Dynamic write acceleration may contribute to WAF because data may first be written as SLC and later be rewritten as MLC. The magnitude of the difference in WAF is an additive factor between zero and two, depending on runtime conditions. Provided conditions occur such that a given piece of user data is written as SLC and is neither trimmed nor rewritten before the later migration to MLC, the additive factor in WAF for that data would be two. If the user data was rewritten or trimmed before SLC-to-MLC migration, or if the data was originally written as MLC (as would be the case for sustained workloads), the additive factor for that data would be zero.
@fzabkar: I hadn't seen that thread before you mentioned it. Assuming I didn't make a typo, the Crucial M4 ssd that was apparently being killed by BitDefender had a lifetime WAF of 25, and its Remaining Life reached 9% after 24 TB host bytes written (in 3.5 years). That's a very large WAF, and I don't understand how antivirus software could cause a large WAF. The people in that thread called BitDefender buggy because uninstalling it apparently stopped the rapid growth in Average Block Erase Count, but it seems to me a large WAF should be blamed on the ssd, not blamed on software running on the pc. Nevertheless, I could try disabling Comodo for awhile to see what happens.Have you seen this thread?
Total Host Writes (GB)
WAF = 1 + F8/F7
Total Amplified Writes (GB)
ΔF7 (1 row)
ΔF8 (1 row)
Recent WAF = 1 + ΔF8/ΔF7
Yes, they are public. All but one were 500GB. The other was 1TB. It, too, had a large WAF.
My thing with using computers, is use them, if things fail, replace them. If you said Crucial already worked with you and won't replace the drive you are just spending time and worry needlessly on this. Instead of spending your time on the computer worrying that something will fail, just use the drive and keep backups. When the drive fails, replace it and copy your stuff from the back-ups. If Crucial won't exchange it there you are just worried about stuff you have no control over. It's like buying a car then keeping it in the garage most of the time just measuring how much the tires are wearing down or if the gas mileage has gone down by .3 mpg in the last month or not.The Remaining Life (RL) of my Crucial MX500 ssd has been decreasing rapidly, even though the pc doesn't write much to it. Below is the log I began keeping after I noticed RL reached 95% after about 6 months of use.
You did say that Crucial gave up trying to help which sounds like they are not going to replace the drive. If their support checks what you have and then decides to replace the drive, they will do it, or if you think there is an issue, then start the return process and buy another brand or exchange for the same drive. My point is that just tracking how the drive is doing week by week is a waste of time vs just working with their support to replace it.@hang-the-9: You're free to have that "I don't care; I've got plenty of money to buy new parts" attitude, but it's not a one-size-fits-all attitude.
I never said Crucial refused to replace the drive. I haven't asked them yet to replace the drive. I think it's wise to understand the problem before asking them to replace it... in particular, understanding what causes WAF to increase. Otherwise a replacement ssd is reasonably likely to suffer the same fate. Also, the better I understand the problem, the more likely it is that Crucial can be persuaded that warranty replacement is reasonable, and perhaps persuaded that they have a firmware bug they should devote resources to fixing.
Your analogy about keeping a car in the garage seems poor. Perhaps you should have read more of this thread. The problem isn't so much that WAF has averaged about 7 over the ~6 months the ssd has been in service, nor that the Remaining Life decreased to 94% after writing about 6 TBytes; the bigger problem is that WAF increased to about 50 when looking at the ssd's recent behavior. In other words, the decrease of Remaining Life has been accelerating. Writing 390 GB caused RL to decrease from 95% to 94%. Writing 138 GB caused RL to decrease from 94% to 93%. Doing nothing about it seems like a last resort, not an optimal strategy.
No, that advice is indeed "just buy new" when the drive dies (if it's past the warranty period). I believe the modern woke response to "replace when your budget allows" is "check your privilege," because you're not considering the consequences if the drive dies when one's budget is tight, nor the loss of productivity if one doesn't have a spare drive immediately available.It's not a case of "just buy new"...rather it is a case of replace when this drive dies. Some may die faster than others. This particular one will die when it is ready to, no matter how much you mess with it, or fret over the specific numbers.
If it does within the warranty period..hey, free drive. Otherwise, replace when your budget allows.
There is pretty much nothing you can do to cause the WAF to change to your benefit.
