SSD Prices In A Free Fall

[OvenMaster]

Multipass deletions are no longer considered necessary even for HDDs. The Secure Erase utility that is on pretty much all SSD support software is all you need to completely wipe an SSD (once you remove the charge from a cell, it's totally kaput).

I don't see why you would need to encrypt an OS only SSD. For that matter, I would think encrypting even an OS HDD would either cripple it or prevent it from working, period. All that would really need encrypting would be data folders only. Also, can you cite a source that supports encryption raising Cain with TRIM? This is the first I've heard of that

Well, here's a common example. After using Firefox on my boot HDD for an hour, using Recuva I can get a few hundred images and documents that were written to FF's cache that FF allegedly "deleted" when it was shut down. Oops. Using Recuva to multi-pass erase those items wipes them clean. I can't do that on a SSD.

I'm aware of the Secure Erase utility for the entire drive that's used on SSDs. I am interested in multiple-pass erasing free space and chosen files and folders only. Say some undesirable entity enters my home - a criminal, the government (ahem) - and gets their hands on my hard drive. Unless I multipass erase empty space or deleted files on my HDD, they're retrieveable. This can't be done on a SSD. To me, that's a huge security dealbreaker.

I did read at least two articles saying that completely encrypting a SSD causes trouble with TRIM because there are no "empty" blocks of memory to work with... TRIM sees the entire drive as filled to the brim with data. If or when I can find the articles again, I'll gladly post the link(s).

I do realize that most people don't think of this, don't really care, think they have nothing to hide, and that I seem to be the only one bleating about it. That's fine.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Again, multi-pass wiping is no longer considered necessary for wiping a HDD; one pass of writing ones and/or zeros to the HDD is all that is necessary. The only thing I use multi-pass wiping for anymore is torture testing new HDDs.

You do not want to do multi-pass, or even single pass, wiping by writing ones and/or zeroes on a SSD because that will unnecessarily use up some of the SSD's finite number of write cycles. Secure Erase is sufficient for ensuring all data has been completely removed from an SSD.

 

[Layback Bear]

If I had a hard drive or SSD that had secret, super secret things on it I would not wipe it at all.

I would use a saw and cut them up in pieces and then melt them. Then take the puddles of plastic and metal after cooling and run them through a tree limb grinder that the tree removal people use.
Then I would be 80% sure the information on them could not be retrieved.

 

[A Guy]

TRIM will erase cells that contained deleted date on an internal SSD. When the OS deletes a file from an internal SSD, it sends the TRIM command and the drive immediately clears the sectors. This also makes it almost impossible to recover deleted data. Therefore there would be no reason to do secure erase only for deleted files. A Guy

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

TRIM will erase cells that contained deleted date on an internal SSD. When the OS deletes a file from an internal SSD, it sends the TRIM command and the drive immediately clears the sectors. This also makes it almost impossible to recover deleted data. Therefore there would be no reason to do secure erase only for deleted files. A Guy

The key thing to remember here is internal SSDs. TRIM commands can't be sent to external drives over USB so external SSDs can get "cluttered". It's one reason why the backup drives I carry in my notebook case are still spinners.

 

[GokAy]

As far as I know:

External SSDs will still get cleaned if you let them idle over-night (no need to even connect to a PC, just attach to a power source). Garbage collection is independent of TRIM.

 

[MilesAhead]

As far as I know:

External SSDs will still get cleaned if you let them idle over-night (no need to even connect to a PC, just attach to a power source). Garbage collection is independent of TRIM.

That sounds familiar. My Kingston SSD had built in software to automatically recondition deletions. It worked on Vista in a USB docking station. When deleting files the space would not be added to the free space until it was processed. I did not have to take any manual action.

 

[smiths22]

But the reliability of SSDs has been questioned.
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/373040-when-ssds-not-solid.html
Around 120GB SSD seems a good size for me (installed programs, some data and efficient imaging). Maybe I'll consider them disposable items provided I have recent system images and the price drops even further.

That was the news of the month, just for not getting too boored.

If certain SSD were failing there would be many complaints on the internet since long time ago....there aren't...

Regarding the prices well yes they are falling little by little each year of course (nothing drastic) but the technology is still expensive (try buying 1Tb) unless you buy a Kingston one.

 

[lffoar]

I don't understand why people are so concerned about SSDs. My Samsung 840 Pro has been running pretty much 24/7 for about 2 1/2 years without any problems. SSDLife projects its life to be another 11 years (granted, it's no guarantee but it does indicate how good it is). I also have two Samsung 840 EVOs in my note books and they are doing just fine (granted, they do get light usage).

I've said this before and I will say it again; all drives, be they HDD, SSD, flash, whatever, will eventually fail. The only way to ensure the safety of your data is to have a good backup scheme in place. The recent report of the Samsung 850 PROs having issues with data loss were from a commercial server using them in a situation they were not designed for. Windows systems were not affected. The recent brouhaha over SSDs losing data while setting on a shelf turned out to have been exaggerated.

Consumer reviews of SSDs have been just as good, often better, as those for HDDs. Eschewing SSDs because of some questionable reports of problems with them is like not buying a car for a commuter or a grocery getter because of reports some of them had their engines fail after they had been used for drag racing or were used for pulling oversized trailers.

