SSD health: crystal health
- Thread starter cjdavid
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,400
Personally, I would definitely be prepared to replace it.
I'm interested in getting a 1tb version. Is there any you'd recommend?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,400
I think most on here would recommend Samsung or Crucial. I have a couple of Samsung drives and a Crucial and have no complaints.
I also have SSDs from Patriot, OCZ, Sandisk and Toshiba and don't have any complaints about those either. It really depends on your use-case and your budget.
I would just find something that's in budget and has a decent warranty and then research reviews etc.. Then buy from a reputable dealer.
I also have SSDs from Patriot, OCZ, Sandisk and Toshiba and don't have any complaints about those either. It really depends on your use-case and your budget.
I would just find something that's in budget and has a decent warranty and then research reviews etc.. Then buy from a reputable dealer.
Associate
The NAND in that drive is planar MLC, it's rated at 72TB endurance, though that's highly conservative, I'd expect the real endurance to be several magnitudes higher.
Caporegime
How is it coming to the conclusion that it's over half way through its life based on the SMART data?
Is it the host writes?
Is it the host writes?
Associate
I can't see all the SMART data, though for that drive it's probably looking at CA id 'Percent Lifetime Used'.
It's important to remember that's just what the manufacturer has set the value to be, it usually has no relation to the actual endurance of the drive.
Looking at AD 'Average Block-Erase Count' which stands at 46, I'd expect the NAND to be capable or a figure higher than 1000 at least, probably much higher. The drive also hasn't used any B4 'Unused Reserve NAND Blocks' if that resource starts getting used then the drive may be nearing end of life.
It's important to remember that's just what the manufacturer has set the value to be, it usually has no relation to the actual endurance of the drive.
Looking at AD 'Average Block-Erase Count' which stands at 46, I'd expect the NAND to be capable or a figure higher than 1000 at least, probably much higher. The drive also hasn't used any B4 'Unused Reserve NAND Blocks' if that resource starts getting used then the drive may be nearing end of life.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,393
Yeah some important info seems to be missing from the bottom of the screenshot but that score is very low. That drive seems to be on it's way out.
Something isn't right about that screenie, it seems wrong! SSD life is on writes and the mx100 is rated at 65gb/day for 3 years or 71,175 GB write life (69TB). Your drive has written approx 26.1TB so I think you have around 60% life left in the drive. Was very suprised with the poor lifetime of your disk so looked at some of mine...
Samsung NVME
Old mech Samsung Spinpoint F1 - 8.25 years power on hours (they dont make them like they used to!)
Personally id replace it with a Samsung SSD/NVME that are rated at like 400-500TB writes.
Samsung NVME
Old mech Samsung Spinpoint F1 - 8.25 years power on hours (they dont make them like they used to!)
Personally id replace it with a Samsung SSD/NVME that are rated at like 400-500TB writes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,393
This is what I would recommend as well. The Samsung drives are popular for a reason.
Associate
The MX100 will probably do a few PB's of writes. You shouldn't rely on what cystaldiskinfo says, like I said previously the manufacturers set the values for health in regard to SMART, though they usually don't reflect the real endurance of the NAND flash.