HDD Health

zeronixpt

Member
Hi guys,

I have one 1TB WD HDD connected to my home PC.
In this HDD is only where i put my old VMware images and some old stuff.
This week i verify then my win10 vmware machine sometimes freezes and i see the respective windows letter atributed (c:) in 100% usage.
So today i doned an backup of all the files :) but in this vmware folder some Vmware virtual disk file can´t be copied, and pc become instable when i tried to copy them. Otherwise i can use the disk without problem in his videos, images and other files.

I open HWinfo and i got in this disk this information:

WD health 08_2020.jpg

Should i trust this disk? or the reallocated sector count is too high?
What are in your opinions the best brands of SSD disk with low rate of failure?
Thanks
 

Attachments

Martin

HWiNFO Author
Staff member
That disk is experiencing sector failures, which the drive tries to reallocated to the spare reserve. 1500 is a lot IMO. Yet, there are another 10 uncorrectable sectors.
I wouldn't trust that drive anymore, backup what you can and replace it.
 

zeronixpt

Member
That disk is experiencing sector failures, which the drive tries to reallocated to the spare reserve. 1500 is a lot IMO. Yet, there are another 10 uncorrectable sectors.
I wouldn't trust that drive anymore, backup what you can and replace it.
Thanks for fast response Martin,
I already did it, buyed an ssd :)

What means the 3 warnings detailed?

Thanks
 

Dalai

Well-Known Member
What means the 3 warnings detailed?
Almost 1,500 sectors have already had errors and the data stored in them has been relocated to spare sectors, which every drive has a limited number of. Another 93 sectors are pending such relocation, which will usually occur as soon as such a sector is written to again. And another 10 sectors seem to be beyond relocation, meaning that the data stored in them could be lost because they're not readable, even after several attempts.

That's at least my understanding of these SMART attributes so far.

PS: Recovering data is better done from within a live-system, to prevent the system from becoming unstable, and to reduce the write access to a damaged drive to a minimum.

Regards
Dalai
 
Last edited:

zeronixpt

Member
Almost 1,500 sectors have already had errors and the data store in them has been relocated to spare sectors, which every drive has a limited number of. Another 93 sectors are pending such relocation, which will usually occur as soon as such a sector is written to again. And another 10 sectors seem to be beyond relocation, meaning that the data stored in them could be lost because they're not readable, even after several attempts.

That's at least my understanding of these SMART attributes so far.

PS: Recovering data is better done from within a live-system, to prevent the system from becoming unstable, and to reduce the write access to a damaged drive to a minimum.

Regards
Dalai
Thanks for help,

Very detailed help, :)

What are in your opinion the best brands of ssds? More realiable, with less rma´s etc..
We should trust te TBW parameter?

Thanks
 

Dalai

Well-Known Member
What are in your opinion the best brands of ssds? More realiable, with less rma´s etc..
I don't think anybody can reliably answer this question because it would require a statistical analysis of failure rates, RMA rates and so on - across all brands and vendors. Especially RMA rates is nothing the vendors are just willing to give to anybody.

We should trust te TBW parameter?
More or less. The German c't magazine made a test several years ago with various SSDs and brands and they found that the TBW is usually a lower threshold that all SSDs could handle. Some of them even could handle several multiples of the TBW (IIRC there was a drive that handled several Petabytes before dying). However, since every SSD has a controller, that can suddenly at any time without warning, it's not necessarily the NAND flash that anyone should worry about.

The best approach to keep any data is to have a verified backup, and to store the data at least in two, even three places. I.e. if you worry about the safety of your data, don't buy just one drive but two, and keep the data on both.

Regards
Dalai
 

zeronixpt

Member
I don't think anybody can reliably answer this question because it would require a statistical analysis of failure rates, RMA rates and so on - across all brands and vendors. Especially RMA rates is nothing the vendors are just willing to give to anybody.

More or less. The German c't magazine made a test several years ago with various SSDs and brands and they found that the TBW is usually a lower threshold that all SSDs could handle. Some of them even could handle several multiples of the TBW (IIRC there was a drive that handled several Petabytes before dying). However, since every SSD has a controller, that can suddenly at any time without warning, it's not necessarily the NAND flash that anyone should worry about.

The best approach to keep any data is to have a verified backup, and to store the data at least in two, even three places. I.e. if you worry about the safety of your data, don't buy just one drive but two, and keep the data on both.

Regards
Dalai
Hello again,

Thanks for the class :)

But don't you have some favorite brands?

Regards
 

Zach

Well-Known Member
I do...

I only use Samsung SSD drives. I have almost all kinds of them. A 970Pro 512MB NVMe drive, 2 SATA 850Pro (a 512MB and a 1TB) and 2 SATA 860EVO (both 1TB) intalled on my desktop PC and my 2 laptops. The oldests (850s) are 3.5 years now of everyday working. I did read many reviews and benchmarks the past years. The samsung drives are one of best if you exclude the price from the equation. In terms of cell/storage reliability they are one of the best if not the best, exceeding by far the factory claims. As @Dalai wisely said there is the controller factor. Its a different story. This is a gamble IMO... I got lucky so far and all drives are functioning as day one with the worst beeing on 99% of remaining life. If the cotrollers of the drives dont fail, I expect each one of them to last at least 10 years.
I do care about their temps tho and not leave them without attention or cooling if necessary. So far I actively cooling only the NVMe drive.
 

