OCZ Launches Vector Indilinx Barefoot 3 SSD, First All In-House Design

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OCZ Launches Vector Indilinx Barefoot 3 SSD, First All In-House Design

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @05:41AM from the intel-sans-gouging dept.

MojoKid writes "Not many SSD controller manufacturers have been able to compete with the likes of SandForce and the myriad of SATA drives from various OEMs on the market that are based on their technology. However, OCZ took a different approach recently when they acquired SSD controller manufacturer Indilinx and PCI Express Switch maker PLX. Today the company took the wraps of their new Vector line of SSDs. The Vector is the first drive from OCZ to utilize only technologies developed by the unified Indilinx, PLX, and OCZ teams (except for the actual NAND flash), since the acquisitions. The Vector is based on the new INDILINK Barefoot 3 controller, which in terms of its features and specifications, looks competitive with some of the fastest drives on the market currently. In the benchmarks, the drive's IOMeter and CrystalDiskMark scores line up well and OCZ is offering a 5 year warranty on the product."

122 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:49 · Score: 1, Informative

All the six drives ive had started going bad by returning corrupted data (no errors shown on SMART, just bluescreens).
Never buy lifetime warrantied products from eithe of those companies. Patriot refused my lifetime warrantied drive by claiming it was damaged in the mail and OCZ just flat out refused claiming the drives werent currently manufactured (although under warranty).
1. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-11-28 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All the six drives ive had started going bad by returning corrupted data (no errors shown on SMART, just bluescreens).
  Never buy lifetime warrantied products from eithe of those companies. Patriot refused my lifetime warrantied drive by claiming it was damaged in the mail and OCZ just flat out refused claiming the drives werent currently manufactured (although under warranty).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act
  Anytime a manufacture tries to dick with me about a warranty I name toss the above, along with FTC, Postmaster General, and the State Attorney General. Sorry, you can't advertize a warranty then say it doesn't exist. The Patriot one is a little harder to deal with, regular HDD manufactures look for any reason in shipping to void your warranty, so make sure you follow their packing directions. When the manufactures do try and mess with me, I make sure there newegg and amazon product lists get the message. Of course, when I get treated well, I make sure everyone knows about it too.
2. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by DeadboltX · 2012-11-28 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I have anecdotal evidence to offer as well. I've had a 120gb vertex 2 for two years as my primary desktops primary hard drive which gets used daily. Never had a problem with it, still runs great.
3. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by sl4shd0rk · 2012-11-28 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  All the six drives ive had started going bad by returning corrupted data (no errors shown on SMART, just bluescreens)
  
