Do SSDs still have a set amount of times you can write over it, What's good and cheap to stick in a Thinkpad?

Do SSDs still have a set amount of times you can write over it, What's good and cheap to stick in a Thinkpad?

Other urls found in this thread:

techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/?ghost=yes&search_text=MX100&task=search&offset=192
content.ekatalog.biz/katalog/204A0000015/Datasheet_SP550_EN_20150806.pdf
techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/4
samsung.com/rs/memorijski-uredjaji/support/faqs-05.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you won't hit the threshold in years of normal use. quit worrying and just buy one.

And read since reading from an ssd wipes the cell.
But even if you ran the ssd at full speed read and write 24/7 is would take a year or more to kill the drive this way.

Get one, you sperg. I've had my first for three years and it hasn't died on me yet.

They never had not

Not OP but I go like 8-10 years between computer upgrades so it's a legitimate concern.

Didn't some website do this test?
Read and write the entire drive over day in and day out and see how long it took?
To my knowledge the numbers were too high to matter for regular folk

it will take longer than that unless you reinstall windows on it every day or similar stupid meme

techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Most SSDs are good for 200-300TB of writing, some even reach 2PB.

Just… Don't run BitTorrent on it. Then you'll be fine.

This. Seriously, no ordinary person can hope to hit those figures and those are now old.

ADATA SU800.
850 EVO.
MX300.

Those are the best options this days.
Get minimum a 240GB one.

I think you can use laptops with SSD on laps or beds not having to worry about shaking the shit out of the equipment and calling tech service.

Crucial
Samsung
Intel

In order of price

What does mean a write cycle? Everytime I write data on the device or every time it get's wiped/formatted?

Each and every bit. Actually it's the erasure of the bit, when you do a read/erase/write that does the damage.
But most drives will, with wear-levelling algorithms, last for a long time (5 years) with average use.

Every time the data stored in a cell gets changed to another value.
So if a cell can, for example, survive around 1000 write cycles, that means you could write 1000x your drive's capacity before it would be in danger of failure.
So in effect, the bigger the SSD you get, the longer it will last, because you need to write morel data before the same cell gets written to again.

Thanks for the answers!

just buy one that's 120 gb

But how many terabytes are you putting down in those years? Some newer SSD have well over a petabyte of endurance. Only a year or two of continual power-off endurance though

I've had them for several years and have never hit a limit or had any die on me.

I have nothing but SSDs running everything including the OS, and have had for at least 3-4 years. All are still running just fine. Make sure you run fstrim on them periodically if you are running Linux.

>first victims after 300TB
>700TB to first failure
>toughest ones endured 2,4PB
that's nothing. why there are still no better alternatives?

has anyone tried the radeon ssd's? this are the cheaper were I live

Get a SU800 if you are looking for something reliable and that will last you a lot.

It uses 3D NAND so expect it to last a lot.

I think those are just OCZ ssds

Yes, you fucking retard. They always will.

Heck my MX100 is probably going to die soon if I start to really use it. 70P/E cycles and it's down 11%

Well no surprise, its a early TLC SSD.

it will take 10 years to kill a sdd of constant writing.

Except it's 16nm MLC

LOL 72TB endurance.

All these shills claiming 200~300TB~2PB
Won't even reach 75% of 100TB

How a MLC SSD is rated for 72TB?

A 256GB SSD wrote over 2PB.
Think about that.

Actually think.

Beats me, and Sup Forums was raving and recommending the MX100 all the time back in the day.

Fucking shills.

isn't even going to hit 75TB and it's a MLC drive not even TLC

Think about that.

IIRC BX100 was the one getting recommended.

Now i can see why everyone was talking bad about MX200.

BX100 came out way after the MX100

Also only Sandisk Ultra ii, ADATA SP550 and SU800, 850 EVO, BX100-200 and MX300 are the only ones recommended here.

That's not a lot. Constant updates every hour will kill that one SSD in two years. 2PB probably gets me.

This is the dumbest tech discussion place I've ever seen.

bullshit
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/?ghost=yes&search_text=MX100&task=search&offset=192

It used to be talked about all the time, hundreds of fucking pages of it, recommended right up with the Samsung ones.

>recently bought 3x Samsung 850 EVO 1TB for cheap

FEELS GOOD MAN

yep. fuckig nothing

>le SSD is unreliable
This drive has been my sole OS drive since I bought it in 2011 or so.
I have reinstalled Windows and GNU on different partitions multiple times, use most of my programs (including Firefox, which apparently kills SSDs like no other) without any adjustments.
Both Hiberfile and Pagefile are also permanently on this SSD, but I don't use SWAP on GNU.

