Crucial MX300 2TB SATA 2.5 Inch Internal SSD £419 Amazon
359°

Crucial MX300 2TB SATA 2.5 Inch Internal SSD £419 Amazon

18
18 Comments

Damn! Thats a bargain! 🔥 I picked a 1TB Hyper X for £220 few months ago wish I'd waited now.

Original Poster

Mr.V7861 m ago

Damn! Thats a bargain! 🔥 I picked a 1TB Hyper X for £220 few months ago …Damn! Thats a bargain! 🔥 I picked a 1TB Hyper X for £220 few months ago wish I'd waited now.


If you can do with less storage, the 1TB version is £205 (posted elsewhere on HUKD already)
amazon.co.uk/Cru…DUE

Given the price is linear you'd be better off with 2 1TBs in raid 0.

Original Poster

bma144512 m ago

Given the price is linear you'd be better off with 2 1TBs in raid 0.


Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, both of which are essential, you’re reliant on neither failing.

I can't imagine live with a sata SSD this big, let alone an M.2 this big. I can only imagine it being, very nice. Hot+

Genki1 h, 1 m ago

Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, b …Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, both of which are essential, you’re reliant on neither failing.


You won't lose any data if you have a tested backup plan.

fishmaster21 m ago

You won't lose any data if you have a tested backup plan.




Yeah. I'd imagine that if you had the money to buy 2x 2TB SSD's, then you'd also have a decent backup solution in place.

any BF deals on M.2 SSDs?

Great price!

Purchased.

Thanks OP!

Genki12 h, 29 m ago

Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, b …Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, both of which are essential, you’re reliant on neither failing.


Not really, your stats may be completely wrong for SSDs. The only redundancy you get with two drives instead of one is that you have two controllers. However, if SSDs fail because the NAND fails then it doesn't matter whether you have 2x1TB or 1x2TB.

HDDs are materially different, as a defect (headcrash etc) usually affects and breaks the whole drive. This may not be true for SSDs as I've described above.

Prices on these are so frustratingly high.

Given that a lot of that 2TB is probably still going to be storage, I think I'd still rather pay ~£65-£70 (which is even too high) for a mechanical drive than almost 6x the price.

Genki22nd Nov

Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, b …Not really, makes it much more likely you’ll lose data. With 2 drives, both of which are essential, you’re reliant on neither failing.



Doubling the chance of failure isn't really accurate.

Same amount of flash, so the only thing you're doubling is the risk of the controller dying. Risk of flash corrupting is the same really for both setups. The difference in risk will be negligible.

Original Poster

bma144532 m ago

Doubling the chance of failure isn't really accurate.Same amount of flash, …Doubling the chance of failure isn't really accurate.Same amount of flash, so the only thing you're doubling is the risk of the controller dying. Risk of flash corrupting is the same really for both setups. The difference in risk will be negligible.


If there is say a 2% annual failure rate for that SSD (in volume) then you have a 2% chance of losing all your data on 1 drive, and a 4% chance of losing all your data on 2 drives in Raid 0.

The probability may still be low, but it does double.

Genki7 m ago

If there is say a 2% annual failure rate for that SSD (in volume) then you …If there is say a 2% annual failure rate for that SSD (in volume) then you have a 2% chance of losing all your data on 1 drive, and a 4% chance of losing all your data on 2 drives in Raid 0.The probability may still be low, but it does double.



Yes, but you're not comparing the same things. A single 2TB has more chance of failure than a single 1TB SSD.

These are by no means realistic figures - it's just to show what I mean. Say there is an average failure rate of 0.5% for an SSD controller and associated electronics, and 0.5% per 512GB of flash.

That would give the 2TB SSD a failure rate of 2.5%. it would give a 1TB SSD a failure rate of 1.5%. 2 1TB SSDs would therefore have a failure rate of 3%.

It's not like a spinning disk, each flash chip has the same failure rate, whether it's inside a smaller drive or a larger one.

Original Poster

Interesting. I see now how it doesn’t map directly to HDD type figures. Thanks.

ANYTHING IN raid0 always has a greater than double chance of failure .. there are three failure modes
drive 1 fails
drive2 fails
drive1 and drive2 fails (or the raid controller fails)
Admittedly its generally only a small percentage.. and I run raid0 in windows.
Tvhe odds of a failure are 1−(1−r)^n (Thanks Wikipedia) Where r is the failure rate, and n is the number of dries.

and of course raiod0 can use any number of drives eg 4 x 525gb is slightly cheaper
Edited by: "GwanGy" 24th Nov

The 1TB crucial is still the best bang for buck at £205, so you'd be crackers to get a single 2TB over two 1TB.

Original Poster

t_rex3 h, 15 m ago

The 1TB crucial is still the best bang for buck at £205, so you'd be …The 1TB crucial is still the best bang for buck at £205, so you'd be crackers to get a single 2TB over two 1TB.


Not if you have a single free slot in a laptop. The other 1TB won’t do a lot of good there(embarrassed)
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text