Enterprise SSD "small deals"

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

ca3y6

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2021
649
635
93
Does anyone happen to have/willing to share a list of drive models/capacity
I maintain such a database (contributions welcome)


and what you consider a good deal?
That's a bit of how long is a piece of string question. Rule of thumb is that SSD under $45/TB is cheap, under $35/TB is a great deal. But then you pay a premium for certain things. PCIe4/5 will be sold at a premium over PCIe3. AIC format will be at a discount to U.2. SAS will be at a discount to U.2. Some U.3 are "U.3 only", i.e. not compatible with U.2, that calls for a discount. The larger capacities, the more expensive per TB they tend to be, so you will rarely find 7.68TB drives at those discounts, and almost never a great deal on 15.36TB. Curiously, endurance/DWPD tend to have little impact on price though it should. Some models you should stay away entirely as they will likely have compatibility issues, IBM SAS SSDs in particular. Low health (<75%) calls for another discount, <50% health calls for a steep discount. QLC is cheaper out of the factory, but also many buyers won't touch it, so it should call for a discount, but not sure it does in practice. Drives with firmware freely downloadable (Dell/Micron/Intel) should sell at a premium over the likes of Samsung that have very buggy firmware they won't update unless you have a contract with them, but not really in practice.
 

tubeit

New Member
Aug 1, 2021
14
22
3
I maintain such a database (contributions welcome)

Damn, we're basically doing the same thing. Would you consider doing a github repository for the database as a JSON file for easier contributions? This project of mine for finding good eBay deals also started because I've found no comprehensive SSD database online. There's basically only the one on techpowerup but it's missing a lot of enterprise drives, it's closed source, the data is not queryable and maintained by only one person. I appreciate their work but an open source database would benefit all.
 

ca3y6

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2021
649
635
93
I don't really want to spend much more time on it to be honest. There is a user interface for making changes to my database that I am happy to give you access to if you want. And the data is accessible in json format as well (the link is at the top of the page). But don't really want to switch to github, and part of the rationale for the UI is to enforce consistency for certain fields from many contributors. Also by now the changes should be fairly small as I should cover all major models. What I don't cover is the many OEM variant, and smaller manufacturers.
 

luckylinux

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2012
1,431
436
83
Granted these are U2 at 80% health, but if you're looking for that would these be an ok deal?

Lenovo TOSHIBA 3.84TB
According to https://datacentersupport.lenovo.com/bm/de/downloads/ds557652 the Drive in the Listing seems to be at least 2 Firmware Revisions behind (3202T2GB) compared to the latest (3205T2GE and 3205T2GC).

Can we run the Linux Update Tool even though we don't own a Lenovo System ? Is it sufficient that the SSD itself is Lenovo ?

EDIT 1: I gave it a Try ... I could download lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin and lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.50.16-0_linux_x86-64.bin.

They don't really run as is (nobody checks if the File is running as User, just complain that they cannot write to /var/log/Lenovo_Support/ux.log).

Using binwalk one can somewhat extract the File, but then we are left with a .std File that doesn't really give out its Type via file Command.

Seems to just be Binary File, that's all, approx 1.3MB:
Code:
ls -lh ./_lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin.extracted/image/files/3205t2ge.std
-rw-rw-r-- 1 USER USER 1,3M Jun 14  2022 ./_lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin.extracted/image/files/3205t2ge.std
Opening via nano shows a few Lines of Header, then it's all Binary and/or encrypted:
Code:
CX05DHWF

Wednesday, March 17, 2021 20:16:42 bytsbgle
                                                          C5M:32:05:03:80