Dalai

Well-Known Member
But don't you have some favorite brands?
Yes, I do. I buy SSDs from Samsung (850/860 Evo/Pro) and Crucial (MX500 only so far). However, I don't necessarily stick with one brand just because I can. There are other factors to consider. For me that is TBW, warranty, IOPS (far more important than the sequential throughput), and price to some extent. If a known drive, or one that I had in the past, is not available anymore, and I find one (from a different brand) with similar specs, I try to find reviews on that, and then I might consider it.

And, as @Zach pointed out, I also care about drive temps, regardless of HDD, SSD or something else. So far, no SSD has died on me, neither in my own PCs nor any customer PC *knock on wood*.

Regards
Dalai
 

zeronixpt

Member
I do...

I only use Samsung SSD drives. I have almost all kinds of them. A 970Pro 512MB NVMe drive, 2 SATA 850Pro (a 512MB and a 1TB) and 2 SATA 860EVO (both 1TB) intalled on my desktop PC and my 2 laptops. The oldests (850s) are 3.5 years now of everyday working. I did read many reviews and benchmarks the past years. The samsung drives are one of best if you exclude the price from the equation. In terms of cell/storage reliability they are one of the best if not the best, exceeding by far the factory claims. As @Dalai wisely said there is the controller factor. Its a different story. This is a gamble IMO... I got lucky so far and all drives are functioning as day one with the worst beeing on 99% of remaining life. If the cotrollers of the drives dont fail, I expect each one of them to last at least 10 years.
I do care about their temps tho and not leave them without attention or cooling if necessary. So far I actively cooling only the NVMe drive.
Hi,

I have one Samsung 850 250gb with 2 years too. Life is 97%. No problems too.

What are safe temps for ssds? Mines are in 30-35º ( In summer) and 20-25 (on winter)

Now for replacing my 2nd Desktop HDD that was inteed for my desktop is an 500GB WD Blue that i received in last year birthday.

Thanks
 

zeronixpt

Member
Yes, I do. I buy SSDs from Samsung (850/860 Evo/Pro) and Crucial (MX500 only so far). However, I don't necessarily stick with one brand just because I can. There are other factors to consider. For me that is TBW, warranty, IOPS (far more important than the sequential throughput), and price to some extent. If a known drive, or one that I had in the past, is not available anymore, and I find one (from a different brand) with similar specs, I try to find reviews on that, and then I might consider it.

And, as @Zach pointed out, I also care about drive temps, regardless of HDD, SSD or something else. So far, no SSD has died on me, neither in my own PCs nor any customer PC *knock on wood*.

Regards
Dalai
Hi,

But the IOPS is important for longevity or for performance?

Thanks
 

Dalai

Well-Known Member
What are safe temps for ssds?
Take a look at the drive's specs on the manufacturer's web site or manual or similar to see what they have to say about it. Generally, I think everyting below 50°C is fine for SATA SSDs - I don't have any experience or recommendations for M.2 drives though.

Mines are in 30-35º ( In summer) and 20-25 (on winter)
Nothing to worry about. I would even go further and say that everything up to 40°C, maybe even 50°C (for SSDs at least), is perfectly fine. In case of SSDs, it's the controller that needs cooling, the NAND flash chips are better off without cooling since they "like" it hot. Nevertheless, M.2 drives should be cooled, especially the PCIe 4.0 ones, because they will throttle when getting too hot.

But the IOPS is important for longevity or for performance?
IOPS = I/O operations per second. They are the most important factor for an SSD's performance. The longevity is primarily determined by the NAND flash type. The more bits per cell the less write cycles they can withstand before dying. Generally speaking, SLC (single-level cell) is best for longevity and QLC (quad-level cell) is the worst. Yes, the manufacturers use some "tricks" to make the flash cells last longer, spreading the write operations more evenly across all cells, but they can't beat physics.

Regards
Dalai
 

Zach

Well-Known Member
I agree with everything @Dalai said, on all aspects.

My 2 desktop SATA SSDs are +1-2 degrees more than ambient when idle and +5-6 when reading/writing. They are just storage. That means that even on 31C ambient they don’t go beyond 37C. No active fans upon them.
The 970Pro 512MB NVMe that I use for OS is different story. Even mine that is a Gen3 PCIE can get hot when doing something without active cooling. Has a critical temp of 80 or 85C for cells but I do not let it go near that temp. I keep it under 50C. The controller of that drive is hotter than cell temp about 10-15C depending if it’s doing something heavy or light. OS drives always do something if the PC is on, so temp will always be higher that others.

Samsung’s PRO drives are primarily MLC(2bit/cell) type.
EVO are TLC (3bit/cell)
QVO are QLC (4bit/cell)

As said previously the more bits/cell the worst longevity. That’s why you don’t see QLC drives less than 2TB. At least I’m not aware of any.
Manufacturers place large(some GB) MLC caches inside TLC and QLC drives to work with and to help them preserve the multi bit cells and not worn them out quickly. Also helping with performance as the less bit/cell the faster the drive is.
In any case, the larger the drive and the lesser it’s get filled, the longest it will last.
 
Last edited:

zeronixpt

Member
Guys,

Thanks for all the help,

Your anwsers make me open my eyes and will take in consideration when buy some new ssd in the feature :)

Found this video too:

My Secondary SSD is the WD BLUE that is TLC :)
My Primary SSD is the samsung 850 evo that is TLC too.

Hope they last a lot ,

Thanks
 
Top