  BSOD could be from anything. Hardly an accurate way to determine a bad hard drive.
  To be fair, I've been using OCZ Agility 3 drives for something like 5 years now and have only had 1 problem drive (back in 2007 I think) which OCZ replaced, no questions asked.
  Been running two (linux MD) RAID1 arrays of them for about a year production (mysql) as well as a 500G in my desktop. I also have an iSCSI server serving shares off a single drive (testing environment) which has been up for over a year. They work more than well and so far seem as reliable as anything else.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
4. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by haruchai · 2012-11-28 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I have several OCZ SSDs, the 2 oldest are 60GB Solid (JMicron) and I have to throw them out as they hang Windows when connected.
  But the 3.5 Vertex 2 120GB (well 107GB formatted) which is about 18 months newer than the Solids runs fine and I just got a deal on a Vertex 4 256GB which I hope will last for a good while - 5 yrs warranty.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
5. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by trum4n · 2012-11-28 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  same exact conditions here, but Vertex 3 120gb. zero issues.
6. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by mcgrew · 2012-11-28 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  BSOD could be from anything. Hardly an accurate way to determine a bad hard drive.
  Indeed, ten years ago I was getting bluescreens because of a flaky power supply. But as to your having no problems, you're running Linux. Linux is far more robust than Windows; the above mentioned PC was dual boot, and the Mandrake side had no problems whatever, while it would bluescreen constantly in Windows.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by IndustrialComplex · 2012-11-28 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm running two Vertex 3 60GB drives in possibly the worst configuration from a reliability perspective: RAID0
  It's been about a year without an issue. I'm hoping that my old rule of thumb for solid state devices holds: If it doesn't break in 45 days, it should last for years.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
8. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Who designs and manufactures OCZ branded products? It is not OCZ.
  I'd actually like to know why OCZ is starting to become respectable? Especially after their bad press in the early 2,000's where it found they were a small PC repair shop and then were caught defacing other brand products and putting their brand name on them, claiming them to be a higher spec product that were sold at exaggerated prices.
9. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by timeOday · 2012-11-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I can certainly confirm that bad ram can crash Linux, too. Really, if the hardware doesn't work, there's little or nothing the OS can do to protect itself. (And by the way, I found Minecraft (java) to be a much more stringent test than memtest86!)
10. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by MrL0G1C · 2012-11-28 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  A new Components returns rates report just came out and the failure rate of some of OCZ's models is shockingly bad, they have indeed been selling duds.
  BeHardware Return Rates report
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
11. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by StillAnonymous · 2012-11-28 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Do those SandForce SF-2281 based drives still have that BSOD issue? I've heard from some sources that a firmware update fixed the problem, and I've heard from others that it's reduced in frequency, but not entirely fixed.
12. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-11-28 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  OCZ's had some troubles recently. I don't know how they can stay in business much longer with DOA rates on some of their products in the range of 40%. That's just embarassingly bad.
13. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by dbIII · 2012-11-28 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  I've had a couple like that (120GB, two different generations of OCZ drives) and was paranoid enough to rsync it to a spinning disk every hour, but never needed to use that copy (and yes, I know a live copy is not a backup, I had real backups on tape a couple of times a week too). I used it that way for a couple of years until the stripeset was too small for the purpose, then split it up to use as OS drives on a couple of desktops. Small sample size maybe, but sometimes they work OK.
  It took about 3 or 4 tries to get the stripe size right. With the wrong size it was much slower than a single disk for both reading and writing.
14. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by Luckyo · 2012-11-28 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, OCZ has openly admitted to its SSD drivers causing blue screens with certain message. Parent is likely talking about those.
15. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by walshy007 · 2012-11-28 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Linux can work around that.
16. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by mcgrew · 2012-11-29 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really, if the hardware doesn't work, there's little or nothing the OS can do to protect itself.
  Well, any hardware can be flaky, and some hardware flakiness will of course always be fatal. I've fortunately never had the misfortune of getting bad memory. Well, not computer memory anyway (I'm getting old and my meatram seems to be getting full).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
17. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by IndustrialComplex · 2012-11-29 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  IF you don't mind me asking, what size strip did you find to work best for you?
  In my case, I'm using the drives as an OS/game file ONLY array. I wanted 120GB of storage, (60 is just slightly too small for modern games and an OS). I'm running 16GB of ram, so I completely removed the swap file. In theory, the writes on them should be pretty limited except for when I'm installing new programs, updating settings, and a few logs. I probably could get by with two 120gb drives in a RAID1 to maximize read performance and just not worry about writes. For large volume data, I have a simple RAID1 of spinning disks.
  Monthly: OS/Game RAID0 is 100% copied to the 2TB RAID1 spinning drives
  Constant: Select folders on the RAID1 spinning drives are uploaded to Carbonite.
  I figure that if the decidedly unreliable OS/Game driveset could fail, and all I would really lose is just the OS and installed games. All non-replaceable data is on the RAID1, and the real important stuff there is also uploaded on Carbonite. (I repeat this often on Slashdot because it's always good to hear someone tell me where I'm being an idiot and that I overlooked xyz).
  So the striping size is something I've not really considered. Any suggestions? Or should I just stop bothering with the RAID0?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
18. Re:OCS and Patriot SSDs are terrible. by dbIII · 2012-11-29 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot :( I don't think it was the obvious 4k or 1k. Using two different models is probably why I needed a size that suited both.
  It's going to vary between models of SSD anyway and is going to be a multiple of the SSD block size. Sometimes that isn't published.
Benchmarks don't mean much... by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

We've reached a point where benchmarks don't mean much to me. They're all fast enough.
What I want to know is how reliable is it? All new tech, all new driver chips? I think I'll let other people be the guinea pigs for this...

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  omg wut do u mean? fast iz important i hav a quadcore custom gaming system with like 4 graphics cards and the ram has heatsinks n shit!!! my parents just bot me a new case wit like 8 fans, it looks so boss. i get like 400 FPS in CS, its really 1337. BOOM HEDSHOT!!!
2. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by h4rr4r · 2012-11-28 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  It is from OCZ reliability is not what they do, they do fast.
  If these drives are already fast enough for you then don't even consider this product.
3. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  It did say a five year warranty so with good backup procedures what more do you want.
4. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Kjella · 2012-11-28 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  What I want to know is how reliable is it? All new tech, all new driver chips? I think I'll let other people be the guinea pigs for this...
  Well it's not like the other SSDs on the market are exactly tried and true models, honestly it looks to me like the drives have grown more and more mature with each generation. I'd trust them enough, meaning I wouldn't really trust any storage media not to have a fatal crash. Still, at least around here the new Vector comes with a pretty solid premium to an equivalently sized Vertex 4, which should have the worst bugs beaten out of it now.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by virgnarus · 2012-11-28 06:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This is OCZ we're talking about, as in reliability is a distant thought for them. If you're willing to gamble getting a 1 out of 8 chance of purchasing a drive that'll last at least a year for the sake of speed, then you'll do whatever you can to get it, which means going for OCZ. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and an A+ cert or equivalent knowledge will know better to just grab a few reliable SSD drives from some other brand and run a RAID with em.
6. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I want it to last five years without needing to return it under warranty.
  
  --
  No sig today...
7. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's not like the other SSDs on the market are exactly tried and true models.
  Yeah, but you can err on the side of reliability on the drawing board.
  I'll stick with manufacturers who do that, even if they charge a few bucks more and only come third in benchmarks.
  
