XIII Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Any of them a vertex 2e? I've seen loads of people complain about this problem and I wondered, could it be related to your motherboard chipset or something? Or are they really just crap? From what I have heard, Vertex does crap out but most of them are Vertex I with the Indilinx controller. Vertex II has lower failure rate but the failure rate depends on the chips you have. Some has IMFT (Micron), some have Hynix. The Hynix ones have lower speed and higher failure rates. You should open yours and check to make sure that you don't have any Hynix chips inside yours. If you do, I would suggest to contact OCZ and try to get an exchange. Ever since OCZ switches to Sandforce, their failure rates have been decreasing. The ones that crapped out on me (all 3 of them) are Intel SSD (1 X25-E, 1 Kingston-branded X25-M G1 80GB and 1 X25-M G2 160GB). Funny thing is, most manufacturers will do a lot of fancy MTBF calculation and tell you how many GB of data you can write each day and the SSD is still intact while the common causes of failure for most SSDs have been the controllers. I am testing an ADATA S599 with a Sandforce controller now. Hopefully, it's good. Will post back later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted May 22, 2011 Veteran Share Posted May 22, 2011 Nice utility - thanks for the tip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penryn Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 This is mine SSD bought it 3 months ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted July 19, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 19, 2011 Just got my SSD - a Kingston SSDNow V+180 64GB. Checked with SSDlife and as expected it shows 2020 as the life expectancy so i'll test it out for the next few days and see how it fairs then. Scores a 7.1 on WEI (coming from a 5.1 for my Toshiba 1.8" 5400RPM drive). CrystalMark gives it a 183MB/s Seq READ though, i've seen other people posting 230MB/s. Writes are where they should be at 173-179MB/s according to the specs. (Got it for free, beggers can't be choosers :D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 No idea, mine are all raided. It won't tell me their status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 crap I just got a 64gig SSD this past weekend. Thanks for this thread as I will go home and run this tool to see how I stack up. I didn't know they wear out though wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJerman Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I don't have any myself, but I have a bunches here at work. They are pretty much all in RAID arrays though, so they don't even show up in Windows, just the RAID disk. Got one server running 5x50 GB SSDs in RAID 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profound Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I'm happy to see my seperately bought SSD is holding out a lot better than the SSD that came with my laptop... but still.. bit of a shame the built in one has degraded so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeN2k Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 2057 lol i might replace my SSD by then :) http://online.hddlife.com/ssdlife/ddd538c4a1fdc37b99665b7a6a6212e6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregalto Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Cool little app, need to try this when I get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOHW Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Had this SSD since late Dec 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myxomatosis Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Too bad it won't work with RAID arrays... :( Got 2 X25-M "Postville" in RAID-0. #1: Written: 688Gb Power-On Hours: 6008 Power Cycle-Count: 2465 #2: Written: 779Gb Power-On Hours: 6143 Power Cycle-Count: 2458 Don't know what it gives in % Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimLXJ Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 Almost five months now and it's still at 100% Thought I didn't put a lot of stuff onto this SSD, but a lot of powered on :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Only had mine 4 months :/ Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010. January 2011 (when I originally posted the following results in this topic) SSD was 4 months old Health was 85% Work time: 2 months, 6 days Powered on: 229 times September 2011 SSD is 12 months old Health is 62% Work time: 6 months, 1 day Powered on: 578 times Things are not looking good, it seems? Although the program says "Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010. *snip* Things are not looking good, it seems? Although the program says "Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020." that doesn't look good at all, it sound it would just a bit after the warranty expire sucks to be in that situation (my HD4870X2 died a month or two after warranty expired :( ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Topham Hatt Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Seeing some people's SSD wearing down quickly has put me off buying one :/ That's a shame. Although I'd only get a 50Gb one... Windows only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yxz Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 sandforce-1200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amarok Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Better than I expected ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted October 20, 2011 MVC Share Posted October 20, 2011 An honest question is why does this thread exists? Is they any proof that the numbers reported by SMART and this tool are reliable? I have encountered VERY few HDDs in my computing life that have failed and weren't reported "great" by SMART. Although HDDs have more room for failure than SSDs I have also had countless USB flash drives just fail out of the blue as well (and they share the no moving parts SSD features). So why are people posting screenshots to a tool that tells them their drive will last them decades when there is no proof that those numbers are even close to accurate? (although if such a reliability study does exist I would love to read it) Raa 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 An honest question is why does this thread exists? Is they any proof that the numbers reported by SMART and this tool are reliable? I have encountered VERY few HDDs in my computing life that have failed and weren't reported "great" by SMART. Although HDDs have more room for failure than SSDs I have also had countless USB flash drives just fail out of the blue as well (and they share the no moving parts SSD features). So why are people posting screenshots to a tool that tells them their drive will last them decades when there is no proof that those numbers are even close to accurate? (although if such a reliability study does exist I would love to read it) Who cares? If you still don't believe what the program predicts, then that's your own fault. Common sense would say that a mechanical HDD will be less reliable than a SSD. And common sense would also say that there will be failures in both areas no matter what. The only proof you need is the testimonial of people like me that have had SSD's for years and years without a single failure. Most people don't buy an SSD for the reliability either. The shear speed is the attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If this drive lasts till 2020, I'll dance a jig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeke009 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Handy tool, thanks for sharing! But I'm sad there is no icon love for Mushkin. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted October 20, 2011 MVC Share Posted October 20, 2011 Who cares? If you still don't believe what the program predicts, then that's your own fault. Common sense would say that a mechanical HDD will be less reliable than a SSD. And common sense would also say that there will be failures in both areas no matter what. The only proof you need is the testimonial of people like me that have had SSD's for years and years without a single failure. Most people don't buy an SSD for the reliability either. The shear speed is the attraction. I am sure the attraction to SSDs isn't their reliability, but their speed. I am not questioning the attraction to SSDs, but merely this topic. The point of posting reliability estimates would be to challenge those who see SSDs as less reliable than HDDs, otherwise why do it? I have had more flash media die on me than anything other than Floppy Disks in my 13 years using PCs. This makes me wonder about the reliability of SSDs. As a result, looking at this thread aims to counter that, but offers nothing in the way of proof. I can find many people who are still running HDDs from over 5 years ago. A matter of fact, I have ones nearing 10 years old in use right now and they are still spinning fine. That doesn't mean HDDs never die. But if I told you my HDDs was going to last me another "3 years, 2 months, and 9 days" I should be showing why that number is so accurate and isn't just pulled out of someone backside. Again, this isn't an attack on SSDs, but an inquiring as to what the point of posting the "status" of your SSD if the status is hogwash. TEX4S 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I am sure the attraction to SSDs isn't their speed, but their reliability. I can honestly say, of all the people I know with SSD's, all would have drawn a blank of why they got a SSD if you didn't count speed. Reliability simply has not been a factor for most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts