Am Thu, 19 May 2016 14:51:01 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@xxxxxxxxx>: > For a point of reference, I've > got a pair of 250GB Crucial MX100's (they cost less than 0.50 USD per > GB when I got them and provide essentially the same power-loss > protections that the high end Intel SSD's do) which have seen more > than 2.5TB of data writes over their lifetime, combined from at least > three different filesystem formats (BTRFS, FAT32, and ext4), swap > space, and LVM management, and the wear-leveling indicator on each > still says they have 100% life remaining, and the similar 500GB one I > just recently upgraded in my laptop had seen over 50TB of writes and > was still saying 95% life remaining (and had been for months). The smaller Crucials are much worse at that: The MX100 128GB version I had was specified for 85TB writes which I hit after about 12 months (97% lifetime used according to smartctl) due to excessive write patterns. I'm not sure how long it would have lasted but I decided to swap it for a Samsung 500GB drive, and reconfigure my system for much less write patterns. What should I say: I liked the Crucial more, first: It has an easy lifetime counter in smartctl, Samsung doesn't. And it had powerloss protection which Samsung doesn't explicitly mention (tho I think it has it). At least, according to endurance tests, my Samsung SSD should take about 1 PB of writes. I've already written 7 TB if I can trust the smartctl raw value. But I think you cannot compare specification values to a real endurance test... I think it says 150TBW for 500GB 850 EVO. -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