  --
  No sig today...
8. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by TheRaven64 · 2012-11-28 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  So do they. If there's a good chance you'll need the warranty repair, they wouldn't offer it - a warranty repair would completely eat their profit on the drive.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
9. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  5 year warranty is great. No other manufacturer offers that for SSDs as far as I can tell.
10. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-28 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would also avoid ocz if you care about reliability. mostly, I do not see good reports on their products. they don't make data reliability and integrity their #1 goal and I think that's a mistake in a *memory* company.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
11. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and an A+ cert or equivalent knowledge
  You actually need knowledge to get an A+ certification? Since when? Any warm body can get an A+ cert.
12. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, if they stand by it...and don't make it more trouble to claim than it's worth.
  
  --
  No sig today...
13. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by virgnarus · 2012-11-28 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  What's stopping the same company from offering a long warranty with an intentionally nightmarish experience for them to try and honor a replacement/repair request? That alone will do well to stave off the desire for customers to utilize their warranties features, with the mindset of, "I have to go through that to get a replacement? I'm better off just buying another one." Obviously one can try and justify them by saying that they're trying to prevent false positives or abuse of the system, but giving people disincentives is just as profitable an economic practice as any, so I would not put it past them.
14. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by MachineShedFred · 2012-11-28 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Kingston does on their KC-100 series drives as well.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
15. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by JDG1980 · 2012-11-28 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is assuming they don't go broke before the 5 years is up. Warranties are usually void in the case of bankruptcy proceedings.
  Anandtech seems to like what they've seen of the OCZ Vector so far, but keep in mind that it hasn't been time-tested and that it is basically OCZ's Hail Mary pass: it's succeed or go bankrupt.
  Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing OCZ go away. They've been at the bleeding edge too long and have done more than any other company to hurt the reputation of SSDs. Maybe WD or Seagate will buy them for their Indilinx division so they can put out reasonably credible (and hopefully better-tested) SSD offerings.
16. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  "5 year warranty is great. No other manufacturer offers that for SSDs as far as I can tell."
  OWC does, at least on their Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G. They're pretty fast, too.
17. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by dex22 · 2012-11-28 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  5 years is the standard warranty on Samsung Pro SSDs like the 840 Pro....
18. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by TheRaven64 · 2012-11-28 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, offering a nightmarish experience costs money. If it's not a completely automated process (and it can't be, or it's easy for their customers), then they need to provide a human that will waste your time, and that costs money. Even on minimum wage, it quickly eats up the per-device profit. It also only works once. Your support is so bad that it's easier to buy a replacement and so people will: they'll buy one from your competitor.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
19. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Intel has 5-year on most of theirs, too.
  
  --
  No sig today...
20. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by bluefoxlucid · 2012-11-28 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  If it happens to enough customers that actually honoring the warranty would damage their overall profits, then they're a high risk target for a class action lawsuit. If it doesn't happen to enough customers to meaningfully affect their overall profits, then they've got little to gain by not honoring warranties.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
21. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by bluefoxlucid · 2012-11-28 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except running a RAID on SSDs is stupid because it breaks just about everything and gives no performance improvements. Most RAID controllers don't pass TRIM properly.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
22. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by citizenr · 2012-11-28 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's not like the other SSDs on the market are exactly tried and true models
  Samsung 830 is.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
23. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by tlhIngan · 2012-11-28 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  What's stopping the same company from offering a long warranty with an intentionally nightmarish experience for them to try and honor a replacement/repair request? That alone will do well to stave off the desire for customers to utilize their warranties features, with the mindset of, "I have to go through that to get a replacement? I'm better off just buying another one." Obviously one can try and justify them by saying that they're trying to prevent false positives or abuse of the system, but giving people disincentives is just as profitable an economic practice as any, so I would not put it past them.
  Some companies do just that - especially the cheaper brands. Want to exchange your new flatscreen? Send it back to us in China! And it's not necessarily easy to ship something so large overseas because you'll probably end up paying $200+ in shipping fees. Probably more if they insist you deliver to their door and not just to the airport (as most freight services only do).
  An SSD is at least somewhat easier and cheaper to ship even if you have to ship it all the way to China. Though it might end up costing you easily $50 or so to ship, and by then that SSD would cost new $50 or less.
  And yeah, I think SSDs have reached the point of marginal performance gains - for the oost part, they're "fast enough".
  And I'd stick with what the OEMs are using - see what Apple, Dell, etc., are using for SSDs and buy those, which in most cases is Samsung.
24. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by MrL0G1C · 2012-11-28 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
25. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by abigsmurf · 2012-11-28 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather have a 3 year one where they didn't make me spend a fortune shipping it insured internationally to return (live in the UK, RMA centre is in the Netherlands).
26. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Intel RST does support TRIM on raid0 volumes.
27. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Jamu · 2012-11-28 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Very happy with mine. But the 830s are becoming harder to find since the 840 came out.
  
