Endurance Test of Samsung 850 Pro Comes To an End after 9100TB of writes

guru3d.com/news-story/endurance-test-of-samsung-850-pro-comes-to-an-end-after-9100tb-of-writes.html
>c't used six SSDs of each model: OCZ TR150, Crucial BX 200, Samsung 750 Evo, Samsung 850 Pro, SanDisk Extreme Pro and SanDisk Ultra II. Conclusive was the fact that all SSDs lasted way longer then advertised. The two SSDs that failed first where a Crucial BX200 , which lasted twice the number of advertised writes at 187 and 280 TB. Then also a number of SSDs died after a accident that caused a power surge or peak (could not understand it really well as the original article is written in German). The top batch became the SanDisk Extreme Pro and Samsung 850 Pro models, they all lasted a minimum of 2.2 Petabyte.

>A normal office system writes between 10 and 35 GB per day. Even if you had a generous 40 GB per day, a nominal endurance of 70 TBW would be achieved after five years. Now if we extrapolate that data and take it to the Samsung SSD 850 that would be 60 times the guaranteed write performance of 150 TBW. At that average of 40-gigabyte daily usage, (purely theoretical of course) that SSD would have lasted 623 years.

i forgot
>WEAR OUT FAGS BTFO

hdd fags on suicide watch

yea we'll see who's crying after 623 years when all your data is gone

>no thousand year ssd

hahahaha get fucked faggots

HDD poorfag subhumans BTFO

This is NOT FAIR. I can only AFFORD a HDD because FUCKING SSD cost so DAMN MUCH.

Doesn't matter. SSD are more prone to data loss than HDD. Keep your normalfag SSD to yourselves.

But I need my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson to watch my hoarded tv series and porn when I'm gone.

Why haven't YOU ordered your 60TB SSD yet?

It's a great feeling that if I ever adopt I can give my porn to my 9xgreat grandson. It can be a family heirloom, and in 600 years it'll be on antiques show as a priceless piece of history- the amazingly valuable porno collection of some asshole

not a surprise since the 830 pro also had ridiculous endurance (in the 5+ PB range)

Are intel MLC SSDs also this good?
Got 480GB model, always keeping 240GB space free for TRIM and wear leveling. Writing daily maybe 5GBs.

One day the archeologists are digging for a SSD full of porn, the Holy Grail mentioned in Bible 5.1.

That's the size of a 3'5? How much will it cost.

60TB man, wtf.

Uhm sweetie, SSDs lose data if it hasn't been powered on for a while (read: weeks)

What is the best way to make them last as long as possible in an every day machine. Games, internet, movies.

What are the do's and do nots of SSDs?

Disable superfetch, put page file on a HDD, appdata on a HDD and all browser activities on a HDD

Intel = Crucial

Do you keep that space unpartitioned? I've read that this helps for the SSD wear leveling for some reason.

The best way to avoid a ton of extra writes is to set your browser cache to a ram disk.

that's one full year of constant writes at 2gbps until the drive breaks. half of that if you use 4gbps pci e 3.0 nvme drives

considering that PCs are all turned into botnets at this point, i'd rather not have to buy a new overpriced as fuck pcie SSD after just a year at worst, or 3 years at best.

Because I still haven't bothered to upgrade my two 300GB spinning drives to 1TB, and my 250GB C: SSD is fine

>Constantly generating a 2GB/s data stream through your SSD
What are you even doing with it? Are you trying to use it as RAM or something?

>b-but muh optane

Why even buy one?

I'm talking about old Intel 530. it was the last produced SSD with Intel NAND chips.

From my work I have ordered x number of 850 Pro SSDs (can't say sorry.)

Right now in front of me on my desk are 4 dead 256GB 850 Pro. All of them died after about 1500 TB of writes. Way less than what guru3d claims (yes I know 512gb vs 256gb, but 512GB's rating is only 2 times the 256gb.)

