic as late as 2010-ish, but I haven't had any significant issues in a while.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
cobalt
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:28 am

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Wed May 06, 2015 10:38 am

just brew it! wrote:
cobalt wrote:
(Decent board, but just the slightest hint of flakiness in the Realtek LAN that I've stuck with Intel LAN GigE controllers since. And went back to ASUS, too, though I don't have anything against Gigabyte.)

Realtek LAN drivers seem to have improved significantly in the past few years. Drivers for some of their NICs were definitely problematic as late as 2010-ish, but I haven't had any significant issues in a while.


It was never anything severe; just things like having Windows tell me periodically that I was now connected to the network, when I already had been connected; as if it briefly dropped the connection. So it could have been anything, including hardware outside the system itself (though its replacement never had any issues in the same spot). But the Intel ones were generally better respected, so I didn't have a problem paying a little more to get one. (I will say, the system hasn't shown any of those symptoms since it got a reinstall and new life as an HTPC, so a driver problem is certainly possible. Come to think of it, it may have still been running XP at the time; hard to remember for sure.)
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Sat May 09, 2015 5:33 pm

New amusement: the NAND containing the older and wonky bits in these broken things is actually more easily read at higher temperatures.

Unfortunately, the controller is susceptible to throttling at the temps where the read speed of the NAND might be relatively acceptible, rather suggesting that it has inadequate cooling :oops:
Desktop: 750W Snow Silent, X11SAT-F, E3-1270 v5, 32GB ECC, RX 5700 XT, 500GB P1 + 250GB BX100 + 250GB BX100 + 4TB 7E8, XL2730Z + L22e-20
HTPC: X-650, DH67GD, i5-2500K, 4GB, GT 1030, 250GB MX500 + 1.5TB ST1500DL003, KD-43XH9196 + KA220HQ
Laptop: MBP15,2
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Sat May 09, 2015 5:55 pm

Oh, fer Chrissakes, that article also mentions that the new firmware doesn't play nice with TRIM under Linux. Looks like I'm pretty much hosed as far as my 840 EVO goes. :roll:
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Sun May 10, 2015 11:19 pm

Here's some additional info on the 840 EVO TRIM issue: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1449005

It appears that the latest firmware breaks the 840 EVO's TRIM functionality in a way that (for some reason) affects Linux, but not Windows. At least one poster in that thread claims that the problem seems to be related to NCQ + TRIM -- disabling NCQ fixes the problem. Does anyone know whether Windows enables NCQ by default?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 10:46 am

Oh, it's so great how its broken under Linux; my 840 EVO was bought with the explicit intention of trickling down to be the Fedora disk next upgrade time, replacing the Kingston V100. Sigh.

Anyway, accordingto Martin K Petersen at Oracle,

Yes, this confirms that the old firmware did not support queued
TRIM. Whereas the new one does.

I'll try to reach out to my contacts at Samsung again so we can get this
resolved.

Until then, I have sent out a patch that blacklists queued TRIM for all
Samsung 800-series drives. It appears to be generic to their
implementation and not tied to a particular drive model.

Patch can be seen here

The issue was seemingly introduced in the 850 PRO f/w update a few months ago. The one they pulled from distribution and have not superceded. Despite which, they've introduced the same TRIM issue into the new 840 EVO f/w now; wonder if they used the same code?

There does seem to be an available test to verify disk trim functionality on Win 8 "if the device includes ATA non-NCQ Trim support" (which is how Linux needs to run the 840 EVO current f/w and 850 PRO pulled f/w), but I don't have Win 8 on a box with a testable drive.

There's also a test which "verifies that a SATA device that supports Trim performs according to the certification requirements" but
This test may trim or overwrite any or all of the sectors on the test device. As a result, the data on the drive will be lost. This test must be run against a secondary SATA device running in AHCI mode
so nope, not this week.
Desktop: 750W Snow Silent, X11SAT-F, E3-1270 v5, 32GB ECC, RX 5700 XT, 500GB P1 + 250GB BX100 + 250GB BX100 + 4TB 7E8, XL2730Z + L22e-20
HTPC: X-650, DH67GD, i5-2500K, 4GB, GT 1030, 250GB MX500 + 1.5TB ST1500DL003, KD-43XH9196 + KA220HQ
Laptop: MBP15,2
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 11:12 am

Ugh. So NCQ + TRIM is indeed totally borked if you install the new firmware. Isn't that special. :roll:

(Re)Introducing the same bug that they already caused in one of their other models (and pulled a firmware update over) is "amateur night" stuff. Especially when you're dealing with something that directly impacts the integrity of your customers' data. My already low opinion of Samsung's SSD firmware engineering team has just dropped another notch. I guess the phrases "configuration management" and "regression testing" aren't in their vocabulary.