^Z        T2GE^@^@^@^@^@^@^H^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^H^@^@^@^@^@^@^B ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@�^S^@�^@^@^@2^E^C�^D^@^@^@^@�^S^@^W[�>^\���~��Ε�h�^W�e"��՚^D^C9�>o5���#����?1�����O�#��^P�J�^C+*>��h�������C>
�Ce�kPv2�^?'��Dӷ7,^S�܌����w^O�i7�f�^Y����v ��^K�"3��4^N"+���e^F^E�FJ��V���M�^U^Ws8����6�ۊ���m^V~^W$ʿa^_#�^Wz^K`|�w^W�`눺�ߚt-fǥV��8J@^U�Ҽ�Th)F^V�"�F�Ϫc1^O�&[dk^O?��v�כݱ�5�aJ'����v^T������1>-`T2^T^^~E2^?⁗T^O�7ނ���i�^BF>>
;d(��!^B2^Y�_<L���      D*G�w^?KHv���^H�>^\��MS��b���
^P[p�Tk����u�7^N�^K�W��aD�;"��G-�I^P�x������^C����lj��w��^Y�(�k^Q^?lڗ�*^P��~^B^\�^[@�j,M�����T���q�T���^\Ô'���O�K^Tl�T^_^N�^Q@�^Hk�D��R��+�ĥ�\�eڭ��m�9�|c A�l^Q�7�Y��5^��.E+��&A�6^U��^A�^K���ܡ]^?�^D�|�1�/�$�R�-$`��^V^Q�>
����O��A^S9�^D�!�8^W'HVk^F���^\&9�w^K���^Cv6y�^?�^N^X�  ���.J^]^V��+y�Kp�y�^T�5�ߟd}��Kv"^@�x&�rMn^X�s�^S%⼒��W�^Ri�T=R^S�{(>ix��?L�C+���^^_^H]��"�]���^G��^D��Yp*zup3�"N�f^F��*�H-M��{��^W�Ƃ:k�^C^E/
^Q^N�U)^DM;��   h-��^Pk�$���a�OZ^Y���7l��^N�^U�0:Nk^V"�>��`��^VH�p5�^K^Y�2
...
...
...
EDIT 2: I asked Seller and he was like "I have no Idea what you are talking about", supposedly about updating the Firmware.

Rejected Offer at 75 USD / Piece for 2 Pieces.

EDIT 3: Offered 85 USD / Piece, not feeling very optimistic. Only 3 Pieces left :oops: .

EDIT 4: Rejected 85 and 100 USD / Piece. Countered at 120 USD the first Time then 140 USD the Second Time :rolleyes: .

EDIT 5: accepted 105 USD / Piece for 2 Pieces :cool:
 
Last edited:

luckylinux

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2012
1,431
436
83
Mixed Workload / Mixed Use Drive :) .

0.5 Drive Writes Per Day (DWPD) for a period of five years -> 0.5 x 3.84 TB x 365 x 5 = 3504 TBW, quite Good I'd say

Datasheet:

No mention about PLP or Power Loss Protection though, I wonder if it has another Name or if it's not there at all ?

EDIT 1: Never Mind, it just has their Proprietary Name described in the DataGuard Technology Section:

1753901544895.png
 

ca3y6

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2021
649
635
93
that's cool but it is LITERALLY 10 years old.
yeah, and in this case SAS2 is kind of obsolete, but SAS3 wouldn't be. To be honest, I am not sure age is a primary factor in SSD reliability, as long as you are not pushing them (in term of operating temperature and load level). If the wear levels are healthy. But I have yet to find some stats to back that up, that show the impact of age on SSD reliability independently of TBW.
 

whoknew123

Member
Jun 21, 2025
30
18
8
According to https://datacentersupport.lenovo.com/bm/de/downloads/ds557652 the Drive in the Listing seems to be at least 2 Firmware Revisions behind (3202T2GB) compared to the latest (3205T2GE and 3205T2GC).

Can we run the Linux Update Tool even though we don't own a Lenovo System ? Is it sufficient that the SSD itself is Lenovo ?

EDIT 1: I gave it a Try ... I could download lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin and lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.50.16-0_linux_x86-64.bin.

They don't really run as is (nobody checks if the File is running as User, just complain that they cannot write to /var/log/Lenovo_Support/ux.log).

Using binwalk one can somewhat extract the File, but then we are left with a .std File that doesn't really give out its Type via file Command.