I'm usually slow to adopt new technology, especially if it isn't cost effective for me or the present technology is meeting my needs. Still, I will not hesitate to use SSDs in my machines. They have been well worth the money for me (and the prices have been plummeting lately). I'm looking forward to when it will be cost effective for me to nothing but SSDs, including for mass storage.

Having a 256gb Samsung 840 pro which has been working like a drover's dog since I had it I can only say

 

[mjf]

But the reliability of SSDs has been questioned.
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/373040-when-ssds-not-solid.html
Around 120GB SSD seems a good size for me (installed programs, some data and efficient imaging). Maybe I'll consider them disposable items provided I have recent system images and the price drops even further.

That was the news of the month, just for not getting too boored.

"boored". If you're that boored bored maybe read a dictionary.

I haven't had a problem personally with SSDs apart from the Samsung rubbish connectors. Touch wood my internal HDDs on 3 PCs haven't failed. I would have expected solid state devices to be more reliable and any indication that they may have a problem is worth noting. That's why I guess it's a useful NEWS post.

 

[A Guy]

Haven't been using this drive that long, curious what numbers others may have

2.8832 terabytes



SSDLife Free

A Guy

 

[ignatzatsonic]

I don't think SSLife is worth much. It makes some sort of estimate based on the amount of writes you've done.

I had an 80 GB Intel SSD which SSDLife said had an estimated lifetime of 6 or 8 years for the first 2 or 3 years of ownership. It then inexplicably jumped to over 150 years remaining--late in the next century. My usage pattern had not changed. Did my drive suddenly get "healthier" or did the NAND change? I don't think so.

You can track the necessary, with greater detail, with other tools--such as Crystal Disk Mark portable version.

That's probably a normal amount of writes IF "work time" means hours powered on. I've written 617 GB in 1329 hours powered on---this is on a Crucial MX100 that I bought not quite 3 months ago. Roughly 1/2 GB per hour. You're about double that, which I doubt is significant.


But I don't know how you are using your drive or any details of your usage pattern.

You might want to calculate the WAF (write amplification factor). It's said to have a reasonable correlation to remaining life. You can do it from certain SMART data, if they are revealed to you. I've heard average WAF is maybe between 3 and 5. This Crucial of mine is sitting at 1.71, rising slowly--to what eventual level I don't know.

The formula is 1 plus (background program page count/host program page count), at least on a Crucial. And your SMART data would have to reveal those 2 parameters or their equivalents. I guess what's revealed in SMART depends on the SSD manufacturer.

 

[A Guy]

It isn't the estimated life I was referring to, but rather the amount of data written



A Guy

 

[ignatzatsonic]

It isn't the estimated life I was referring to, but rather the amount of data written

I don't see anything remarkable in the amount of data written to your drive.

If excessive, it could last a very long time rather than a very, very long time.

Or fail tomorrow for reasons unrelated to the amount of data written.

I'd probably try to resist any impulse to upgrade firmware, barring a strong and over-riding reason why you have to have the upgrade.

 

[A Guy]

Again, I wasn't seeking if my data was remarkable, or anything else about it. I was just curious what numbers people would have that have been using their drives for a long time

A Guy

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Didn't those torture tests get into the petabyte region?

 

[A Guy]

Yeah, the numbers were ridiculous, and that was constant use, not the low use most will actually get. I have reimaged my drive numerous times after experiments and such. Thus what I assume are higher then "normal" numbers on my drive. But I am not going to baby it, as it is apparent that they will last a long time barring any unexpected failures that can occur with any electronic device.

I am just curious what numbers some have on long used drives. A Guy

 

[GokAy]

Bill, I wonder the same about Total Bytes Written. I started using my 850 pro at 8th of April (80 days or so usage). 100GB of data on it (which 60GB is GTA V, but I haven't really played it). CrystalMark DiskInfo shows like this:



What I noticed was, with a pagefile set to 10GB each restart increased bytes written with that amount.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I don't think SSLife is worth much. It makes some sort of estimate based on the amount of writes you've done.

I had an 80 GB Intel SSD which SSDLife said had an estimated lifetime of 6 or 8 years for the first 2 or 3 years of ownership. It then inexplicably jumped to over 150 years remaining--late in the next century. My usage pattern had not changed. Did my drive suddenly get "healthier" or did the NAND change? I don't think so...

I keep the free version of SSDLife on my machines simply it's a quick and dirty way to check to see if TRIM is available and enabled and to get a general idea of the SSD's condition. It's worth far more than what I paid for it. It has limited use and gets used very infrequently but it's still useful.

Keep in mind the estimated life remaining is just that, an estimate. It's based on the volume of writes, the amount of time those writes occurred in and the estimated amount of writes available as provided by the manufacturer. The latter may explain the jump in expected life on your SSD. Some manufacturer's make conservative estimates on how long their SSDs will last; others, not so much. It's possible Intel upped their life expectancy estimate.

 

[mjf]

I much prefer Crystal Disk Info (portable). AS SSD will also allow you to easily check that alignment is ok.
Also, if you have more than one SSD installed SSDLife spits the dummy and says you need to buy the pro version.

I don't know the drop in "Health Status" to 94% is to be expected given the SSD usage.