1st SSD 99% health and 2nd SSD 98% after 3 months. Is this a problem?s

[TheNaitsyrk]

I checked in programs such as SSDLife Pro and HD Sentinel and SSD health shows 99% and for my 850 EVO it shows 98%. 99% SSD is Kingston SSD sent from Kingston directly brand-new and after 3 months it dropped, and it never happened to me before, even though I had some previous SSDs that are almost 3 years old and are at 100% health. Whereas Samsung 850 EVO shows 98% in HD Sentinel and 100% in CrystalDiskInfo. Should I be worried and what does it mean that they're 99 and 98% respectively?

 

Is my storage size / speed affected? Should I be worried. I checked few days ago and they were all at 100%.

[Enderman]

Can you post screenshots of scrystaldiskinfo?

Most kingston SSDs are crappy and I've never head of Sentinel so I assume it's crappy too.

[Imbellis]

Over time, SSDs loose a bit of their capacity due to becoming corrupt(?) due to many re-writes.

"They begin to remap worn out cells so usable space starts to decrease"

Really, I don't think there's a reason for you to worry. It would take a couple of years for there to be a noticeable difference for most people.

However, if you think that it's going at a faster-than-normal rate, keep track of it and if you want - even return your SSDs under warrenty.

 

[TheNaitsyrk]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Can you post screenshots of scrystaldiskinfo?

Most kingston SSDs are crappy and I've never head of Sentinel so I assume it's crappy too.

Well it isn't. I had Kingston SSDs for 3 years now and 3 of them are at 100% health, except this one. 

So you say that Samsung EVO 850 is crappy too since it's on 98%? LOGIC...

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Imbellis said:

Over time, SSDs loose a bit of their capacity due to becoming corrupt(?) due to many re-writes.

"They begin to remap worn out cells so usable space starts to decrease"

Really, I don't think there's a reason for you to worry. It would take a couple of years for there to be a noticeable difference for most people.

However, if you think that it's going at a faster-than-normal rate, keep track of it and if you want - even return your SSDs under warrenty.

 

Aye, I might do that.

[Imbellis]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Can you post screenshots of scrystaldiskinfo?

Most kingston SSDs are crappy and I've never head of Sentinel so I assume it's crappy too.

I think the "HDSentinel" is a program used to monitor the SSDs and that the 850 EVO is the SSD he is talking about.

[DocSwag]

First off I would go and download each SSD makers' utilities to check rather than using third party things.

 

Those numbers should be referring to the SMART counters used for SSDs to determine how long your ssd has left until it'll essentially lock up (it will lock up when it reaches 0), and refuse to be written to in order to protect itself from dying. At that point, in accordance with the jedec spec you'll have 12 months to read data off the drive before it may or may not start to lose your data.

 

This might sound really scary, but you really shouldn't be worried. If you do the math it'll take 12 years before your 850 evo reaches 0. And no, you shouldn't see any noticeable performance drops until maybe towards the end.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Those percentages could err on the side of caution and round down. Also, since these are relatively new, you've probably been shoving a lot of data down them if total writes are taken into the account for their health.

 

It's better to come back within a year after use and assess their health to gauge life expectancy.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Imbellis said:

I think the "HDSentinel" is a program used to monitor the SSDs and that the 850 EVO is the SSD he is talking about.

Indeed. in HD Sentinel it shows that EVO is at 98%, whereas Crystal shows it as 100%.

HD Sentinel also shows Kingston to be at 99% so yea.

 

HD Sentinel is used to check for all the HDD sectors. If all are green then it's gucci, but it's unpaid version so I can't check it.

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

First off I would go and download each SSD makers' utilities to check rather than using third party things.

 

Those numbers should be referring to the SMART counters used for SSDs to determine how long your ssd has left until it'll essentially lock up (it will lock up when it reaches 0), and refuse to be written to in order to protect itself from dying. At that point, in accordance with the jedec spec you'll have 12 months to read data off the drive before it may or may not start to lose your data.

 

This might sound really scary, but you really shouldn't be worried. If you do the math it'll take 12 years before your 850 evo reaches 0. And no, you shouldn't see any noticeable performance drops until maybe towards the end.

Thanks! It's good to know it's all hunky dory for now. However, I don't think I can know how much capacity I've lost due to that 1% gone and 2% gone on the other one?

[Imbellis]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Aye, I might do that.

I think I also posted something regarding SSD and HDD degradation over time.

(Link?)

 

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Those percentages could err on the side of caution and round down. Also, since these are relatively new, you've probably been shoving a lot of data down them if total writes are taken into the account for their health.

 

It's better to come back within a year after use and assess their health to gauge life expectancy.

Actually, I wasn't. I have two exact same ones that started working at the same time and data written to both is similar, and the other one is at 100% so I was wondering why since it's strange.

 

Both are only 3 months old.

[DocSwag]

Just now, TheNaitsyrk said:

Thanks! It's good to know it's all hunky dory for now. However, I don't think I can know how much capacity I've lost due to that 1% gone and 2% gone on the other one?

That doesn't mean 1% or 2% of your capacity is gone. None of your capacity should be gone (if any is, it'll be next to nothing). Heck, I'm not sure if it even works that way.

 

All you know is you've gone through 1 or 2 of your 100 wear leveling things.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, TheNaitsyrk said:

Actually, I wasn't. I have two exact same ones that started working at the same time and data written to both is similar, and the other one is at 100% so I was wondering why since it's strange.

Either way, come back after they're a year old and that'll give you a better idea of how long they might last with your usage.

 

Or if you can't wait that long, half a year should be fine.

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Actually, I wasn't. I have two exact same ones that started working at the same time and data written to both is similar, and the other one is at 100% so I was wondering why since it's strange.

 

Both are only 3 months old.

Nand flash varies from ssd to ssd when it comes to endurance, that's why there's a difference.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Either way, come back after they're a year old and that'll give you a better idea of how long they might last with your usage.

 

Or if you can't wait that long, half a year should be fine.

Well, that will not be necessary since, SSD Life Pro shows estimated lifetime of 9 years or so, but I wanted to ask what are the downsides of SSD being at 99% health since I never seen it happen.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, DocSwag said:

Nand flash varies from ssd to ssd when it comes to endurance, that's why there's a difference.

Yea obviously it's silicon lottery but still I wanted to make sure nothing bad is happening.

[DocSwag]

Just now, TheNaitsyrk said:

Yea obviously it's silicon lottery but still I wanted to make sure nothing bad is happening.

Yup nothing bad is. You have no reason to be worried.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Well, that will not be necessary since, SSD Life Pro shows estimated lifetime of 9 years or so, but I wanted to ask what are the downsides of SSD being at 99% health since I never seen it happen.

Assuming it's using how much the SSD has written to, then that's a poor estimation, especially for an OS drive. That's like saying my car gets crappy MPG while I'm getting to a cruising speed rather than looking at MPG over the course of the trip.

 

Otherwise there's no downside to having 1% less. In fact, I'd just recommend not really worrying about it in the first place. (then again I back things up)

[TheNaitsyrk]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Assuming it's using how much the SSD has written to, then that's a poor estimation, especially for an OS drive. That's like saying my car gets crappy MPG while I'm getting to a cruising speed rather than looking at MPG over the course of the trip.

 

Otherwise there's no downside to having 1% less. In fact, I'd just recommend not really worrying about it in the first place. (then again I back things up)

As you luckily guessed it is my OS drive and only that. It shows that I did about 3144GB of written data to it, so it's not much to be fair. The 100% one is same-ish. Well, it's not consistent and my OCD triggers me haha.