Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by Rich, Aug 14, 2018.
Just did it.
Rich- What's the difference between the EVO compared to the QVO? The QVO 1TB is on sale for $108 on Amazon. Thoughts?
I saw that too. I'm not the person that can answer your question, I had the same thought. I don't have the knowledge, but that's a damn good price.
The QVO is a less desirable drive. 3 year warranty for QVO vs 5 for EVO. Here's an excellent article at Anandtech on the QVO.
Outside of the warranty thing, there was another note in the article that said this....
'Two bit per cell MLC as used in the 860 PRO is now quite rare in the consumer SSD market and almost entirely absent from current enterprise SSD, having been largely replaced by three bit per cell TLC as used in the 860 EVO. With each increase in bits stored per cell, performance and write endurance decrease as SSDs need to be more careful to correctly discriminate between voltage levels, now up to 16 for QLC NAND.'
Unless I am reading it wrong, wouldn't that make the EVO less desirable?
I'm jumping in Rich, and going to try one out. If it doesn't work out on one of my HR24's, I can always use it on one of my PC's. Can't beat the price, plus I get free shipping and it arrives tomorrow!
The 860 QVO is currently on sale for $107 with free next day shipping (and sometimes less) at several places, like B&H and newegg, if you prefer a more reliable source than Amazon.
860 QVO = 4 bits per cell ($)
860 EVO = 3 bits per cell ($$)
860 PRO = 2 bits per cell ($$$)
From the article: With each increase in bits stored per cell, performance and write endurance decrease as SSDs need to be more careful to correctly discriminate between voltage levels, now up to 16 for QLC NAND.
I've been thinking more about the differences in these drives and decided to check on one of the 1TB SSD's I installed in a HR24 last year and get real usage data as well as update the firmware. This is a 860 EVO 1TB that was brand new when I installed it.
Power on time = 110.5 days
Lifetime writes = 10.92TB
So it's writing about 100GB a day on average. The warranty on the 1TB QVO is 3 years or 360TBW, whichever comes first. So the QVO would take 9.8 years to max out the TBW data allowance, far longer than the 3 years which it would hopefully achieve first.
I think if I was installing another SSD in a DVR today with the current price difference of ~$40, I'd be willing to give the QVO a try based on this. I look forward to further reports here on that drives longevity.
My QVO got delivered at 8pm last night, I put it in at 9am this morning into an external dock. I’ve used it for the last 5 hours, customizing my settings/options. So far, it is working the same as my EVO I’ve had for a couple months now. I’ll report back in the future.
I looked for a price on Amazon for the 2TB version, no joy. If the 2TB can be had at twice the price that's a good deal too. I paid $198 for the 1TB EVO SSD last August. Good to see the prices dropping.
I've done that twice since your post. The 24 still stopped a couple weeks ago. I'm gonna let it run just to see what happens.
I just ordered 3 more yesterday for $107 each and they arrived today, the QVO that is. The one I got last week is working beautifully. In addition, Amazon had 7 new/refurbed ThermalTake easta docks, so I picked up 3 more before they run out. They are getting hard to find.
The 24-500 crapped out again last night. When I reset the 24 the SSD was not picked up. I had to do the reset over in what I think is the proper way and it worked that time. I'm thinking of getting it replaced but the thought of calling those...people...bothers me. Easier to let it run.
It's been over 8 months since I installed the first SSD and I still see no video or audio problems on any of the 3 HRs I have SSDs on. Just a bit before I installed the first SSD I took a problematic 24-100 and wiped all the content off the HDD, did a CLEARMYBOX and a couple resets and let it run. The 100 resides in our living room and for several months worked almost as well as the HRs with SSDs. Now I'm starting to see the slowness creep back in and the 100 is getting to be a bit of a PITA. Wiping out the content seems to be about the extent of refurbishing D* does. It did work, for about a year. I'm gonna end up putting an SSD on the 100 too. Gotta find another dock first.
Loving my SSD’s on my HR24-100’s, -200’s and -500’s so far!
I also PM’d you on the dock.
Why the Secret ?
That 24-100 that has begun to slow down has made me think. Will the same thing happen in a year or two? Will the SSDs slowly begin to degrade? No way to know unless someone that's had an SSD in an HR can jump in here and assure us it won't happen...anyone out there?...or do we have to wait?
I think there was only one left. Rather considerate of codespy, no? I know I appreciated the thought.
Very informative read on the differences in SSD drives, Speed, Endurance and Capacity.
QLC NAND - What can we expect from the technology? | Architecting IT
1 paragraph from the link:
NAND Endurance – Figures courtesy of Micron.
P/E cycles for SLC were around 100,000, MLC around 10,000 and TLC around 1,000, although this figure has been improved by vendors. Each generation results in an order of magnitude worse endurance. For QLC we were expecting the figures to be around the 100 range. However, manufacturers have improved the resilience and we now see around 3,000 P/E cycles for TLC and 1,000 for QLC (figures taken from Micron Reviewers’ Day, August 2018).
Second, as more data is stored in each cell, the contents must be read before writing, because the change to a single bit requires knowing what value was already present. A second effect is the change in voltage required to jump between bit states. This can cause instability in surrounding cells, so vendors use multiple steps to program QLC (as explained by Toshiba at their stand). As the technology has evolved, writing to SLC, MLC and TLC has therefore become progressively slower. QLC is even worse than previous generations, which has an impact on latency more than throughput.