I am satisfy with them. I bought them with the assumption that they would eventually burn out under my usage pattern. I've already replaced them with new 850 Pro.

But should I warranty the dead drives?

By the way, the Intel S37xx SSDs I have are still kicking after twice as much writes as the 850 Pro. Of course they are more than twice as expensive and are much faster...

iphoney logic

Intel's enterprise SSDs actually have a firmware lock. You can't run the drive into the dirt, as soon as it hits the designated write load (which is incredibly small compared to normal NAND wear) it'll turn into read-only permanently
Intel calls this a feature.

Are you in 2013?
1 year is standard nowadays even without a discrete capacitor. With a decent capacitor or two that jumps to 2 years easy

730 does too
Still the reel Intel controller

I posted That's actually not entirely correct. If the SSDs are sold thru an OEM, then the OEM can ask Intel to modify the firmware's behavior to fit whatever warranty/performance criteria the OEM wants.

And they do this, ALL THE TIME. I've wasted a few weeks of my life dealing with OEM/Intel engineers on these issues.

IT'S OVER 9000

Their enterprise ssd don't get sold to OEMs they get sold to clients

>trusting a drive with zero tolerance for failure and minuscule parts and disks spinning at 7200rpm

Clearly fake. SSDs are trash that die after 6 months.

>But should I warranty the dead drives?

do you want free stuff or not

don't understand why people don't abuse warranties more, I guess it keeps the deals better for those who do I guess

How do you disable the write lock?
You gotta ask Intel politely?
Of course the OEM can tell Intel what they want to buy that's the point of being OEM, I'm talking the enterprise SSD that get sold

because it's not for sale

>SSD are more prone to data loss than HDD
sourgrapes.jpeg

>seagate

>At that average of 40-gigabyte daily usage, that SSD would have lasted 623 years

HDD BTFO

The cells used for over provisioning are used up. If you want a chance at data loss, ask Intel to disable it or something. It's not arbitrary, and enterprise sure loves it when they have a warning on failing hardware.

did you ever hear about the "discard" and "noatme" mount options?

ask microshit why my drives are constantly being read/written too, especially when it's idle.

1. Have very good reasons
2. Buy enough shits from the OEM to make them care
3. Void all possible warranty claims

The Intel drives I am talking about are Intel storage SSDs that you can add to your $20k server from a Tier-1 server manufacturer.

All the SSDs Intel, not OEM, branded.

Holy fucking shit my dick. Affordable and big SSDs fucking when? I want a 16TB SSD instead of 4 loud and heavy HDDs.

>toshiba
>deskstar ssd extreme

This suggestion is the equivalent of saying 'try restarting your computer' when your app isn't working.

FWIW, these options won't save the drives under my usage pattern.

I never once judged the write lock good or bad I'm just saying, expect your Intel server SSD to become unusable much earlier than other SSDs that you can run into the dirt
It's nice for RAID when you can freeze and rebuild a drive as soon as there's a data loss risk but for the normal consumer, you're just gonna see a pathetic write endurance and lockdown that may or may not be necessary
If Intel band on controllers are better than everyone else they should have no issue pushing back the write lock (because even though it's understandable, it's still a fucking small write endurance, artificially limited or not)
I haven't checked the Intel write lock number but last I remember it was like 1/3 what a normal Samsung SSD would reliably last until dying

You're not talking about an SSD though, you're talking about Intels customer service to OEMs
If you are talking about SSD tech, what are you talking about? I can't tell from your previous posts about company prqctices

What happens is most companies buy their servers from a server OEM with everything configured (RAM, SSDs etc.)

The OEM provides, say, 5 years of warranty on all the parts, including the Intel enterprise SSDs.

When a customer has issues with the SSDs, first the OEM engineer will handle it, when they determined they can't fix it themselves, they escalate the issue to Intel and Intel brings in their own SSD engineers.

