On 18/12/2020 10:57, Pancho wrote:
> On 18/12/2020 00:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/12/2020 20:32, bob prohaska wrote:
>>>   SMART keeps some track of deterioration
>>> in mechanical drives, does it exist for SSDs?
>>
>> Absolutely. It's mandatory more or less. It gives you error rates on
>> all the things you need to worry about. This drive has been going a
>> shade over 5 years of actual 'on' time as my linux desk top boot
>> drive: data is held on a server so it doesn't get much action. But
>> logs are written to this. So it has in fact more writes than reads!
>> (9780 GB versus 5255GB)
>> It still reports 95% of its useful life left.
>>
>> ============================================
>>
>> I've just tested my first SSD, which is still in use. An 11 year old
> Intel X25-E SSDs 32GB:
>
>      Power_On_Hours 54141
>      Media_Wearout_Indicator 98.
>
> Although to be fair I'm not sure all SSDs are as reliable. I did buy a
> number of OCZ SSDs (about 4), all of which failed catastrophically, I'm
> not sure what the wearout indicator was on them.

I think the consensus seems to be that a reliable brand will these days
outlast spinning rust, and given that unless you have a CPU/DRAM
failure, that happens is blocks go bad and are mapped out which is a
very graceful failure mode.

So provided you check with SMART once a year you should not have
*catastrophic* failure. My  failure was pretty hard and happened in less
than a year.



--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

    - Stephen Vizinczey

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05