  --
  Who ordered that?
28. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-11-28 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not on the 330 Series; those are three-year. When I bought a 520 recently I did a lot of studying first. From what I gather the 520 and the 330 are hardware-identical, but the 520's chips are "binned" as being more reliable, hence the longer warranty. I highly recommend the 520s. Mine's been flawless so far (admittedly only about 6 weeks). I just ordered a new UPS a few minutes ago; they're pretty much needed if you're running and SSD, and advisable even if you aren't.
29. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  omg, n00b! u only hav 4 cores? that's so obsolete, my system has liek 24 cores, and more gigabytes of ram than your cpu has bits to count them with. hope ur ready to get pwn'd*.
  * This is of course assuming the competition is 'who can have the most copies of counter strike running simultaniously'. If I have to actually aim and shoot you, then I'm probably screwed.
30. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by drinkypoo · 2012-11-28 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  People still use RAID controllers? You know, your CPU is a hell of a lot faster than the one on the RAID controller, and with PCI-E it hardly seems worthwhile to try to minimize bus bandwidth.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by bluefoxlucid · 2012-11-29 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  My CPU is a hell of a lot faster than the 300MHz clock in the nVidia GeForce FX5400 too, yet when I had a 2GHz CPU the GeForce was a billion times faster... bus was a lot closer to the RAM I guess. RAID controllers also can cache with battery/capacitor back-up, so in the event of a system fault or a power drop your RAID array isn't scrambled and inconsistent.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
32. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by drinkypoo · 2012-11-29 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  My CPU is a hell of a lot faster than the 300MHz clock in the nVidia GeForce FX5400 too, yet when I had a 2GHz CPU the GeForce was a billion times faster... bus was a lot closer to the RAM I guess.
  Your CPU is not faster in every way than the GPU. Try again.
  
  RAID controllers also can cache with battery/capacitor back-up, so in the event of a system fault or a power drop your RAID array isn't scrambled and inconsistent.
  It won't necessarily help you in the case of a system fault, and a UPS is a better solution for dealing with power failures. It's better to write changes out to the disk and shut down than to trust your data integrity to a three dollar battery.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
33. Re:Benchmarks don't mean much... by bluefoxlucid · 2012-11-29 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  When the kernel panics, it will necessarily help you to have damn battery-backed consistency.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Reliability? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:54 · Score: 0

Curious to know how reliable this offering is, since reliability has not been OCX's strong suit.
1. Re:Reliability? by lightknight · 2012-11-28 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. They're incredibly popular, but I do not see why. I must be missing something.
  Quick poll (reply to answer), if you had to choose between a Corsair SSD or a OCZ SSD, which one would you choose, and why?
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
2. Re:Reliability? by Revotron · 2012-11-28 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  All this talk of SSD speed and performance reminds me of street racers. It'll do 0-60 in 4 seconds, but the real question is, will it make it to the end of the strip?
3. Re:Reliability? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-28 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike cars, computer backups are free.
  I use only SSDs in laptops and workstations, and have not yet had one fail. Mind you, I steer clear of OCZ.
4. Re:Reliability? by Shinobi · 2012-11-28 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  Corsair, because the support guys at the store I buy my non-work hardware have Money-Back odds betting between themselves on guessing OCZ if someone calls in and asks about dead SSD's......
5. Re:Reliability? by X0563511 · 2012-11-28 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  OCZ.
  I've had corsair ram flop out on me a few times, but the few OCZ components I've ever had have not had problems.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
6. Re:Reliability? by MoOsEb0y · 2012-11-28 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Neither. Micron, Intel, or Samsung. In that order.
7. Re:Reliability? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  OCZ, because despite all the negative reviews I read, I have never had an issue with either of my 2 OCZ SSD's (Both Vertex 2's, 2+ years old). Neither has my OCZ Ram.
8. Re:Reliability? by TheSunborn · 2012-11-28 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Neither, both have quality problems. And my Corsair SSD disk will not even boot with usb on linux. I don't know how they managed to make a non-standard usb interface.
9. Re:Reliability? by Shinobi · 2012-11-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  SSD's for workstations sort of depends on the purpose of the workstation... For a video workstation for serious special effects etc, you run a bunch of the highest-quality 1TB+ drives you can find in RAID locally, and the rest over network. System boot time and application load times are non-factors, since that's just negligible time, compared with chucking around TB's of video, images etc that also need to be stored somewhere.
  A colleague of mine skipped SSD's simply because if he needed really fast I/O for something, the dataset was always so small that he could fit it inside a 256GiB RAMDisk he setup in system RAM(out of his total 384GiB).
  Also: with HD's, if the onboard controller dies, for example in the middle of doing a backup), you have a(small, mostly theoretical) chance of recovering the data. With a SSD, if the onboard controller dies, it's goodbye.
10. Re:Reliability? by PNutts · 2012-11-28 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  OCZ. My Corsair was nothing but trouble and the warranty replacement is sitting on the desk unopened. It was replaced with an OCZ and I purchased an OCZ for my laptop and haven't had trouble with either one. Both of their support forums are kind of bitchy, but Corsair's was the least helpful.
11. Re:Reliability? by sexconker · 2012-11-28 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  SSD's for workstations sort of depends on the purpose of the workstation... For a video workstation for serious special effects etc, you run a bunch of the highest-quality 1TB+ drives you can find in RAID locally, and the rest over network. System boot time and application load times are non-factors, since that's just negligible time, compared with chucking around TB's of video, images etc that also need to be stored somewhere.
  A colleague of mine skipped SSD's simply because if he needed really fast I/O for something, the dataset was always so small that he could fit it inside a 256GiB RAMDisk he setup in system RAM(out of his total 384GiB).
  Also: with HD's, if the onboard controller dies, for example in the middle of doing a backup), you have a(small, mostly theoretical) chance of recovering the data. With a SSD, if the onboard controller dies, it's goodbye.
  1: Nobody in the real world uses "GiB".
  2: No one who has used both would every choose a RAID array of HDDs over a RAID array of SSDs unless cost/storage was the primary concern. (And according to your post it isn't since he allegedly fits his shit into a 256 GB RAM disk, which is absurd because that much memory and a workstation motherboard that supports it cost $$$$ and save you about zero time after taking into account the initial read in from disk.)
  SSDs win in every category except cost/storage.
  No one spending $$$$ on 384 GB of RAM and a workstation to support it would balk at using SSDs. Especially not when 256 GB of that RAM is reserved for a RAM disk that would only be used when he "needed really fast I/O for something".
  No one needing more storage than you can squeeze into a standard workstation with SSDs would skip out on a networked storage solution if they used regular HDDs in the workstation.
  Your story is bullshit or the people involved are idiots.
12. Re:Reliability? by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. They're incredibly popular, but I do not see why. I must be missing something.
  Simple: They're usually the cheapest.
  