Then all 3 sides try to debug and solve the issue together.

>warning
>arbitrarily bricking your SSD at a fraction of its expected lifespan
th-thanks intel

give it another 30 years. they have to milk us extra hard first. the manufacturers are clearly colluding to drop better ssds at ridiculously high pricepoints one year at a time.

You can still read your data.

Where I would put my SSD/HDD caching solution- IF I HAD ONE

Really I think SSD caching is where it's at. Those SSHD drives are retarded because they only put .25 cents of NAND in them. If they sold a 4tb drive with 128gb of NAND(~$45), or if a really good caching tool came out and you could do it yourself people would stop buying these insane 1 tb ssd's.
I almost fell for the PCI-E(960 evo prob) boot drive because "there is no way something that fucking fast isn't better than my tlc drive" but it really only boots windows 1 second faster and is negligible for most software unless you're working with large files which are stored on the pci-e drive. I'm not the only one either, the 256gb $127 960 evo sells like fucking crazy on amazon yet in a controller experiment I don't think most of those customers could tell the difference between a budget SSD and the 960 evo.

only once. After power cycle it kills itself.

For how long though?
I read it works read-only for like one boot cycle but that was a really old article from a while ago
Not trying to argue, I love my 730 as much as anybody would but Shirley you can see why this system could be annoying for consumers not using RAID of sensitive 24/7 data

>t. someone who doesn't actually know how big of an improvement an SSD is but talks like he does

I wish you have just pointed out where I'm wrong instead of saying some stupid shit like that. A sufficiently big SSD cache should be nearly indistunguishable from all SSD storage. I don't know what the ratio is supposed to be, maybe it's 128gb to 1tb. If you can barely tell the difference and have a 500gb ssd caching a 4tb HDD that would be a way better solution for a bunch of people.
Intel's software for optane can actually do this but shortly after launch they changed something so it only works with intel SSDs and only SSDs below a certain size.
I bought into SSD in 2011, which is part of the reason why I wanted to buy into PCI-E storage(I like to stay ahead of the curve with storage).

>buys crap-brand SSD
>whines that it isn't good
Okay pal.

no user, he's saying that a big HDD cache is just as good as using only ssds

When did I say my SSDs aren't good? They're great. I'm just saying that if I bought a 4tb HDD and used my 500gb SSD as a cache for it that I believe it will feel like a 4tb SSD. I bought that one in the picture in 2011 and it still actually works. I'm fairly certain I've been using them longer than you. Right now I have a 500gb SSD as my boot drive and a 128gb ssd as a boot drive in my laptop.

that's not collusion that's just captialism.
what's the sense in spending gross amounts on development only to have your competitor release a better product immediately after?
These manufacturers maximize profits by making these yearly baby steps, it's less efficient for them to blow their load one year and then have nothing to garner sales the next.

>tfw my SSD will never need replacing

it won't, the cache can't read your mind, and if you're doing it manually it sucks

I don't know. I have one in a 24/7 server currently in his 5th year and one in my laptop (daily driver) in his 3rd. But maybe some jews keep replacing them?

>Lasts longer than you or Western civilization will
>No need to defragment
>lower noise
>lower power consumption
>no rotational velocidensity to worry about

Looks like poorfags are done for.

t. bought the first ever ssd that came out

Well it would cache the most used shit of course which means you'll have to use it for a while but the additional option to force it to to cache some things would be great too. So you have your OS cached of course and all of your desktop software since it's so small, then it will shift all your other files back and fourth depending on what you use.
I've never tried a caching solution because I've heard the current software is absolutely terrible.

>groups of different corporations and retailers
>all working together to drive up prices of even overstocked products
>retailers decide it's time to jackup the price just for the sake of jacking up the price
>all retailers do so at the same time
how is that not collusion?

You're using an Evo not a Pro
It's a generation before the tested one
128 gb won't last as long as a higher capacity drive

because it's happening naturally, there's no colluding between them.