Tech support did not VOLUNTEER to replace the drive, in their most recent email. I don't see why that sounds to you like Crucial refuses to replace the drive. Their email included the standard invitation "let us know if you have further questions." They didn't literally say they gave up and that there's nothing more they will do.You did say that Crucial gave up trying to help which sounds like they are not going to replace the drive. If their support checks what you have and then decides to replace the drive, they will do it, or if you think there is an issue, then start the return process and buy another brand or exchange for the same drive. My point is that just tracking how the drive is doing week by week is a waste of time. You are also assuming this remaining life statistic is accurate for the drive.
Well if someone can't afford to replace a drive when it fails, there is not much they can do when it fails no matter what causes it to fail, some hardware fault or if a dragon eats it. Same thing if anything breaks of if they really want to buy that $40 steak but only have $10. Used to be what you have depends on how much you worked for it, now people just want stuff handed to them and if it's not they come up with terms like "privileged" for those that have better jobs, are smarter, work harder or just lucky and have richer parents. Back in the USSR in the 80s we used to make fun of people by calling them rich, it was bad to have more money than someone else, calling someone rich was actually an insult in USSR. Welcome to the US of Communism LOLNo, that advice is indeed "just buy new" when the drive dies (if it's past the warranty period). I believe the modern woke response to "replace when your budget allows" is "check your privilege," because you're not considering the consequences if the drive dies when one's budget is tight, nor the loss of productivity if one doesn't have a spare drive immediately available.
Yes, I think there'd be a point. In particular, I'd be interested in looking at "WAF versus host write rate" to see if very low write rate causes WAF to go crazy. But is such data readily available? Just getting data for MX500 ssds would be a good start, assuming some of the ssds had a very low write rate.Would there be any point in examining the SMART data for other vendors' SSDs which are based on the same SM2258 controller? I guess it would depend on whether each OEM writes their own firmware (I believe Intel does this for one of their own Silicon Motion rebranded controllers).
FWIW, Intel's 540s SSDs use an SM2258 controller. SMART attributes F1h and F9h should allow the WAF to be calculated.
|MX500 model||WAF (approximate)||Power On Hours||Total Host Writes (TB, approximate)|
|"-v 241,raw48,Host_Writes_32MiB "|
|"-v 245,raw48,TLC_Writes_32MiB "|
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|A||[SOLVED] Am I losing performance using a Crucial MX500 SATA SSD on an old Gigabyte GA-H61M-DS2 (Rev 4.0) Motherboard?||Storage||5|
|[SOLVED] SSD not recognized in Device Manager or Disk Management||Storage||13|
|Question SSD recognized in BIOS but it doesn’t appear in Device Manager nor Disk management…||Storage||1|
|[SOLVED] How to install a 2.5-inch Crucial MX500 as a second SSD ?||Storage||10|
|Question Which one of these ssd should I get? Crucial P2 or P5 or MX500||Storage||7|
|[SOLVED] Is my Crucial MX500 ok? (Details + Temperature screenshot included)||Storage||11|
|Question Is my SSD a refurbished part?||Storage||9|
|Question Crucial MX500 VS KINGSTON SA2000M8 NVMe||Storage||8|
|Question Help with 2 Raid0 Crucial MX500 SSD||Storage||14|
|N||Question HP Compaq 6300 Pro Microtower 2nd drive upgrade||Storage||0|
|[SOLVED] Am I losing performance using a Crucial MX500 SATA SSD on an old Gigabyte GA-H61M-DS2 (Rev 4.0) Motherboard?|
|[SOLVED] SSD not recognized in Device Manager or Disk Management|
|Question SSD recognized in BIOS but it doesn’t appear in Device Manager nor Disk management…|
|[SOLVED] How to install a 2.5-inch Crucial MX500 as a second SSD ?|
|Question Which one of these ssd should I get? Crucial P2 or P5 or MX500|
|[SOLVED] Is my Crucial MX500 ok? (Details + Temperature screenshot included)|
|Question Is my SSD a refurbished part?|
|Question Crucial MX500 VS KINGSTON SA2000M8 NVMe|
|Question Help with 2 Raid0 Crucial MX500 SSD|
|Question HP Compaq 6300 Pro Microtower 2nd drive upgrade|