Whats the status of your SSD?


Recommended Posts

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 certainly hope not!

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

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

October 2011

SSD is 13 months old

Health is 59%

Work time: 6 months, 15 days

Powered on: 646 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is April 2020."

mine been 70% out of box with 0 hours

and it's still 70% (obviously this app do not support this samsung ssd)

http://online.hddlif...fa150a940922a98

but those unknown samsung smart parameters

EB

March 2011 (194 hours) : 7

September 2011 (5254 hours): 9

EC

March 2011 (194 hours) : 2

September 2011 (5254 hours): 55

ED

March 2011 (194 hours) : 15

September 2011 (5254 hours): 207

EE

March 2011 (194 hours) : 1196

September 2011 (5254 hours): 1196

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.

You make it sound like this program is randomly generating a date. You do realize that all drives (HHD or SSD) have a read/write rating of some sort, right? The manufacturers do actually test their product before they throw it out on the market, so they know exactly the amount of usage that an average user should get. So would you like to take a guess at how this program calculates that date?

Like I said before, both sides will obviously have failures. Shock, static charge, voltage spikes, temperature, etc. would all play a factor in the life of a drive. I don't have any proof to back this, but maybe SSD's are more commonly used in laptops since the majority of them come in the 2.5" form factor. If there's any truth to that, then obviously it would be prone to more outside forces. But if you put a SSD and HDD next to each other, in the same environment, and read/write the hell out of it, I'm willing to bet the SSD wins.

You make it sound like this program is randomly generating a date. You do realize that all drives (HHD or SSD) have a read/write rating of some sort, right? The manufacturers do actually test their product before they throw it out on the market, so they know exactly the amount of usage that an average user should get. So would you like to take a guess at how this program calculates that date?

Like I said before, both sides will obviously have failures. Shock, static charge, voltage spikes, temperature, etc. would all play a factor in the life of a drive. I don't have any proof to back this, but maybe SSD's are more commonly used in laptops since the majority of them come in the 2.5" form factor. If there's any truth to that, then obviously it would be prone to more outside forces. But if you put a SSD and HDD next to each other, in the same environment, and read/write the hell out of it, I'm willing to bet the SSD wins.

It seems the program does pull its number out of thin air, so to speak.

Thanks to the link in Coth's post I was able to get a little insight into how the program generates its life date:

It's a simple mathematical problem: in order to calculate it at once, we need to know at least the date when you wrote data to the drive the first time, but unfortunately, drives do not provide this information. That is why we need some time after the first launch of SSDLife to monitor how intensively you use your SSD in order to determine its average load. And as soon as we can calculate the approximate average amount of data written to the drive per day, we will be able to determine the time it will take you to use the entire lifetime capacity of the drive, which means we will be able to calculate the date when the lifetime of the SSD will be over. Of course, this date will keep changing depending on how the intensity of the drive usage changes.

Source: http://ssd-life.com/eng/how.html

So the program seems to be of dubious value. It is only able to guess that your drive will last x days based on how many writes it is supposed to handle and how often it thinks you write to the drive. It can't read real wear on the drive or report any underlying problems with the drive that aren't detected by SMART. And we all know how useful SMART is...

It seems the program does pull its number out of thin air, so to speak.

Thanks to the link in Coth's post I was able to get a little insight into how the program generates its life date:

Source: http://ssd-life.com/eng/how.html

So the program seems to be of dubious value. It is only able to guess that your drive will last x days based on how many writes it is supposed to handle and how often it thinks you write to the drive. It can't read real wear on the drive or report any underlying problems with the drive that aren't detected by SMART. And we all know how useful SMART is...

Did you not read my post?... Thanks for basically re-emphasizing what I said...

And no, it does not pull the date out of thin air. It's an educated prediction just like any other prediction/forecast in the world. Did you honestly think that this program could magically predict the exact day your drive will die?