The D drive on the other hand, is a shitty 2 year old 1TB Seagate HDD that has been dying for the past 1.5 years.

The average TBW rating for 240/256gb drive on average these days are around the 100TB mark unless you splurge on enthusiast drives.

WD Blue SSD 250G 100TB
Kingston UV400 240G 100TB
Samsung 850EVO MZ-75E250 (250 GB) is only rated for 75TB
ADATA doesn't even have a TBW rating for the SP550 or the SU800

Crucial BX-200 is rated for 72TB TBW
MX-300 275GB is rated for 80TBW

Sandisk Ultra II doesn't give a TBW rating, and they were bought out by WD.

of course

however with an SSD it isn't an issue. It will last a long time

in a SDRAM it might be. If you use an SDRAM to it's full capacity 24/7, it will only last a few weeks or something.

>not even 10TB in

Going on in your head, think about it

SSD will last a long time only if you use it as an OS drive or a game drive, something where you do mostly reads and not a whole lotta writes.

In applications where speed matters which is the selling point of SSDs, the daily write limits stated in the warranties will be burnt up pretty fast. Thrash/Cache disk for programs, or a high bit-rate video camera that takes 2.5" drives will easily exceed that limit.

TBW ratings are the no exceed limit for warranties, typically it's 3~5years or TBW rating which ever comes first.

Pass the TBW rating within your 3~5 year warranty period and you've just lost warranty.

That's the point.
It's been in regular use for over 4 years.
You don't use an SSD as a data/torrent/whatever drive. There's hard disks for that.
SSDs are mostly for fast access time to data that doesn't change too often.
People just incorrectly assume they will write Petabytes of data just because it's fast and it's there.
They won't.

>worktime
Yeah hasn't been on for even half of your 4 year claim.

that's a pathetic amount of data

>regular use
here's your answer

The Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display doesn't have this problem.

In the PC you dumb fuck

SP550 120 is "high", 240GB is 90TB, 480GB is 180TB, 960GB is 360TB.
SU800 is again, high for 128GB, 180 for 256GB, 400TB for 512GB, and 1TB is "high" again.

For whatever reason they dont wanna people know how much TBW 120-128 GB have, but they are reliable, im using a SP550 on a X220.
It has one big flaw when cache fills speeds drop to 70-120MB/s, usually when im moving stuff bigger than 4GB.

I've had 3 SSD's die on me already. Call me an early adopter though. Two OCZ(different brands) and one Toshiba. Right now I have the Toshibas brother and 4 other Toshibas. Toshiba/OCZ has the worst warranty. Don't buy Toshiba unless you're looking to save a couple dollars. My next SSD with be M.2

Found the datasheet for SP550, but i really doubt 120GB has 90TBW.
content.ekatalog.biz/katalog/204A0000015/Datasheet_SP550_EN_20150806.pdf

Judging by their ratings the SP550 120 most likely has a rating of half of the 240 which has half of the 480, that makes it 45TB...

Most of the casuals just starting to hop onto the SSD bandwagon are still buying 120GB SSDs, they might be frightened off by a 45TBW rating.

In a way though companies are shooting themselves in the foot when casuals start giving bad reviews on newegg and amazon when the drives fail within the 3~5year warranty period but they exceeded the TBW rating so their RMA gets rejected.

>the 335 Series is designed to shift into read-only mode and then to brick itself when the power is cycled. Despite suffering just one reallocated sector, our sample dutifully followed the script. Data was accessible until a reboot prompted the drive to swallow its virtual cyanide pill.

wtf

Planned obsolesce user.

Good goy. Buy our overpriced placebo drives. Now with planned obsolescence.

It's Crucial, think about that.

5 year old 64gb ssd here. It shows having 5% wear.
Light to moderate writes going on it.

No it's fucking not when a SSD will outlast 3 spinning metal fuck-ups waiting to happen

Not only that, but when a SSD hits the write limit your data is still readable. Whereas when a physical metal platter HDD dies at random all your data is gone with it

OCZ isn't just OCZ any longer though. They're Toshiba now, for whatever good and bad that means.
But apparently they've stopped crapping out for no reason after the takeover.
The Vertex series has a particularly bad history that I think they're happy to be rid of

>enthusiast drives
Can we name some?
Is this stuff like Samsung's "Pro" drives?
Do we have TBW ratings for any of these?

