Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
ThatPizzaGuy

Are these a failing ssds ?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

contacted seagate support and one of them said first that the ironwolf one seems to be failed but it shows 99% good health status, maybe they're not familliar with crystalinfo and thought the big number is not a bug or something

 

Seagate Ironwolf 125 SSD 500 GB

Seagate Ironwolf 120 SSD 500 GB

Screenshot 2020-09-23 222619.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 222600.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ignore "Current, Worst and Threshold" for the most part. What's important are the raw values, for which you can find more information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.#Known_ATA_S.M.A.R.T._attributes

Make sure your raw values are set to 10 [DEC] in the options of CDI.

 

Overall your drives look good tho.


 

Some Wallpapers I created • The Basics of Solid State Drives and Modules (A reference guide by me)

 

In case of USB confusion, refer to this sh*t.

  • 05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)
  • 10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2
  • 20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
  • 40Gb/s - Thunderbolt 3
  • 40Gb/s certified - Thunderbolt 4
  • 40Gb/s - USB 4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
12 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

You can ignore "Current, Worst and Threshold" for the most part. What's important are the raw values, for which you can find more information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.#Known_ATA_S.M.A.R.T._attributes

Make sure your raw values are set to 10 [DEC] in the options of CDI.

 

Overall your drives look good tho.

so the first drive is def not failing as the seagate support told me ? she probably was assuming so but as u see every current worst value is 100 and raw ones look good, it normal for it to drop to 99% after few days even though it has a tbw of 700 ? and i wonder why the total nand writes look inflated on the first drive unlike the second one

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ThatPizzaGuy said:

so the first drive is def not failing as the seagate support told me ? she probably was assuming so but as u see every current worst value is 100 and raw ones look good, it normal for it to drop to 99% after few days even though it has a tbw of 700 ? and i wonder why the total nand writes look inflated on the first drive unlike the second one

 

No, none of them are failing.

 

99% health remaining after a few days can be normal, but depends a lot on your usage. It also depends a lot on what the SSD is reporting and for all we know, it's probably reporting a bunch of bullsh*t. Just look at the temperature (C2). Unless you heaven't set the raw values to decimal yet, it shouldn't look like that.

 

I have two Samsung 850 1TB Evos, which are both over 5 years old and their health is at 100%.
My Corsair MP300, which is not even one year old, is already at 97%, because it's running the OS.

 

So always take the health remaining with a grain of salt.


 

Some Wallpapers I created • The Basics of Solid State Drives and Modules (A reference guide by me)

 

In case of USB confusion, refer to this sh*t.

  • 05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)
  • 10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2
  • 20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
  • 40Gb/s - Thunderbolt 3
  • 40Gb/s certified - Thunderbolt 4
  • 40Gb/s - USB 4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

No, none of them are failing.

 

99% health remaining after a few days can be normal, but depends a lot on your usage. It also depends a lot on what the SSD is reporting and for all we know, it's probably reporting a bunch of bullsh*t. Just look at the temperature (C2). Unless you heaven't set the raw values to decimal yet, it shouldn't look like that.

 

I have two Samsung 850 1TB Evos, which are both over 5 years old and their health is at 100%.
My Corsair MP300, which is not even one year old, is already at 97%, because it's running the OS.

 

So always take the health remaining with a grain of salt.

Yeah weird temperature idk why, i have it set to decimal aswell, also in the second picture if u check the top right nand writes it's reporting it correctly from down bellow  as nand gib written. but in first pic it's reporting the top right total nand writes from the lifetime writes to flash times with huge crazy numbers, idk what's going, thank you for the help

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThatPizzaGuy said:

Yeah weird temperature idk why, i have it set to decimal aswell, also in the second picture if u check the top right nand writes it's reporting it correctly from down bellow  as nand gib written. but in first pic it's reporting the top right total nand writes from the lifetime writes to flash times with huge crazy numbers, idk what's going, thank you for the help

You can also try different SMART tools to check the values. Sometimes they report different values. Maybe Seagate has one of their own that properly supports the drive?


 

Some Wallpapers I created • The Basics of Solid State Drives and Modules (A reference guide by me)

 

In case of USB confusion, refer to this sh*t.

  • 05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)
  • 10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2
  • 20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
  • 40Gb/s - Thunderbolt 3
  • 40Gb/s certified - Thunderbolt 4
  • 40Gb/s - USB 4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
2 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

You can also try different SMART tools to check the values. Sometimes they report different values. Maybe Seagate has one of their own that properly supports the drive?

i did try seagate and it says 99% health with excellent status for both drives with no sign of fail whatsoever, idk what the support agent through email was thinking when he told me it seems to be a failed drive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThatPizzaGuy said:

idk what the support agent through email was thinking when he told me it seems to be a failed drive. 