It'll be a LONG time before I buy another Samsung SSD...
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
cobalt
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:28 am

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 11:33 am

Wow, reintroducing a bug like that is pretty embarrassing. I've said many times, I'll pay a little more for quality, but at the time I bought my Samsung 840 and 840 EVO, I thought I was getting quality. It's not like Samsung is new to the SSD game!

What's next for me, then -- Intel? Do we feel comfortable with Crucial?

Oh, and someone asked if I was running any special driver on my EVO host C2Q system; at least device manager just reports that it's the standard Microsoft provided driver from some ancient date (like 2006). I guess I haven't even bothered installing Magician on the system yet.
 
morphine
TR Staff
Posts: 11600
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 12:27 pm

cobalt wrote:
I guess I haven't even bothered installing Magician on the system yet.

Actually, the driver is supplied by your mobo chipset, so the Intel INF Update Utility if you're running Intel and, uh, whatever it is from AMD if not.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 12:42 pm

Crucial doesn't have the flawless track record Intel has. There are M4 issues that took ages to rectify, some of the original C300 drives were bricked with a simple firmware update, and I've encountered a few issues with the only batch of eight MX100's I encountered - and those issues seem to be a not-uncommon general complaint amonst non-windows users.

If it were me, I'd stick to Intel. Nobody else has their track record for honesty about problems and speed of bugfixes. Sure, they're 20% more expensive than the competition, but we're talking chump-change when compared to the downtime required to fix, replace, update, workaround etc.

I must have rolled out 20-30 840 or 840EVO drives across my main office and I reckon I saved maybe €300-600 over the same number of drives from Intel. I've already had to spend at least a couple of hours finding, deploying and scheduling Diskfresh on those drives and that's easily worth more than €300 to my company (what they pay me != what I'm billed at). Samsung's defects have cost us in my time alone, and that's not even considering the productivity loss to users who have had to wait five minutes every time they do something that should take 5 seconds on a non-defective drive.

In an enterprise environment where you measure the cost of downtime in £/€/$ thousands per minute, things like a $25 price difference between SSD vendors is completely irrelevant. I bought Samsung because they HAD a good reputation for validation and reliability. That record has been tarred and feathered for good.
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 12:53 pm

Chrispy_ wrote:
... I bought Samsung because they HAD a good reputation for validation and reliability. That record has been tarred and feathered for good.

QFT. It is going to take a mea culpa from Samsung, and a clean track record going forward for a couple of years before I would consider trusting them again.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
cobalt
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:28 am

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:07 pm

morphine wrote:
cobalt wrote:
I guess I haven't even bothered installing Magician on the system yet.

Actually, the driver is supplied by your mobo chipset, so the Intel INF Update Utility if you're running Intel and, uh, whatever it is from AMD if not.


Good point -- I was mostly just attesting to my lack of attention given to the system. (i.e. installed Windows, set WMC to boot at startup, disabled display power management, and done. Never installed any device-specific stuff, apparently.)

Edit: ... and it's not just enterprise -- I don't want to spend my time on this junk in my personal life, either. Samsung's off the list, and it's as much for not acknowledging the problem with vanilla 840's as for taking so long to figure out this problem at all. Their firmware update mess is just icing. Sounds like Intel is the clear front runner for reliability.
 
Welch
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:18 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Chrispy_ wrote:
... I bought Samsung because they HAD a good reputation for validation and reliability. That record has been tarred and feathered for good.

QFT. It is going to take a mea culpa from Samsung, and a clean track record going forward for a couple of years before I would consider trusting them again.


You made me rip out the google box on "Mea Culpa". Learning something every damn time you post.

Crucial is fine for me. The one issue they had with the Crucial M4 drives back in the day for me wasn't even remotely a deal breaker, they had a fix for it so fast and it didn't cause any lost data. Crucial is pretty high up there at this point for quality/track record. The only thing that made a few people angry with their new BX (and I think MX200) lineup is the metal casing on the SSD is cheaper, thing metal. I think it was steal before with the MX100's and the new ones I got for the BX100 and MX200 are a thinner, stretched type aluminum. I wouldn't worry because it is not like these drives need shock or crush proofing.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

1600x | Strix B350-F | CM 240 Lite | 16GB 3200 | RX 580 8GB | 970 EVO | Corsair 400R | Seasonic X 850 | Corsair M95 / K90 | Sennheiser PC37x
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:37 pm

Welch wrote:
You made me rip out the google box on "Mea Culpa". Learning something every damn time you post.