  --
  No sig today...
13. Re:Reliability? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-11-28 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung manufactures all of Micron's stuff...
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
14. Re:Reliability? by smash · 2012-11-28 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Computer backups are not free. They take time, storage space and recovery time WHEN something fucks up is a waste of my day.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
15. Re:Reliability? by Unknown+Lamer · 2012-11-28 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hard disks are really, really cheap nowadays. I got a pair of 2TB drives for about $150, and am adding a hotspare next month or so Just In Case (tm) because, hey, it's only another $75. SSDs are much cheaper than reliable memory; if you're going to be storing important datasets in ram, you're going to be using ECC memory, and that costs a lot more than a buck a gig. SSDs can saturate a 6Gb/s sata bus; I'm not sure what level of A/V work requires more than 500-600MB/s throughput. If you're already willing to accept "the UPS runs out of power" (or even "the power cable is yanked") as losing your data, the reliability of an SSD has to be acceptable. In either case, you can backup the working set to a RAID for the cost of a nice dinner out.
  
  --
  
  HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
16. Re:Reliability? by Luckyo · 2012-11-28 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  They're popular because they're cheap and fast. With them you get what you pay for.
Pricey by Lucas123 · 2012-11-28 06:00 · Score: 2

The 128GB model of the Vector SSD will retail for $149.99, the 256GB model for $269.99, and the 512GB model for $559.99. I guess OCZ didn't get the memo that consumer-grade SSDs are selling for well under $1 per gig these days.
1. Re:Pricey by h4rr4r · 2012-11-28 06:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  These are fast, not cheap.
  Normally that would mean you also get "good", but this is OCZ so all you get is fast.
2. Re:Pricey by poity · 2012-11-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like a good drive, and it's competitively priced against the current the Samsung 840 Pro. Though, the current generation of SSDs aren't much of an upgrade from the previous. 50k IOPS vs 90k IOPS isn't noticeable for 99.99% of people (and you're probably better off building RAM drives if that extra 40k IOPS makes a significant difference to you). And I think you're right, most people seem to be looking for SSD capacity instead of speed now, at least from the deals forum posts I've seen, and holding out for the magical 512GB @ $0.50/GB.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I wouldn't. by stonecypher · 2012-11-28 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I bought one of their PCI drives - a RevoDrive X2. It was unbelievably fast.
To die. I barely used the thing, and it failed hard in about three months. Three months ago.
I'm still waiting on my replacement. I called them, and they authorized an RMA. Then I mailed my card in. Two months later, they called me (during Hurricane Sandy, despite that they had my address and knew perfectly well I couldn't answer questions,) to see if I still wanted my replacement (!) and would I give them their RMA number (!!) so that they could finally get around to it.
I told him my power was out and that I would love to have what they had promised me months ago, but I couldn't give him the RMA number at that time. He said he'd call back in a couple days. (Still not sure why he didn't just mail the drive.)
I haven't heard from him since, despite having left several messages with a suspiciously similar sounding "other" staff member who assures me that *this* time I'll get a call back.
It's a shame; the drive is wonderfully fast. However, it's unacceptably fragile, and I can't cope with their staff just never getting around to doing their jobs.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
1. Re:I wouldn't. by slaker · 2012-11-28 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  I had a 10 week wait getting a replacement for a 32GB SLC drive from OCZ. They did not respond to support emails made on their web site, but they're very attentive if you go complain on Anandtech or HardOCP or something. In my experience, the shortest amount of time that an RMA from them has taken is a little under five weeks.
  One of my customers has some systems with Revodrives. They die and I just toss them rather than bother with replacement. Some of the machines I'm dealing with are on their third one in 18 months.
  
