So the "units" refer to sectors, and in this case the drive has 512-byte sectors so it has calculated 1.78 PEBIbytes of data was written. Two units equals 1KB. So it's 3,491,153,447 divided by 2 to get the number of KB, then multiply by 1024 equals 1,787,470,564,864 bytes. You can ignore the math given that you have the software here, and it's indicating 1.78PB has been written to the drive. The rating of the drive is 6PB (6000TB) so it has already had nearly a third of its expected lifetime used up, and in less than two years.
You'll notice the "percentage used" is 32%. Software would probably be showing the health as "68%" or thereabouts. That's pretty heavy usage, but good enough to continue using it if it were something you already owned. It would likely give you a lot of remaining life, but I wouldn't pay a huge amount for it.
I also notice there are 3 Error Information Log Entries, which is probably not bad considering the amount that it has been used, but it does indicate that it has had to fix problems at some point.
When you provided the data, did you manually type it while looking at the SMART data or did you copy it from what someone else provided? Your post said "reads: 2,364,196,848" but that's the number of read commands. The actual number of bytes read (data units read) is 23.6PB.
So as I mentioned, you have the software and in this case it gives you what you need (as would Crystal DiskInfo and others like it). The "health" is related to the "percentage used" which is basically the number of writes versus the rated endurance. Subtract the percentage used from 100%, and that's how healthy it is. You judge whether the cost is low enough to take the risk of it lasting long enough, and that's where you have to consider both the written bytes and the number of hours.
So we know it's about 32% used, which indicates the cells are pretty worn but still working well within threshold and will probably continue to do so for at least 3 years even if you continued using it at the same level that it was before. You can't really know how it was being used but you can figure out the average rate they were writing.
1,787,470,564,864 bytes divided by 13359 hours equals 133802722 bytes per hour, about 133MB per hour. That's really hardly anything. My primary drive is averaging 2.8GB per hour and I really don't even use it that heavily, and some of that would have been benchmarking so higher than usual usage. (It has lost 2% health in a year and a half.) So you could estimate you're going to probably be hitting that drive at least 10, maybe even 20 times harder if you're using the system regularly. That estimated 3 to 4 years of life under original usage is now down to maybe half a year I'd say.
You don't want that drive unless it's free, you absolutely need a new one NOW, and you expect to have the money to replace it again in 3 months.
That sounds like my drive isn't really aging hard, but the TBW rating is only 600TBW, 1/10th of that Corsair drive. Corsair is likely being very optimistic while Western Digital was conservative in their ratings.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram