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

121–130 of 243 posts

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#121

Post by wtallis »

rogers18445 wrote: post #102
bullen wrote: post #77

The real problem is OS:es that write to disk for no good reason. Windows 10 writes 100KB/s constantly. That should be illegal.

This doesn't actually matter in a practical sense. Assuming 24/7, it's 3TB a year. Which is ~1% drive endurance. Also, if you are worried about overwriting the same files over and over, it also doesn't matter. Block device addresses are not physical addresses, controller maps them to wear the drive evenly.

On the other hand, lots of tiny writes scattered all over will tend to produce much higher write amplification than large sequential writes. So you'll get more actual wear to the drive from the 3TB of constant background churn than if you copied in 3TB of movies.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#122

Post by AuthorizedCust »

DriverDaily wrote: post #106
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…

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

The parent posts mentioned 970 and 980, not 850.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#123

Post by sam0x17 »

mgdlbp wrote: post #54

Apparently a few months ago it became known on the Chinese internet that the 980 Pro, 970 Evo Plus with new controller, and OEM versions are prone to getting unreadable sectors, where SMART 'Media and Data Integrity Errors' increases on every read attempt. https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/x82mwe/samsung_ss... https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/x8arle/psa_sam... How I came across this: Ran into th…

My 980 pro failed witihn two months of purchasing it in late 2022

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#124

Post by Godel_unicode »

DriverDaily wrote: post #106
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…

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

Similarly my M.2 NVMe 950 pro has been in an always on machine that gets a ton of use since 2016.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#125

Post by newZWhoDis »

userbinator wrote: post #111

For the same price, you can get twice the space for 1/4 the endurance, thrice the space for 1/8th the endurance, and now four times the space for 1/16th the endurance. Most people don't realise that is a horrible tradeoff, because NAND flash marketing and terminology like "TLC" or "QLC" is intentionally deceptive and manufacturers have been very secretive about the true endurance specifications, as well as trying to…

Can you explain your point further? Are you talking about competitors?

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#126

Post by mynameisvlad »

DriverDaily wrote: post #106
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…

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)

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#128

Post by verall »

zerocrates wrote: post #51
ssdpain wrote: post #5

I installed 2 x 980 Pro 2Tb in a laptop in Nov 2022. Running a daily Robocopy bat script to backup a folder in C: to D: would freeze a couple of times a week and lock the D: drive. After reboot, a drive check would find no errors and everything would work as normal. I've used the same script for years with no issues. Since the firmware update last week Robocopy has not frozen the drive at all this week.

The freeze/reboot/fine cycle seems to be a common one for SSDs acting poorly, running out of blocks they want to use internally, or memory or cache or something, or just hanging in their own firmware for whatever other reason. One of my earlier forays into switching to SSDs, I installed Intel... I think it was 525, 535, something like that, 2.5 inch SATA drives in several different machines. Every one has failed by n…

Yeah I had an old intel ssd that would hang like this and I could never figure out wtf was going on

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#129

Post by rogers18445 »

wtallis wrote: post #121
rogers18445 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't actually matter in a practical sense. Assuming 24/7, it's 3TB a year. Which is ~1% drive endurance. Also, if you are worried about overwriting the same files over and over, it also doesn't matter. Block device addresses are not physical addresses, controller maps them to wear the drive evenly.

On the other hand, lots of tiny writes scattered all over will tend to produce much higher write amplification than large sequential writes. So you'll get more actual wear to the drive from the 3TB of constant background churn than if you copied in 3TB of movies.

Those writes would have to be significantly smaller than the SSD's page (sector) size which is 512 bytes or 4 KiB. And would have to be written to different pages in rapid succession (to be flushed apart) - a standard serial write wouldn't trigger this even if it's 1 byte at a time, the OS FS cache would buffer it.

It would have to be very misbehaving software or deliberate sabotage.

Re: Update on Samsung SSD Reliability

#130

Post by jeffbee »

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.

It's not likely that thermal issues would cause bad reliability on these things. At worst you could expect intermittently bad performance. You can check for this condition with `nvme smart-log`. If your device was often overheated, it would have "critical composite temperature time" non-zero. My Samsung that has been in service for years and has no thermal solution has a value of 1 minute and I happen to know that is because I heated it with a hair dryer to find out what would happen if it crossed the critical temperature.
Post reply on HN