Seems to just be Binary File, that's all, approx 1.3MB:
Code:
ls -lh ./_lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin.extracted/image/files/3205t2ge.std
-rw-rw-r-- 1 USER USER 1,3M Jun 14  2022 ./_lnvgy_fw_drives_all-1.39.11-0_linux_x86-64.bin.extracted/image/files/3205t2ge.std
Opening via nano shows a few Lines of Header, then it's all Binary and/or encrypted:
Code:
CX05DHWF

Wednesday, March 17, 2021 20:16:42 bytsbgle
                                                          C5M:32:05:03:80

^Z        T2GE^@^@^@^@^@^@^H^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^H^@^@^@^@^@^@^B ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@�^S^@�^@^@^@2^E^C�^D^@^@^@^@�^S^@^W[�>^\���~��Ε�h�^W�e"��՚^D^C9�>o5���#����?1�����O�#��^P�J�^C+*>��h�������C>
�Ce�kPv2�^?'��Dӷ7,^S�܌����w^O�i7�f�^Y����v ��^K�"3��4^N"+���e^F^E�FJ��V���M�^U^Ws8����6�ۊ���m^V~^W$ʿa^_#�^Wz^K`|�w^W�`눺�ߚt-fǥV��8J@^U�Ҽ�Th)F^V�"�F�Ϫc1^O�&[dk^O?��v�כݱ�5�aJ'����v^T������1>-`T2^T^^~E2^?⁗T^O�7ނ���i�^BF>>
;d(��!^B2^Y�_<L���      D*G�w^?KHv���^H�>^\��MS��b���
^P[p�Tk����u�7^N�^K�W��aD�;"��G-�I^P�x������^C����lj��w��^Y�(�k^Q^?lڗ�*^P��~^B^\�^[@�j,M�����T���q�T���^\Ô'���O�K^Tl�T^_^N�^Q@�^Hk�D��R��+�ĥ�\�eڭ��m�9�|c A�l^Q�7�Y��5^��.E+��&A�6^U��^A�^K���ܡ]^?�^D�|�1�/�$�R�-$`��^V^Q�>
����O��A^S9�^D�!�8^W'HVk^F���^\&9�w^K���^Cv6y�^?�^N^X�  ���.J^]^V��+y�Kp�y�^T�5�ߟd}��Kv"^@�x&�rMn^X�s�^S%⼒��W�^Ri�T=R^S�{(>ix��?L�C+���^^_^H]��"�]���^G��^D��Yp*zup3�"N�f^F��*�H-M��{��^W�Ƃ:k�^C^E/
^Q^N�U)^DM;��   h-��^Pk�$���a�OZ^Y���7l��^N�^U�0:Nk^V"�>��`��^VH�p5�^K^Y�2
...
...
...
EDIT 2: I asked Seller and he was like "I have no Idea what you are talking about", supposedly about updating the Firmware.

Rejected Offer at 75 USD / Piece for 2 Pieces.

EDIT 3: Offered 85 USD / Piece, not feeling very optimistic. Only 3 Pieces left :oops: .

EDIT 4: Rejected 85 and 100 USD / Piece. Countered at 120 USD the first Time then 140 USD the Second Time :rolleyes: .

EDIT 5: accepted 105 USD / Piece for 2 Pieces :cool:
Better negotiator than I lol. I took 3 at 120 last night. I was getting impatient with deals so these should scratch that itch until something great pops up. Plan to run them in zfs raidz1 for a download cache on my unraid server.

Buying these also means I need to pick up an 826-el1-n4 backplane for my case. Oh, and I don’t have pcie lanes to support so picking up an epyc 7302p with a romed8-2t.

if you have any luck updating them let me know. As long as they work I’m not overly concerned but certainly will if you pave the way.
 

luckylinux

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2012
1,431
436
83
yeah, and in this case SAS2 is kind of obsolete, but SAS3 wouldn't be. To be honest, I am not sure age is a primary factor in SSD reliability, as long as you are not pushing them (in term of operating temperature and load level). If the wear levels are healthy. But I have yet to find some stats to back that up, that show the impact of age on SSD reliability independently of TBW.
Microchips are not made to last Indefinitively (thinking mainly about the Controller). They mostly get killed by Over-Voltage Transients / Static Discharge / etc and of course they age much faster the higher in Temperature you go (Arrhenius Law). Which one "kills" first, whether it's the Calendar Aging or the Number of Write Cycles that each Cell experienced over its Lifetime (TBW), it's for sure a Combination of both.

Please Note that old SSDs have MLC Flash with "big" Cells Production Process (in Terms of Nanometers, ~ 20 - 30 nm) so that is better in terms of Longevity and Reliability compared to TLC/QLC NAND. Although in Terms of Calendar Aging, not sure if that makes a Difference. If it does I'd say that the MLC and "big" Production Process is actually better. Of course the same Remark applies to the Controller.

