Micron M510DC (480GB) Enterprise SATA SSD Review
by Kristian Vättö on July 21, 2015 8:00 AM EST128KB Sequential Write
While most enterprise IO patterns are random by nature, there are use cases such as media streaming where sequential performance has a significant role. The sequential write test is a two-hour run with performance being measured during the last 500 seconds for accurate steady-state performance.
The M510DC offers mediocre sequential write performance, but making a direct comparison is hard given the different capacities. Random IO performance isn't as heavily impacted by the amount of NAND, but in sequential write performance the capacity plays a significant role (take the two 845DC EVOs as an example).
Queue depth scaling doesn't present any surprises. Nearly all drives reach maximum data rate at QD2, which is well below the average queue depth of a typical enterprise workload.
Unfortunately my script had a minor error in it and I don't have consistency to report. I've now fixed the script, but in order to deliver this review on a timely matter I decided to leave it out for now because retesting all drives would have taken an extra week or so.
The efficiency isn't admirable, but honestly only the 845DC PRO shines here thanks to the higher power efficiency of 3D NAND.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
Oyster - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Maybe I missed it, but warranty information?twizzlebizzle22 - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Would there be warrenty information available for the same reason price wasn't?My question is how longevity is affected from 1-2 DWPD
Rekkx - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link
5 year or NAND wear out, whichever comes first.marraco - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
I whish to have also the tests for non enterprise SSDs.These drives are not meant for the mass consumer, but enthusiasts like to try, or at least know how enterprise hardware performs on common PCs.
And is not the same to have "an opinion", even if valid, that actually knowing the experimental data.
Somebody will answer that, obviously, enterprise SSDs have different performance and workload targets, but that is no reason to discard consumer tests.
There is a big difference between actually knowing how they work, and just making an educated guess.
Also, enterprise users need to know how common hardware performs on server environments, because sometimes is cost effective to use common hardware for enterprise.
For example, Google used lots of common hardware on his servers, and that gave him a large advantage over older companies, with larger budgets.
Also, server hardware tends to have large validation and life cycles, and that means that it tends to have obsolete hardware. Sometimes is reasonable to use cheaper hardware, which can fail, but also has lower costs of replacement, or other benefits.
DanNeely - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Agreed. Also, as prices drop SSDs will be making their way onto client OS VM servers; and those will mostly see amped up versions of client workloads on them.ZeDestructor - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link
You say that, but I recently picked up two 800GB Intel DC S3500 SSDs for use in my desktop, since they were near enough to the 960-1TB consumer drives, but brought me the nice benefit of full power-loss protection, higher performance than the Crucal M500/M550/M600/MX200 (though I doubt i'll ever notice it), and at $300 each, were really not that far from the $275 I've seen the 960GB M500 go down to.nils_ - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link
It's also always interesting to see if the price differential for "DC" hardware is justified or if you're just paying up for the label.otherwise - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Any idea what those ridicluously large caps on the PCB are for? I would hope for better unexpected power failure recovery -- but didn't see anything in the article touting that as a feature.extide - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Yes that's what they are for, it mentions it on the first page.Flunk - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link
Your conclusion is based on the manufacturer's reported reliability rating, but you never tested it. Who's to say if this drive actually is more durable than it's competition? Or even a cheap consumer drive?I know that testing this would be impractical, but it's difficult to judge hardware based solely on the manufacturer's claims.