This 320 does not seem to care that it has no reserve space left. Still going strong...
502.35TB. 5588 reallocated sectors. Reserve space at 1.
This 320 does not seem to care that it has no reserve space left. Still going strong...
502.35TB. 5588 reallocated sectors. Reserve space at 1.
I know, all they need to do is to look at Wear Leveling Count, it tells the story.
--
Kingston SSDNow 40GB (X25-V)
396.19TB Host writes
Reallocated sectors : 11
MD5 OK
34.57MiB/s on avg (~23 hours)
--
Corsair Force 3 120GB
01 85/50 (Raw read error rate)
05 2 (Retired Block count)
B1 53 (Wear range delta)
E6 100 (Life curve status)
E7 55 (SSD Life left)
E9 176376 (Raw writes)
F1 234877 (Host writes)
104.16MiB/s on avg (~119 hours)
power on hours : 696
-
Hardware:
You could auction the drive on Ebay -- Intel 320 40GB NO RESERVE!
Still, I'm a little confused... if the drive would theoretically become RO at Reserve Space = 0, couldn't you keep over provisioning the drive until nothing is left? Like a popsicle melting?
You could OP by a few GB, then when that gets trashed, you could OP again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Because of the wear on every cell, each time you'd get less and less additional time, but you should still be able to extend the drive's life considerably.
QUESTION?
Why does Crystal Disk Info report an Intel drive's life as being 100% when the MWI is at 99 or 98 (or possible lower)?
Last edited by Christopher; 10-15-2011 at 01:01 PM.
I found this formula for calculating life time.
SSD Life (in seconds) =
(P/E Cycle) x (Capacity)
(Write Speed) x (Duty Cycle) x (Read/ Write Ratio) x (Write Amplification)
There is a field test that Emphase have put together that seems to utilise elements of that formula. It requires DiskMon & Iometer to calculate the workload variables, but it’s quite easy to then plug numbers into the Xcel worksheet that is provided.
I only ran Anvils app for one cycle, which included generating the test file. Using data obtained from DiskMon and Iometer the Xcel file calculated a life time of 0.08 months. I’m not sure why the % random come out so high, perhaps it was because I only ran one cycle. I’d guess that is why the calculated lifetime is so low. I’m not sure how WA & WL are factored, but it should be possible to tweak the formulas based on the results of the testing in this thread. (A bit beyond me though)
![]()
Bookmarks