Jump to content
  • 0

Scanner reporting lifetime writes as 100% used after only 276GB copied onto a 1TB SSD.


smcallah

Question

I got a Silicon Power 1TB SSD drive from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B4G19X3, about 11 days ago.  I added it to a Drivepool with 3 other SSDs and 275+- GB was balanced to the new SSD.  I ran Scanner at the time and the drive was healthy.  Haven't copied much to the drive since then.  About 3.8TB has been read from the drive and that's still in the green for SMART health. 

Today, Scanner ran on the drive and now says that 276GB is 100% of lifetime writes.  Under SMART health it says "No information available on this attribute" for SSD Life Remaining, and it actually has a green check for "Host Writes" but that also says "No information available on this attribute."

So I'm not sure how it determined that the SSD life is now 100% used and why it claims the writes are exceeded even though that is green under health.

Actual lifetime TB written for this drive from the manufacturer is 500TB.  So not anywhere close to 276GB.  And yes, I've quadruple checked that it says 276GB and not 276TB in Scanner. :)

Is there anything I can do to fix this alert or let Scanner know the actual lifetime writes for this drive other than just ignore the warning? I have submitted my SSD SMART information to Stablebit for analysis (ID: 97OR0I8G) and it says it is using 'Phison Based SSD' interpretation rules. 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

welcome to the world of cheap SSDs. a few months ago i bought 2x2TB Silicon Power 2.5" SSDs from amazon. hooked them both up to system SATA bus. one drive reported 1863GB and the other 1907GB. diskpart was ineffectual. both were locked at SMART temp 40C (idle or high I/O). writing to them from my WD Red NVMe was ~300MB/s so much less than advertised. there is a downloadable SP monitoring tool similar to the WD dashboard. i did not notice an option to upgrade firmware when i ran it. so after a few days of this i returned them to amazon easy peasy.

aside from a much needed firmware update from SP, i doubt scanner can do much other than report whatever the drive is feeding it. the drive itself may be perfectly fine and ignoring the warning is probably safe for now. i myself cannot abide that type of discrepancy staring me in the face. YMMV, but if it were me i'd return it and get a WD, which is what i actually did. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

@smcallahif you post the SMART frame could see what you are looking at.

There is field `E7: SSD Life Left`. Are you reading this backwards?  

SSD SMART reporting is mostly made-up, so I would not read too much into that.  Look at Block Writes and Total Writes to see if there is a problem with the firmware on the drive and watch for uncorrectable errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
48 minutes ago, iceman1337 said:

@smcallahif you post the SMART frame could see what you are looking at.

There is field `E7: SSD Life Left`. Are you reading this backwards?  

SSD SMART reporting is mostly made-up, so I would not read too much into that.  Look at Block Writes and Total Writes to see if there is a problem with the firmware on the drive and watch for uncorrectable errors.

I'm certainly not reading it backwards, as Scanner has a clear 100% life used warning in red, that I ignored for this SSD and the SSD Life Remaining field saying 0%.

Also has way too many power cycles because my PC was sleeping and waking almost immediately, I finally tracked that down to being Scanner's wake to scan feature, which made no sense, because because it didn't scan after it woke up the PC.

Screenshot 2023-04-26 111105.png

Screenshot 2023-04-26 111319.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

and 104F = 40C, so it is likely the same crappy firmware on yours that was on the 2 that i returned.

i guess they can get away with it as 'most' users will just buy it, install it, and not really monitor it. so these errors and notifications are never seen by joe average user who runs games from it and is suprised when it fails suddenly (check out all the 1 star reviews on the amazon page lol).

i have 4 SSDs. all are WD. 1x Red SN700 500GB NVME boot drive. 2x Red 1TB 2.5" and 1x Blue 2TB M.2. they all show up fine SMARTwise in Scanner and HDSentinel. i guess this makes me a WD 'fangirl,' but really that's just how it worked out. before i tried the Silicon Power drives, i tried both the LEVEN JS600 SSD 2TB and the 
fanxiang S101 2TB SSD. all 3 were underwhelming performance-wise compared to the WDs. gotta love amazon's 30 day return policy :)

iceman1337 is correct and he's echoing christopher (drashna). SMART on SSDs is all over the place as manufacturers just make it up as they go.

your SP might last for years ignoring whatever errors it shows. but i wouldn't trust it for mission critical data. just my .02 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for your insight and review, @VapechiK

I'll definitely keep it out of a mission critical role.  Right now it just has duplicated data from my drivepool, that is backed up elsewhere, and Steam game installs, so nothing I'm afraid of losing.  It's the first offbrand SSD I've bought so I wanted to give it a shot and tried to grow my drivepool cheaply.

I have an Intel 1TB nVME boot drive and a Samsung 1TB EVO and 2TB QVO and a Crucial 1TB besides the SP drive in the same machine. 

I had 2 Samsung 128GB Pro boot drives that stopped being useful after 10 years of power on time.  They would randomly corrupt system files until it wouldn't boot. I'd say they were a success. I bought a Kingston 480GB drive to replace the last one of those and it seems to be doing well.  I had an OCZ that would hangup at boot time and not be detected after only a year or so, that one really sucked.  Never any weird Scanner reporting with any of these drives.

I think I'll hold out a little longer to see what happens further to the price of the name brand 2TB SSDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Especially if this is not an NVMe drive, SSDs use all sorts of different values for SMART.   What is valid and okay for one drive may be out of spec on another drive. And that's not asuming that the OEM isn't using some sort of encryption/obsfuscation for the numbers.   Which is super common.  

NVMe has an actual, published standard, and is generally better about this (though, we've seen a few instances of issues with this). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...