You asked how to maximize life, that's done by minimizing writes. Put your installed applications/os on ssd and all cache things on disk.

Or just put it all on ssd because 9 petabyte write endurance don't give a fuck.

He's wrong and the proof is easily found and long-standing

Put it in another system

>oh boy, I want to install this 40GB thing
>the cache didn't read your mind, so it's only on the HDD
>you wait 1+ hour to install it

>This SSD is NEVER obsolete!

I know, he doesn't

>I've never tried caching
There we go

Except flash memory is inherently volatile and leaks electrons when left unpowered. Each write to a cell decreased its longevity in regards to retaining electrons, and can be made even worst in relation to operating and power off temperatures. SSDs and flash memory in general is only good for instances where IO is necessary, e.g. a bootdrive holding OS. But for storage, it's worst than pointless. Having data on one of these X TB drives means eventually you'll have to transfer the data to magnetic/other storage if you want to archive it. The endurance of of an SSD is moot when turning if off for a couple weeks will corrupt data.

960 pro came before 960 evo

>tfw the SSD has only 12TB written to it after 2 years of use
>tfw I still have to use an HDD if I want to data horde because I need to sell my firstborn if I want to buy another SSD

>tfw you buy a good SSD at clearance for cheaper than budget SSDs of half the size

SSD power off endurance has been like a year standard for a few years now, with many claiming up to two years
A capacitor makes this practically a non-issue, whoever is cold-storing SSD drives should already know about the better options for longetivity

>I want a 16TB SSD
Not for archival, I hope? SSDs are not an upgrade to HDDs like manufactures want the consumer to believe. It's a different technology, and is unsuitable for archival purposes; flash storage will eventually leak electrons, and this increases to a worst case when power-on temperature is low, power-off temperature is high, and cells are worn. Magnetic storage doesn't have this problem.

And you have? I doubt it.
I just want to try it.

Wouldn't it be possible for the software to leave or even dynamically allocate part of the cache for writes and then re-write the file to the HDD in the background?
There is a bunch of cool shit you could do really. Thats why in my original post I said we're lacking a really good caching solution.

ssd caching for files coming from external storage exists and is widely used, but it doesn't do shit to the files on the internal HDDs

>magnetic shills

>128TB HDD
how the fuck

I'll give you an example:

>you have a desktop with an 500GB ssd
>you want to send 40GB of small files to your NAS through your LAN
>instead of waiting 10 years because HDDs have shit random read/write, the ssd cache will suck up all those files quickly and then write it to the hdds

>Open up my Samsung magician
>840Pro, 15.8TB data written
Feels good.
Yes, I am aware that 840 and 850 are different, but the capacity of writes should be around the same neighbourhood maybe.
Owned the SSD since... April 2013.
Feels good.

SSD, not HDD.

>many claiming up to two years
This is undoubtedly a best case/average use case. It's not a static number, it depends on both operating and power-off temperature as well as cell wear.
>whoever is cold-storing SSD drives should already know about the better options for longetivity
But the consumer has no idea because it's not let know to them by the manufacturer. What happens when fill up some large SSD - do you transfer to an HDD/other? In which case you may as well have used an HDD in the first place. But many won't even bother, and if using an external SSD enclosure, will just put it off to the side to rot. I just don't understand the point of large capacity SSDs being touted or marketed for general use storage where IO is a non-issue.

Comment on that site says about 25% of SSD's failing after 3 years. Not due to writes but due to the hardware dying. Anyone got more info on this? I have an 840 Pro that is 3 years old.

the controller will probably shit itself way longer before the cells, satan

I'm not getting an SSD just to replace it after just 5 years.
This is worse than I expected.

It's pathetic you don't have one already.

Manufacturers could sell us 10TB SSD's for $200 RIGHT NOW. But then they would not have a road map to milk us dry for the next few decades.

They have been colluding since forever.