"Buy more drives!" is what they were thinking.


 

Some Wallpapers I created • The Basics of Solid State Drives and Modules (A reference guide by me)

 

In case of USB confusion, refer to this sh*t.

  • 05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)
  • 10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2
  • 20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
  • 40Gb/s - Thunderbolt 3
  • 40Gb/s certified - Thunderbolt 4
  • 40Gb/s - USB 4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, Senzelian said:

"Buy more drives!" is what they were thinking.

here, good status on top drives.

i manager to take some values from seagate's which looks even worse than crystal in terms of informative, basically the same numbers and values as crystal except names of attributes for some

Screenshot 2020-09-23 234727.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235230.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235250.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235301.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235331.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235400.png

Screenshot 2020-09-23 235411.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

I also noticed something suspicious, it has the ironwolf ssd which they told is failing as generic ssd, it's a newly released ssd by them so i think the smart info on it might be wacky or needs a firmware, not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThatPizzaGuy said:

I also noticed something suspicious, it has the ironwolf ssd which they told is failing as generic ssd, it's a newly released ssd by them so i think the smart info on it might be wacky or needs a firmware, not sure.

True.
I think it would be best to keep an eye on the drive's health status.

Maybe check if a firmware update is available for them?


 

Some Wallpapers I created • The Basics of Solid State Drives and Modules (A reference guide by me)

 

In case of USB confusion, refer to this sh*t.

  • 05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)
  • 10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2
  • 20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
  • 40Gb/s - Thunderbolt 3
  • 40Gb/s certified - Thunderbolt 4
  • 40Gb/s - USB 4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

True.
I think it would be best to keep an eye on the drive's health status.

Maybe check if a firmware update is available for them?

Checked seagate's firmware site, no firmware for both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much only stuff you should care about is lifetime which seems like it's health percentage, 100% is like new so 99% is perfectly fine ...

Another good indicator is that NAND GB written ... you wrote less than 1 TB to the flash memory, for a 120 GB the typical endurance is around 80 TB, so you barely used maybe a couple percentage of amount possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
9 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Pretty much only stuff you should care about is lifetime which seems like it's health percentage, 100% is like new so 99% is perfectly fine ...

Another good indicator is that NAND GB written ... you wrote less than 1 TB to the flash memory, for a 120 GB the typical endurance is around 80 TB, so you barely used maybe a couple percentage of amount possible.

and for both drives they're actually higher than 120 gb, the first pic is 500 gb and the second is 500 gb, and they have 700 tbw and 300 tbw in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

but see how in the first pic it says nand written with huge inflated number and down bellow it's only 412 nand written ? i think it's bugged or something, in the second pic it's reporting it correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ThatPizzaGuy said:

and for both drives they're actually higher than 120 gb, the first pic is 500 gb and the second is 500 gb, and they have 700 tbw and 300 tbw in order.

Ah, i didn't check the actual capacity, i saw  "Seagate barracuda 120 SSD" in the title, and just assumed 120 GB ... my bad.  

Yeah, for 500 GB drives, you should have around 300 TB of endurance. 

 

For inconsistencies about how much was written, keep in mind in SMART you may have GiB (where multiples of 1024 are used)  and the software may show the values in GB (where multiples of 1000 are used)  ... the smart should record stuff in multiples of 1024, as the drive internally deals with 512 or 4096 bytes "sectors" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
3 hours ago, mariushm said:

Ah, i didn't check the actual capacity, i saw  "Seagate barracuda 120 SSD" in the title, and just assumed 120 GB ... my bad.  

Yeah, for 500 GB drives, you should have around 300 TB of endurance. 

 

For inconsistencies about how much was written, keep in mind in SMART you may have GiB (where multiples of 1024 are used)  and the software may show the values in GB (where multiples of 1000 are used)  ... the smart should record stuff in multiples of 1024, as the drive internally deals with 512 or 4096 bytes "sectors" 

I just checked an the smart is actually recording the total lba written with 512 sector size, after converting the number 728300920 gb from total nand writes in top it converts to 347 gb which is basically the total host writes in the row in top of it and the life time wrties to flash from ID EA.

also from ID EB 865857472 it converts to 413 gb which is basically nand gib written in  ID E9

 

this is the conversion website https://www.virten.net/2016/12/ssd-total-bytes-written-calculator/

453061244_Screenshot2020-09-23222619.png.0de57363db12bf09cc5c452491a2adce.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×