>Can we name some?
Kingfast.
According to my readings they are a little slow but reliable. And cheap.
They use slightly slower components that are more reliable (old tech). The speed difference between a fast spinning rust disk and a slow SSD is pretty big, even when they use the same interface.

i love SSD, very fast, use it to install your operating system on it, save the old HDD for data storage if it is still a good drive, you will notice the operating system boots up faster, applications load much faster

>chink
>reliable
Pick one

most ssds have a 400-800tb rated life, but realistically many of them last over a petabyte before they give up the ghost.

unless you are rewriting the entire drive every single day for years you will not fuck the drive.

I have a 120gb intel from little over 6 years ago and its still above 90% health, im assuming this is total write, and this is with me using the fucker as a scratch disc and doing generally everything you are advised not to do to an ssd to it besides defrag.

just get a ssd for boot and be done with it.

i personally recommend either
Crucial CT480BX200SSD1 BX200
or
Kingston SUV400S37/480G SSDNow UV400

just for the large size of the drive along with cheap price, cheapest samsung in this category would be

Samsung MZ-750500BW 750 Evo

and intel being

Intel SSDSCKKW480H6X1 540s

also, do not bother with read speeds over 600mb, for the most part something else bottlenecks the system before sata read speed is saturated.

drives are getting less and less writes as time goes on, but they also increase in size effectively increasing space needed to write to kill them.

here's my ssd

Most hard drives fail within 5 years or so

Modern SSD should last atleast 10 years or so, if not more

techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/4

300 TB is when older samsung ssd first reported error. First actual failure from the bunch of SSD list is around 700 TB.

Lets imagine someone using their SSD at 50 GB per day. Thats around 18 TB per year. It will take about 16 years before the first error happens and almost 40 years before the first drive will fail. And almost 140 years for the samsung one to fail. This is normal wear/tear.

Way to not fucking read the thread, all the drives you've fucking recommended have less than 200TB rated life with some under fucking 100TB

Way to pull ratings out of your ass.

I would like to think an ssd in a thinkpad could get nothing other then regular use.

Except that Samsung drops warranty as soon as you pass 75TB

Thats still about 4 years warranty. They wont issue 100 year warranty.

That's under the 5 year warranty for competing brands.
Also 50GB a day is nothing if you actually use a SSD for something other than a boot/game drive.

samsung.com/rs/memorijski-uredjaji/support/faqs-05.html

Also depends on the model too. I got a 850 pro 128GB, it has 10 year/150TB warranty.

According to that chart the 840PRO which wasn't that long ago only has 73TBW.

750EVO only has 35TBW lol
850EVO only has 75TBW for 250GB

The EVO drives are actually Samsung's mainstream drives.

the chink Kingspec ssds are great and probably the most affordable.

They can also be successfully partitioned and formatted with Win9x's built-in disk utilities, unlike some other SSDs I've heard.

I put one in a Compaq Presario 1800T, installed Win98 and 256MB RAM, disabled virtual memory, and it is rocket fast.

its readable until you turn it off, then it kills itself

then you chuck it in the freezer to contract the casing and bring the part tolerances back into spec again and it fires back up.

I have never lost a hard drive with critical data. The freezer trick works every time.

Worst idea ever. Will fill up quickly and slow way the fuck down. 120gb always have the lowest read and write speeds, slower than hdd sometimes

Lol shittiest controller and shittiest nand

The process involves putting it into another pc, you can still read the data. This is from Intel, btw

It's way more than the 35TBW rating of the Samsung 750EVO of the same era.

kingston suv400s37120g

If you want to pay a little more how do the Pro version Samsungs stack up against similarly priced drives?

SSDs do wear out their flash components from writing on to them, but that could take years, if not a full decade, of 100% use to cause them to completely wear out.
SLC lasts longer than MLC, which lasts longer than TLC. SLCs are too expensive for consumer use, MLC are more expensive and not as common these days, and TLC are now the cheapest SSDs available (entirely responsible for the recent price drops in SSDs).

But the thing that kills SSDs is not wear on their NAND, but a controller failure or other premature failure elsewhere on the SSD. So while an SSD might be rated for 100s of TBs or even PBs of writes, they will die earlier than that from other components such as the controller, memory/cache, power components, etc. getting worn down or damaged. Most SSDs that get bricked and RMA'd normally have nothing wrong with their NAND.

>Kingston SUV400S37/480G SSDNow UV400
Bait post.
Literally some of the worst SSDs you can recommend.

>the chink Kingspec ssds are great and probably the most affordable.
No, ADATA are the cheapest and most reliable for their price, and not a chink brand.

Noone?
What's the Intel 535 like?

Pretty much minor increase in perfomance.

If you want something fast go for M2 SSDs, but SATA ones are fast enough.

I was thinking durability too. MLC over TLC and whatnot