  --
  -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
2. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah... why would they need to verify your RMA before returning it? You should be able to return it at any time, even after the warranty period. And it's not like they need to tell you from their other millions of customers. You're special... they should know you by name.
  You're lucky they even called you.. most companies.. no RMA = trash bin.
3. Re:I wouldn't. by jones_supa · 2012-11-28 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  On a sidenote, it's interesting how people here set up boycotts on companies like Sony because their PS3 can't run Linux, while there are companies like OCZ that have a solid track record of producing clearly bad products and providing poor customer support, which in my opinion would much more deserve the bad reputation.
4. Re:I wouldn't. by virgnarus · 2012-11-28 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  People who've suffered through an OCZ or cheap garden-variety SSDs are the reason why I've had to deal with a lot of FUD circulating about SSDs. The contrast in reliability from an OCZ to something like a Samsung is so black and white, which is an unfortunate circumstance for us who have used solid SSDs for even enterprise operations and are trying to cure these individuals of their woes. Often it stems from people who go compulsive shopping for SSDs and purchase the aforementioned because they want a quick and economic entry into SSD technology (testing the waters). Or they opt for something like an OCZ because they are gamers and not PC savvy and just go straight for the big numbers and benchmark results (same people that buy cheap PSUs). Either way it stems from ignorance, and if there wasn't so much disparity in quality between SSD brands there shouldn't be that much of a deal, but there is, so people start throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
5. Re:I wouldn't. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-11-28 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  As I am in the process of picking parts for a new computer and want to go the SSD route for the OS drives what would be the better ones to look at? I was aware of OCZ's reliability issues but hadn't heard much about other companies and would welcome any advice. My current thought was to go with the Micro Center branded (sound like it is a rebranded A-Data drive) 120GB ones that sell for about $80 but if there are substantially better drives I would gladly sacrifice size for reliability.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
6. Re:I wouldn't. by stonecypher · 2012-11-28 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  So obviously I don't know, since I picked wrong, yeah?
  But my datacenter thinks Intel and Samsung are the way to go.
  
  --
  StoneCypher is Full of BS
7. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  "why would they need to verify your RMA before returning it?"
  Exactly. If they receive a package, and the RMA matches the name and address on the package, what the fuck is there to "verify"? Just mail out the goddamned replacement.
8. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  nearly all the reliability problems are from sandforce based ssds. their are some ssds based on Marvels controller like the ocz vertex 4 some corsair and some plextor. check the controller before you buy.
  samsung is the best because theu make all their own components including their nearly flawless controllers. but theyve had a hiccup with their latest 840 pros. supposedly corrected with the latest firmware. not sure if retail drives had the buggy firmware. theyve had the oem contracts esp with apple and u dont hear many failures if any with them. toshiba also supplies apple though theyre sandforce based.
  crucial m4. marvel based. seems reliable.
  intel wouldve been a solid choice if they made their own controller. but their latest consumer ssds use sandforce controllers which is the same shit ocz uses in most of their ssds. ocz tweaked the crappy sandforce for performance and made reliability even worse.i think intels reliability is good enough to buy but always have backups. i expect intel to go back their own controller at some point maybe a year down the road but just my guess.
  rule of thumb. avoid suckforce based ssds unless its intel. i cant believe how much lsi paid for suckforce. ocz's indilinx acquistion was very cheap and seems to have been a great one.
  typing from my itoy.
9. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  about marvel controllers. they seem to be reliable but i havent read too much about them. just my uninformed opinion but they seem to pretty reliable. havent heard of failures from them but not many ppl seem to buying them.
  that adata likely has a sandforce controller
10. Re:I wouldn't. by G00F · 2012-11-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I would go intel. I've heard good things with samsung, but I haven't used them.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
11. Re:I wouldn't. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-11-28 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The micro center branded drive states that it has a sandforce controller so it sounds like I should steer clear of those.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
12. Re:I wouldn't. by PRMan · 2012-11-28 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, OCZ is on a one-year ban list that keeps getting renewed. I allow new companies time to get things right before lifetime banning them. So far, I don't see any institutional evil, just making crappy products and getting overwhelmed with the support volume.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
13. Re:I wouldn't. by lgw · 2012-11-28 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Intel works for me. I have fairly old (very early model) Intel SSDs in a RAID0 in my gaming box, and another as my boot drive in my ersonal server - never had an issue.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
14. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Was there an ram on the box? It didn't sound like there was.. Why would thy need to call him for it if it was there?
15. Re:I wouldn't. by Emetophobe · 2012-11-28 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion the Intel 320 and Crucial M4 are the most reliable. I bought an M4 earlier this year and I'm very happy with it so far. You can get a 128GB Crucial for $100 on newegg, or a 256GB for $200. The intel drives are more expensive, but they come with a 5 year warranty, where as the crucial m4's only have a 3 year warranty.
16. Re:I wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  So far, I don't see any institutional evil, just making crappy products and getting overwhelmed with the support volume.
  You say this as if, if there were institutional evil, you'd know.
17. Re:I wouldn't. by virgnarus · 2012-11-29 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I will cast my chips in with the others on Intel, Samsung and Crucial drives. Samsung especially I've worked with in enterprise and can be some very stable puppies. Of course, every brand has their own bugs, though while OCZ and cheap brands require replacements, more refined brands like the previously listed are only a BIOS and drive firmware update away. Worst case scenario besides replacing the drive itself is that you'll just need to update the BIOS and firmware, tweak some settings in the BIOS (typically setting SATA to AHCI if not already) and then reinstall Windows. After that works like a charm.
  Just don't get discouraged by receiving a bad apple or two. Get from a proper brand and you'll have around the same failure rate as your common HDD, which is still present, but not common enough to cause much of an issue.
18. Re:I wouldn't. by ourlovecanlastforeve · 2012-11-29 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hi there.
  