A drive is rated for a certain amount of read/writes. It will keep record of your usage over time and then that program will build a prediction using it's algorithm. It's common sense that it will change over time since sometimes it will be running for a month straight and sometimes it will be off for a week. The program is still correct for the usage you've put on thus far. It's not like a prediction is a bad thing...

In the end, there have been plenty of people on here that have used their SSD's for a long time and the program still says they have years and years of life left. If somebody only has a few hours put on it, then yeah it's not exactly valid, but that's definitely not the case here. The proof is all contained in this thread. You can believe what you want, but saying it's wrong is just non-sense.

Did you not read my post?... Thanks for basically re-emphasizing what I said...

And no, it does not pull the date out of thin air. It's an educated prediction just like any other prediction/forecast in the world. Did you honestly think that this program could magically predict the exact day your drive will die?

A drive is rated for a certain amount of read/writes. It will keep record of your usage over time and then that program will build a prediction using it's algorithm. It's common sense that it will change over time since sometimes it will be running for a month straight and sometimes it will be off for a week. The program is still correct for the usage you've put on thus far. It's not like a prediction is a bad thing...

In the end, there have been plenty of people on here that have used their SSD's for a long time and the program still says they have years and years of life left. If somebody only has a few hours put on it, then yeah it's not exactly valid, but that's definitely not the case here. The proof is all contained in this thread. You can believe what you want, but saying it's wrong is just non-sense.

It is a very poor guess* as the program needs to run from Day 1 until the end to give a decent estimate, but even then it isn't guessing on anything more than estimated write capability from the drive maker. So it is really guessing how many estimated writes your drive has left not its "health".

That was my issue. If you look at the screenshots it implies that this product is able to read deeply into the SSD health and give an accurate estimate of how long it would last. That isn't the case. For even the one area it does monitor, wear level, there is no proof that their algorithm is even close to accurate.

* Poor guess as there is a lot of write activity it could miss due to formats, dual booting, virtual machines using hardware I/O virtualization, or any other scenario where this program can't record even write.

It is a very poor guess* as the program needs to run from Day 1 until the end to give a decent estimate, but even then it isn't guessing on anything more than estimated write capability from the drive maker. So it is really guessing how many estimated writes your drive has left not its "health".

That was my issue. If you look at the screenshots it implies that this product is able to read deeply into the SSD health and give an accurate estimate of how long it would last. That isn't the case. For even the one area it does monitor, wear level, there is no proof that their algorithm is even close to accurate.

* Poor guess as there is a lot of write activity it could miss due to formats, dual booting, virtual machines using hardware I/O virtualization, or any other scenario where this program can't record even write.

Why would the program need to run from day 1? I think you are really mistaken on how this program (and an SSD) works. The SSD itself is recording everything it does. All this program does is interpret that back-log and calculate a date for you.

There is no such thing as "wear" on an SSD. There are no mechanical parts, so the only thing that resembles "wear" is the completed read/write cycles.

That program truly is spot on since the SSD will die as soon as you use up those read/write cycles. That's just the physical nature of NAND memory. On the contrary, a mechanical HDD dies when the headers break or some other component fails. It's hard to predict the death of an HDD because it can still function as it goes "down hill". Whereas an SSD doesn't show symptoms; it just dies.

You should probably read their website to clear up your thoughts:

http://ssd-life.com/eng/how.html

Why would the program need to run from day 1? I think you are really mistaken on how this program (and an SSD) works. The SSD itself is recording everything it does. All this program does is interpret that back-log and calculate a date for you.

There is no such thing as "wear" on an SSD. There are no mechanical parts, so the only thing that resembles "wear" is the completed read/write cycles.

That program truly is spot on since the SSD will die as soon as you use up those read/write cycles. That's just the physical nature of NAND memory. On the contrary, a mechanical HDD dies when the headers break or some other component fails. It's hard to predict the death of an HDD because it can still function as it goes "down hill". Whereas an SSD doesn't show symptoms; it just dies.

