Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

pugetsystems.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 243 posts

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#211

Post by lazyweb »

ThomasGlanzmann wrote: post #208

In 2021 I bought at least ten 870 EVO 4 TB SATA and six 980 Pro 2 TB NVMe. All devices failed within 6 months on barely used systems. Find some smart data here: https://thomas.glanzmann.de/samsung/ > The pattern is always the same: I have them configured in a raid 1. Once a month debian does a raid check. During the raid check Debian reads all data from both devices. I get uncorrectable read errors. I no longer use S…

Similar experience for me. Four 2TB 980pro in RAID-Z2. Since introducing the drives in August 2021 I've had to replace them five times. I think none of the original SSDs are left. Only between 5 - 25TB written on average. Usually individual uncorrectable errors caught by ZFS, but one drive just straight up died. I keep a cold spare these days. On the bright side, if the cycle continues, I'll never run out of warranty from Samsung or the vendor.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#212

Post by PBondurant »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #126
DriverDaily wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdata, I have been running 4x 500GB Samsung 850 EVOs in Raid 0 continuously without failures since early 2015.

The article mentions issues with the 900-series drives. It seems like the 800-series are still rock solid (also been running them for s few years now without issue)

Unfortunately there have been recent issues with the 870 EVO series also: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/samsung-870-evo-b...

There may be multiple, different issues with Samsung parts at play here. The 900 series issues seem to have been addressed with a f/w update; the 870 EVO issues were - allegedly - caused by bad NAND and the devices needed to be replaced.

ofc part of the problem here is the lack of public acknowledgement / information from Samsung on these issues.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#214

Post by jwatt »

duckmysick wrote: post #193
justinclift wrote: post #85

As a data point, the Linux kernel has a long list of workarounds for "ata" related devices (SSDs, HDDs, etc): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4... Can be a bit eye opening to look down that and see equipment you're using listed. ;)

What's horkage?

Brokenness.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#215

Post by [deleted] »

duckmysick wrote: post #193
justinclift wrote: post #85

As a data point, the Linux kernel has a long list of workarounds for "ata" related devices (SSDs, HDDs, etc): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4... Can be a bit eye opening to look down that and see equipment you're using listed. ;)

What's horkage?

[deleted]

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#216

Post by justinclift »

justinclift wrote: post #85

As a data point, the Linux kernel has a long list of workarounds for "ata" related devices (SSDs, HDDs, etc): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4... Can be a bit eye opening to look down that and see equipment you're using listed. ;)

This seems to be the same thing for NVMe devices (eg Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron, Kingston, ADATA, Intel, (etc) NVMe drives):

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4...

Not quite as easy to read and understand as the ata driver code though.

With the occasional further device specific workarounds in other parts of the code.

eg for specific Toshiba, LiteON, and Kioxia devices:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4...

While this seems to be special handling for Samsung X5 SSD external drives, and also Samsung 970 Evo Plus drives:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/69f2c9346313ba3d3dfa4...

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#217

Post by sebazzz »

mvdwoord wrote: post #197
sebazzz wrote: post #183

SSDs are complex beasts :-) I've had an OCZ SSD in the past that also became read-only, in the sense that all changes after shutting down the computer were gone. If you rebooted everything was fine, but as soon as the computer was shut down and the SSD also ran out of power, it converted to the state before turning on the computer. That was so bizarre. Once I had a hefty Windows upgrade installed and it was gone afte…

sounds ideal for a public terminal ;)

There used to be a PCI module (iirc) that would assist in that. I believe it was called a Bo(u)rne Again module. It was used in school computers etc.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#218

Post by lobocinza »

dinvlad wrote: post #118
jamhan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdata: tl;dr: All 3 of my Samsung M.2 NVMe SSDs have failed in less than 3 years. 100% failure rate. My first SSD was a 1TB Samsung 970 EVO. It failed after 2 years and 8 months. It was replaced under warranty with a 1TB 970 EVO Plus. That replacement has now also failed after 1 year and 9 months. I bought a 2nd 1TB 970 EVO Plus in May 2019. It has now also failed (2 years and 7 months). Both are expected to be…

Worth checking if you have any thermal issues with it. Mine failed in a similar way due to presumably a rookie mistake of forgetting to remove the thermal pad tape on the mobo.

The controller is less thick than the NAND flash so don't make proper contact with the thermal pad. I just discovered mine is affected by this. After heeavy reading the controller is at 67C while the NAND is at 42C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Z09nU554Q

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#219

Post by lobocinza »

ThomasGlanzmann wrote: post #208

In 2021 I bought at least ten 870 EVO 4 TB SATA and six 980 Pro 2 TB NVMe. All devices failed within 6 months on barely used systems. Find some smart data here: https://thomas.glanzmann.de/samsung/ > The pattern is always the same: I have them configured in a raid 1. Once a month debian does a raid check. During the raid check Debian reads all data from both devices. I get uncorrectable read errors. I no longer use S…

I tested mine. 980 (non-Pro) 1TB with ~20TB read and ~13TB of written. No errors logged. SMART looks fine. No errors when issuing dd as suggested. Though sometimes I do get weird errors put I will put the blame on AMDGPU drivers and the mess that Gnome on Arch often is.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#220

Post by vlovich123 »

donmcronald wrote: post #153
vlovich123 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure SSDs can only do 4kib aligned writes regardless of the FS sector size (under the hood it’s a write amplification unless the OS or controller manage to coalesce them. But yea, it depends on how things are getting flushed, but generally I wouldn’t expect too much magic unless you get lucky. It sounds like a small bug in the OS (ie these kinds of wires should be matched in memory in the application).

I thought some of them even do 8KB. I’ve seen ZFS tips that claim you should use 8KB blocks on things like an 850 Pro.

Not familiar with that. I know QLC disks have a block size of 64kib.
Post reply on HN