  Customer service monkey here.
  
  I have seen some s##t.
  
  Usually if a company requires verification of your RMA it's because it gives them an excuse to not ship you the replacement product if they can't get in contact with you.
  
  They figure that if it's enough work for you to get the replacement product eventually you'll give up.
  
  I have seen companies do shady things like:
  Intentionally deliver products to the wrong address so they'll be returned, sometimes multiple times.
  Intentionally send a broken product as a replacement, multiple times.
  Take a broken product out of your return box, put it into a new box and ship it right back to you without even testing it.
  Intentionally damage a product and send it to you so you'll have to return it again.
  Receive your return item and let it sit on a shelf for months hoping you'll give up on getting a replacement.
Available now by lw54 · 2012-11-28 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative

The best thing about product launches being announced on /. is by the time it's posted, the product is already available.
Newegg has the 128GB for $160, 256GB for $290 and 512GB for $570.
Vertex 4? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:18 · Score: 0

I thought the vertex 4 was their first in-house chip based device.
I've got one in my laptop. Cheap and fast and reliable so far.
I'd really ignore any device older than that. They really shot themselves in the foot with bad QC practices. For a while buying and OCZ was a gamble because you didn't know what flash chips would be included. If you got the good chips you'd have a solid device. If you got the bad chips slowdown, errors, and ultimate failure weren't just likely, but 100% inevitable. (This is why I used to like intel drives so much. Pricy? Yeah. But good quality intel flash and intel quality QC from end to end meant you could depend on them)
Newer firmware, better practice, better quality flash, and newer controllers have ironed out nearly all of these issues for most makers. The new crop of sandforce based drives are /really good/ even the cheap ones.
1. Re:Vertex 4? by Joce640k · 2012-11-28 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Cheap and fast and reliable
  Sorry, you only get to pick two of those.
  (It's a fundamental law of computing)
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Vertex 4? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, fast for a consumer device. It's as fast as any other modern SSD.
  "Fast" for your thre-point-pick-two proverb are the premium MLC drives with more channels. Or SLC/enterprise devices. You /pay/ for those.
3. Re:Vertex 4? by AvitarX · 2012-11-28 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  One could argue a slow SSD is fast though.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
4. Re:Vertex 4? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's OCZ, you get to pick cheap or fast.
PR Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 06:26 · Score: 0

Thanks for this unredacted press release.
5-year warranty? by mpbrede · 2012-11-28 06:30 · Score: 1

As good as a lifetime warranty if the company is not in business to honor it.
A new record! by Hoi+Polloi · 2012-11-28 06:40 · Score: 1

Slashdot just set a new record for the total number of abbreviations in a single summary.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
OCZ did not buy PLX by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 07:03 · Score: 1

OCZ bought a 40 person team from PLX. They did not buy the whole company.
1. Re:OCZ did not buy PLX by twistedcubic · 2012-11-28 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  OCZ can purchase slaves?
I have my doubts about this by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-11-28 07:07 · Score: 2

All the six drives ive had started going bad by returning corrupted data (no errors shown on SMART, just bluescreens). Never buy lifetime warrantied products from eithe of those companies. Patriot refused my lifetime warrantied drive by claiming it was damaged in the mail and OCZ just flat out refused claiming the drives werent currently manufactured (although under warranty).
The original post, by an Anonymous Coward, has vanished, so I am having to quote it from PlusFiveTroll's quoting of it.

For quite some time now all SSDs have had 3 year limited warranties. I can't remember if anybody ever truly offered a lifetime warranty. If they did it was probably 2+ years ago. For what it's worth, I bought a 256 GB Crucial SSD in Jan. 2011 and it still works great. Some really are defective out of the box, but the number one thing to remember is that before you use it, you must update it to the current release of firmware. As far as I can tell, every SSD there is ships with older, defective firmware on it. If the AC really and truly has burned through 6 SSDs in a short period of time, he's doing something wrong. I just cannot accept that this would happen without the user being responsible in some way by not updating firmware, using it on a PC without UPS support and subjecting it to repeated power loss, failing to turn off defragmentation if using the drives under Windows, etc.
1. Re:I have my doubts about this by idontgno · 2012-11-28 09:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  For quite some time now all SSDs have had 3 year limited warranties. I can't remember if anybody ever truly offered a lifetime warranty.
  I think you're misinterpreting "lifetime warranty". "Lifetime" means "of the purchaser" and if the manufacturer's staticstical product failure models predict you're about to submit a warranty claim, they dispatch either death robots or ninjas to your house and kill you.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
2. Re:I have my doubts about this by adolf · 2012-11-28 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The original post, by an Anonymous Coward, has vanished
  It has?
  Slashdot has a lot of funny little bugs, but disappearing posts aren't one of them. (Except for one fateful day a decade or so ago wherein every. single. post. got deleted, forever.)
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
3. Re:I have my doubts about this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.
4. Re:I have my doubts about this by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-11-28 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.patriotmemory.com/company/news/newsp.jsp?source=217
  I'm going to assume he was talking about a USB stick 'drive'.
I'll stick with mechanical by p51d007 · 2012-11-28 07:46 · Score: 1

