to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty) > limited number of write cycles per "block" [1] before failure; they had > (and have) extra blocks to substitute broken ones and do a fair amount > of "wear leveling behind the scenes. So it made more sense to measure > failures along the "TB written" axis than along the time axis.
They still do, and in fact each generation gets worse in terms of durability while getting better in price/capacity. Here's Western Digital's cheap line of NVMe SSDs: https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-blue-nvme-ssd/product-brief-wd-blue-sn570-nvme-ssd.pdf MTBF is listed as 1.5 million hours... 160 years. Lifetime endurance is listed as 150TB for the 250GB version, and 300TB for the 500GB version. 600 full writes expected. Here's the more expensive Red line: https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-red-ssd/product-brief-western-digital-wd-red-sn700-nvme-ssd.pdf MTTF: 1.7 million hours. Snicker. Endurance: 1000TB for the 500GB version, 2000TB for the 1TB version. A nice upgrade from 600 writes to 2000 writes. Unrelated, but cool: the 4TB version weighs 10 grams. -dsr-