Blame Captain Ned; he uses it a lot, it's a habit I picked up from him. :lol:
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:43 pm

Looks like the MU01 Firmware of the MX100 had the same bug with not allowing a NCQ Trim.

On a different note, the tag for that in the kernel is silly. ATA_Horkage. Seriously? Where did the kernel team cook that one up from?
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
Welch
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:43 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Welch wrote:
You made me rip out the google box on "Mea Culpa". Learning something every damn time you post.

Blame Captain Ned; he uses it a lot, it's a habit I picked up from him. :lol:


Proof that learning is infectious.... Stop it! :roll:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

1600x | Strix B350-F | CM 240 Lite | 16GB 3200 | RX 580 8GB | 970 EVO | Corsair 400R | Seasonic X 850 | Corsair M95 / K90 | Sennheiser PC37x
 
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Posts: 28698
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:49 pm

Sure, make it my fault. :lol:
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 1:57 pm

Ryu Connor wrote:
Looks like the MU01 Firmware of the MX100 had the same bug with not allowing a NCQ Trim.

"Not allowing" as in it returns an error status and/or does nothing, or "not allowing" in the 840 EVO sense (the drive flakes out)?

Ryu Connor wrote:
On a different note, the tag for that in the kernel is silly. ATA_Horkage. Seriously? Where did the kernel team cook that one up from?

They're a bunch of nerds having fun with the internal stuff that isn't generally viewed by the public. It's the same sort of nerdy sense of humor which led to the internal code name for the Linux 3.11 kernel being "Linux for Workgroups".
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 2:01 pm

Chrispy_ wrote:
Crucial doesn't have the flawless track record Intel has.

Quite. The other "devices that don't properly handle queued TRIM commands" in libata-core.c (in Linus' tree):

/* devices that don't properly handle queued TRIM commands */
   { "Micron_M500*",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
   { "Crucial_CT*M500*",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
   { "Micron_M5[15]0*",      "MU01",   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
   { "Crucial_CT*M550*",      "MU01",   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
   { "Crucial_CT*MX100*",      "MU01",   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
   { "Samsung SSD 8*",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
                  ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },


Chrispy_ wrote:
I bought Samsung because they HAD a good reputation for validation and reliability. That record has been tarred and feathered for good.

I'll say. I was defaulting to Intel SSDs but stupidly bought a Samsung expecting the quality to be there. :oops:

Not again, though.
Last edited by Topinio on Mon May 11, 2015 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Desktop: 750W Snow Silent, X11SAT-F, E3-1270 v5, 32GB ECC, RX 5700 XT, 500GB P1 + 250GB BX100 + 250GB BX100 + 4TB 7E8, XL2730Z + L22e-20
HTPC: X-650, DH67GD, i5-2500K, 4GB, GT 1030, 250GB MX500 + 1.5TB ST1500DL003, KD-43XH9196 + KA220HQ
Laptop: MBP15,2
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon May 11, 2015 2:06 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Ryu Connor wrote:
Looks like the MU01 Firmware of the MX100 had the same bug with not allowing a NCQ Trim.

"Not allowing" as in it returns an error status and/or does nothing, or "not allowing" in the 840 EVO sense (the drive flakes out)?

The bad sense:
There was a report of silent data corruption on Fedora 20 w/ the v3.12
kernel. After some analysis of SATA traces, it appears that in certain
queued scenarios, the Micron M500 SSD will exhibit incorrect protocol
behavior. A support request was sent to the vendor, and a firmware fix
is in the works.

Crucial patched it out, but with MU02 on 2015-03-10 when the report was <= 2013-12-16 :evil:
Desktop: 750W Snow Silent, X11SAT-F, E3-1270 v5, 32GB ECC, RX 5700 XT, 500GB P1 + 250GB BX100 + 250GB BX100 + 4TB 7E8, XL2730Z + L22e-20
HTPC: X-650, DH67GD, i5-2500K, 4GB, GT 1030, 250GB MX500 + 1.5TB ST1500DL003, KD-43XH9196 + KA220HQ
Laptop: MBP15,2
 
Chrispy_
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4670
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Europe, most frequently London.

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Tue May 12, 2015 7:28 am

Ah, so Crucial/Micron/Samsung basically don't play well with Linux. Didnt' realise it was that sweeping but confirms my gut feeling to trust only Sandforce/Intel (also often Sandforce) on Linux.