I'm still holding off on SSD's. Speed? I don't need it, just STORAGE space (movies, mp3's, photos run through photoshop). Until the price per gig gets down to the mechanicals, and the reliability improves, I'll stick with a few t-byte drives.
1. Re:I'll stick with mechanical by Dewin · 2012-11-28 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I run a hybrid approach: I have 2x1TB spinny disk drives mirrored, and an 80GB SSD (soon to be 240GB SSD, hurray for Black Friday deals from newegg) for anything that needs to be fast.
  
  --
  Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
2. Re:I'll stick with mechanical by Kjella · 2012-11-28 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still holding off on SSD's. Speed? I don't need it, just STORAGE space (movies, mp3's, photos run through photoshop). Until the price per gig gets down to the mechanicals, and the reliability improves, I'll stick with a few t-byte drives.
  If you're buying a "few t-bytes drives" that's on a desktop and you're really missing out on the best of both worlds. Currently I have 13TB over 6 HDDs and one 128 GB SSD, there's no way I could replace it all with SSD and there's no way I'd want to replace it all with HDDs. The only annoyance I've found is that eventually I had to move my Steam directory to the HDD, games have too many big graphics assets to fit comfortably with the OS and my other software in 128 GB, now I have a comfortable 34 GB free. I guess if all you're doing is streaming video then it doesn't matter at all, but then why do you care if SSDs come down in price or not? Because the speed and IOPS would still not matter to you...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:I'll stick with mechanical by smash · 2012-11-28 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  I run a momentus XT in my home laptop (SSD at work). It's a very good trade-off. Next desktop I buy i'm going to RAID a bunch of them.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
OCZ has such a bad rep by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-11-28 08:15 · Score: 1

I'd been doing research over the past 6 months or so before I just ordered an SSD last week. OCZ has a terrible reputation for reliability. I always expect to see the occasional naysayers, but I was alarmed by the consistency of the criticism they get. Any product reviews for their lines are irrelevant if they're not after at least 6 months dedicated use IMO.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:OCZ has such a bad rep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Well i for one can say that after a year of regular use through playing games, my 120 GB vertex 3 MI is still alive and kicking without any noticable problems *touch wood*. I hope it's not gonna crap out on me now that I've said that.
  I might be lucky, or i might be putting a lot less strain on it than most other people...who knows. However, I am going to order a 256GB 830 as a replacement soon and the vertex will go into a new laptop. I figured that since it has 1 years mileage on it, it won't bother me as much if it dies as the main drive for all storage purposes in a laptop, as much as a brand new SSD, used for same purpose, failing would.
"utilize" by Onymous+Coward · 2012-11-28 08:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

To convert to practical use. Not simply to use.
Simply using:

Mike used the toothbrush.
Versus turning something to practical use:

Mike utilized the popsicle stick and onion bag from the trash, making an ad hoc toothbrush.
So our summary instead reads:

The Vector is the first drive from OCZ to use only technologies developed by the unified Indilinx, PLX, and OCZ teams.
OCZ needs something to help them by JTsyo · 2012-11-28 09:48 · Score: 1

They been in a tail spin this year. There are high hopes that this is something that could pull the company back towards profitability.
1. Re:OCZ needs something to help them by stonecypher · 2012-11-28 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Given the way their support staff puts in effort to make enemies, I doubt it'll work.
  
  --
  StoneCypher is Full of BS
OCZ and reliability by abigsmurf · 2012-11-28 11:03 · Score: 1

I'm never going to buy another OCZ drive. Had a vertex 2, worked well for a few months then, without any warning, it died completely. Couldn't be read by any OS, wouldn't even be recognised by the bios.

As bad as losing data and RMA-ing a drive which potentially still had all my files on them, I also had to pay £20 to ship it insured to the Netherlands due to their awful returns policy.
1. Re:OCZ and reliability by drinkypoo · 2012-11-28 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  OCZ might as well be PNY. They ought to just merge and get it over with. Both companies make fast hardware, but it's unreliable and their support policies are bullshit. PNY is extra-special super-magical because they demand a receipt for replacement of memory cards with a lifetime warranty. That's right, you're supposed to be able to find the receipt for something you paid $10 for three years ago.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Idiotic Slashvertisement by EmagGeek · 2012-11-28 13:06 · Score: 1

First of all, OCZ did NOT buy PLX. They acquired a few employees from the company, but they did NOT buy the company itself.
Second, this is not OCZ's first "all in-house" SSD, because it is not all "in house." OCZ still does not make their own NAND (thank God), so this is not an "all in house" drive.
Oddly enough it depends on the controller ... by dbIII · 2012-11-28 17:06 · Score: 1

Oddly enough the large number of failures in SSD drives depends on the controller and the article is about them using a different one. It won't be clear for some time if this other controller is more reliable.