You should probably read their website to clear up your thoughts:

http://ssd-life.com/eng/how.html

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...

Using the SSD (write cycles) causes wear on the drive. Every time you write to the drive you wear it out just a little more... They don't wear the same way mechanical HDDs do, but they wear nonetheless.

No, the program is not "spot on". I quoted their site earlier where they stated the drive only shows how many writes it has had at the moment they request it. The drive doesn't tell them when the first write occurred or how long it has been in use (so they have no way of knowing if the 45% "wear" on the drive occurred in 1 day or 10 years). They also admit that without this data their result is nothing more than an educated guess and can fluctuate as a result.

And as I said earlier, it only shows the drive's wear level really. It isn't representative of the drive's overall health as the screenshots imply.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...

Using the SSD (write cycles) causes wear on the drive. Every time you write to the drive you wear it out just a little more... They don't wear the same way mechanical HDDs do, but they wear nonetheless.

No, the program is not "spot on". I quoted their site earlier where they stated the drive only shows how many writes it has had at the moment they request it. The drive doesn't tell them when the first write occurred or how long it has been in use (so they have no way of knowing if the 45% "wear" on the drive occurred in 1 day or 10 years). They also admit that without this data their result is nothing more than an educated guess and can fluctuate as a result.

And as I said earlier, it only shows the drive's wear level really. It isn't representative of the drive's overall health as the screenshots imply.

Then how does the program display "Work Time"? I highly doubt that all these people have run this program before this thread was created. By your logic, everybody's work time would be 0 days in their screenshots. An SSD stores a log of what it does along with a time stamp. The program is only doing a simple calculation based on what it reads from the SSD. Nothing more, nothing less.

You still don't understand that with an SSD, health and wear level are the same thing. That is dictated by the read/write cycles, and that's it. It's very very simple.

You just need to look past your knowledge of how a mechanical HDD works, because the two are very different.

I just recently put an order in for an OCZ 120GB Vertex 3. Should be $180 after rebate.

Hope I don't regret it :/

I have that same one and it's blazing fast. I believe it's still the best rated SSD by a pretty large margin.

Be sure to update it to the latest firmware if possible. Sometimes it helps with stability and such.

  • 5 weeks later...

Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010.

January 2011

SSD is 4 months old

Health is 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

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

October 2011

SSD is 13 months old

Health is 59%

Work time: 6 months, 15 days

Powered on: 646 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is April 2020."

November 2011

SSD is 14 months old

Health is 56%

Work time: 6 months, 28 days

Powered on: 709 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is June 2020."

Just noticed that the new Intel SSD toolbox has its own drive life estimate.

Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010.

January 2011

SSD is 4 months old

Health is 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

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

October 2011

SSD is 13 months old

Health is 59%

Work time: 6 months, 15 days

Powered on: 646 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is April 2020."

November 2011

SSD is 14 months old

Health is 56%

Work time: 6 months, 28 days

Powered on: 709 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is June 2020."

that seems like awfully quick wear =S

Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010.

January 2011

SSD is 4 months old

Health is 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

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

October 2011

SSD is 13 months old

Health is 59%

Work time: 6 months, 15 days

Powered on: 646 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is April 2020."

November 2011

SSD is 14 months old

Health is 56%

Work time: 6 months, 28 days

Powered on: 709 times

"Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is June 2020."

Theres something wrong with that drive..

Heres mine.....

Intel SSDSA2M080G2GC (Fw: 2CV102M3)

Total/free size: 80.0GB / 8.3GB

Work time: 8591 hours (11 months, 27 days, 23 hours)

Powered on: 124 times

Trime: supported, enabled

Health: 99%

Estimated lifetime: 8 Years, 8 months, 9 days

(T.E.C. date - July 24, 2020)

Data writen, GB: 3254.4

http://online.hddlif...21d01151899001a

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!