I stick to what I know works for definite - I don't have time to beta test other drives for companies!
Congratulations, you've noticed that this year's signature is based on outdated internet memes; CLICK HERE NOW to experience this unforgettable phenomenon. This sentence is just filler and as irrelevant as my signature.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Tue May 12, 2015 8:20 am

Chrispy_ wrote:
Ah, so Crucial/Micron/Samsung basically don't play well with Linux. Didnt' realise it was that sweeping but confirms my gut feeling to trust only Sandforce/Intel (also often Sandforce) on Linux.

I stick to what I know works for definite - I don't have time to beta test other drives for companies!

This isn't really a "Linux issue" per se. It sounds more like the drive is mis-handling TRIM requests when they are combined with NCQ. I guess it just happens that Windows never uses them together, while Linux does. I would assume that any system that isn't aware of the firmware bug can potentially trip over this, if the AHCI driver allows queued TRIM requests. (I wonder if OS X and other BSD derivatives are vulnerable...)
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Sun May 31, 2015 8:54 pm

danny e. wrote:
danny e. wrote:
See here for the original before and after fix:
viewtopic.php?p=1234362#p1234362

After "Fix" Jan 26, 2015:
Image
After "Fix" Feb 13, 2015:
Image
Progressively getting worse. Will check back in another 15 days or so.

March 22, 2015:
Image
Continued dropping numbers for the most part.


May 31, 2015:
Image
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
IAmGhostDog
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:45 pm

After firmware update/advanced performance optimization

Image

One month later

Image

After firmware update/advanced performance optimization

Image

One month later

Image
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 | AMD FX8350 Black Edition | Samsung 840 EVO 500GB | Corsair XMS3 16GB DDR3 | XFX R9 390 | Win7 x64
HT Omega Claro | Technics SL-1210 MKll w/ Stanton 681EEE MKlll | Klipsch Promedia v4.1 | Sennheiser HD 580 Precision
 
Topinio
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 am
Location: London

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Sun Jun 14, 2015 10:19 am

... aand I'm out.

Guess I'll keep the EVO POS for future BOFHery :evil:
Desktop: 750W Snow Silent, X11SAT-F, E3-1270 v5, 32GB ECC, RX 5700 XT, 500GB P1 + 250GB BX100 + 250GB BX100 + 4TB 7E8, XL2730Z + L22e-20
HTPC: X-650, DH67GD, i5-2500K, 4GB, GT 1030, 250GB MX500 + 1.5TB ST1500DL003, KD-43XH9196 + KA220HQ
Laptop: MBP15,2
 
Jigar
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4936
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:01 am

WOW, i should have read this thread before purchasing Samsung 850 EVO - now i am afraid of the same fate. I will regularly post my results to keep track of its performance.
Image
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:17 am

Jigar wrote:
WOW, i should have read this thread before purchasing Samsung 850 EVO - now i am afraid of the same fate. I will regularly post my results to keep track of its performance.

AFAIK the 850 series does not suffer from this bug. The V-NAND tech allows for a larger effective cell size, which mitigates the voltage drift issue. All else being roughly equal, I'd still take an MLC drive over a TLC one though.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
localhostrulez
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2481
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:05 pm

Ehh, I'm still skeptical. Plus, how Samsung handled the whole 840/evo issue. After all, some said TLC was fine in terms of writes, others were skeptical, and it turned out that the skeptics had some merit there. Better safe than sorry - considering comparably priced MLC drives are available anyway.

One of my friends has an 850 evo and it's been fine though, so we'll see. Personally, I sold my 840 evo a month or two ago and haven't looked back.
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54499
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:24 pm

localhostrulez wrote:
Ehh, I'm still skeptical. Plus, how Samsung handled the whole 840/evo issue. After all, some said TLC was fine in terms of writes, others were skeptical, and it turned out that the skeptics had some merit there. Better safe than sorry - considering comparably priced MLC drives are available anyway.

One of my friends has an 850 evo and it's been fine though, so we'll see. Personally, I sold my 840 evo a month or two ago and haven't looked back.

Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm avoiding Samsung going forward too. Their handling of this mess has landed them firmly on my "avoid" list. I was just trying to reassure the previous poster that his drive was *probably* fine.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
The Egg
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:46 pm

Re: Samsung 840 & 840 EVO Bug

Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:24 pm

I'm completely soured on TLC. Not touching it again for a long long time, if ever.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On