Capacitors mostly age over Time (Capacitance decreases over Time, Electrolyte dries up, ...) so that's for sure a Negative Thing. In these applications aging of Capacitors due to Load Cycling isn't a Factor. Since Manufacturers should design their PLC and Filtering according to the EOL Drive Characteristic (and hopefully they do so), then there should be some reserve Capacity to take that into account so even when old the Drive should perform correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itronin

luckylinux

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2012
1,431
436
83
Better negotiator than I lol. I took 3 at 120 last night. I was getting impatient with deals so these should scratch that itch until something great pops up. Plan to run them in zfs raidz1 for a download cache on my unraid server.

Buying these also means I need to pick up an 826-el1-n4 backplane for my case. Oh, and I don’t have pcie lanes to support so picking up an epyc 7302p with a romed8-2t.

if you have any luck updating them let me know. As long as they work I’m not overly concerned but certainly will if you pave the way.
Well that's already a Premium compared to the 75 USD I was initially willing to spend :rolleyes: .

Maybe I should have indeed gone with 3x, not sure, this way I can only do a Mirror. But at the same Time not being sure if I could update Firmware was a bit of a Risk Factor for me.

Now I'm having quite a different collection of U.2 SSDs though: 1.92TB, 3.2TB, 3.84TB and 4TB. Of course the 4TB (Intel P4500) can be "downgraded" to 3.84TB and the 3.2TB will be in another System so not really an Issue.
 

crlt

Member
Jul 12, 2024
67
90
18
Microchips are not made to last Indefinitively (thinking mainly about the Controller). They mostly get killed by Over-Voltage Transients / Static Discharge / etc and of course they age much faster the higher in Temperature you go (Arrhenius Law). Which one "kills" first, whether it's the Calendar Aging or the Number of Write Cycles that each Cell experienced over its Lifetime (TBW), it's for sure a Combination of both.

Please Note that old SSDs have MLC Flash with "big" Cells Production Process (in Terms of Nanometers, ~ 20 - 30 nm) so that is better in terms of Longevity and Reliability compared to TLC/QLC NAND. Although in Terms of Calendar Aging, not sure if that makes a Difference. If it does I'd say that the MLC and "big" Production Process is actually better. Of course the same Remark applies to the Controller.

Capacitors mostly age over Time (Capacitance decreases over Time, Electrolyte dries up, ...) so that's for sure a Negative Thing. In these applications aging of Capacitors due to Load Cycling isn't a Factor. Since Manufacturers should design their PLC and Filtering according to the EOL Drive Characteristic (and hopefully they do so), then there should be some reserve Capacity to take that into account so even when old the Drive should perform correctly.
Capacitor health has always made me wonder. Some enterprise drives report a cap health metric but most dont. Has anyone experienced SSDs going bad from caps?
 

luckylinux

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2012
1,431
436
83
Capacitor health has always made me wonder. Some enterprise drives report a cap health metric but most dont. Has anyone experienced SSDs going bad from caps?
No direct Experience on Capacitors and these Enterprise Drives but IMHO an Enterprise Drive with PLP where the Capacitor aged too much "simply" means that PLP is no longer effective (either not working at all i.e. Lost Function, or for too short period of Time i.e. Degraded Function), effectively it's the same Thing as having a Consumer Drive without PLP, and for most Scenarios with ZFS (even if PLP is highly recommended), then in the worst case you are only going to lose the last few Seconds after an unexpected Power Loss occurred. So the Issue will only manifest itself after an unexpected Power Loss, otherwise none at all. Some PLP Drives do indeed do a "self-Test" of the PLP Capacitor Function and report that Information in the SMART Attributes / Log.

Of course if the PLP Capacitor goes into Short-circuit that's a whole other Story, but that will likely not be reported at all, if anything a fuse Blows or your PSU trips. But how likely is that going to happen ...

Small Filtering Capacitors will not report anything to the Controller obviously, so the only Effect will be a slightly less filtering / decoupling of e.g. 3.3V Supply and some Signals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crlt

josh

Active Member
Oct 21, 2013
635
211
43
Need 6x more 3.84/7.68 SAS drives. Would appreciate if anyone pings me when something shows up :)