Home The SSD Endurance Experiment: 200TB update

The SSD Endurance Experiment: 200TB update

Geoff Gasior Former Managing Editor Author expertise
In our content, we occasionally include affiliate links. Should you click on these links, we may earn a commission, though this incurs no additional cost to you. Your use of this website signifies your acceptance of our terms and conditions as well as our privacy policy.

Solid-state drives have revolutionized the PC storage industry. Their wicked-fast access times deliver a palpable improvement in overall system responsiveness, and prices have fallen enough to make decent-sized drives affordable for all. There’s just one catch: due to the nature of flash memory, SSDs have limited endurance.

Flash writes erode the structure of the individual memory cells. Eventually, cells degrade enough that entire blocks of them have to be retired. Those bad blocks are replaced by fresh ones pulled from the SSD’s spare area, and business proceeds as usual.

SSDs only have so much spare area at their disposal, though. That area is also used to accelerate performance, so we’ve been curious about what happens to SSDs as wear accumulates. Do drives burn out or do they fade away—and what happens to performance as write cycling takes a toll on the flash? We’re attempting to answer those questions in our SSD Endurance Experiment.

If you’re unfamiliar with the experiment, I recommend reading our introductory article on the subject. Here’s the short version: we have six SSDs from Corsair, Intel, Kingston, and Samsung, and we’re hammering them with writes until they expire. We’re also testing performance at regular intervals.

We last checked in on our subjects after 22TB of writes, which works out to 20GB per day for three years. There was no drama to report at the time. However, we’ve now written 200TB to the drives, and the first cracks are starting to show.

For one of the SSDs, the first signs of weakness appeared when we polled the field after 100TB of writes. The SMART attributes of our Samsung 840 Series 250GB SSD revealed 11 reallocated sectors—bad blocks, in other words. Since the 840 Series’ three-bit TLC NAND has lower write endurance than the two-bit MLC flash typically found in consumer-grade SSDs, we weren’t surprised that it was the first to exhibit failures. All of our other candidates use MLC flash.

Despite those first bad blocks, the 840 Series’ performance and user-accessible capacity remained unchanged. The same was true for the other SSDs, so we set our sights on 200TB.

At the latest milestone, the 840 Series is up to 370 reallocated sectors. It’s not the only one with bad blocks, either. One of our Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB drives—the one we’re testing with incompressible data like the other SSDs—reports four bad blocks. We also have an identical HyperX drive that’s being tested with 46% compressible data, but it remains free of flash failures. That drive has only written 143TB to the flash thanks to its SandForce-powered compression tech, so we’re not surprised that it’s in better shape than its twin.

The Kingston SSDs have 4MB blocks, so the one with reallocated sectors has lost 16MB of total flash capacity. Samsung has yet to answer our questions about the 840 Series’ block size. However, based on information published by AnandTech, that drive appears to have 1.5MB blocks. With 370 of those blocks now retired, the total flash hit works out to 555MB.

Because bad blocks are replaced by flash reserves held in each SSD’s spare area, the HyperX and 840 Series drives have the same storage capacities as they did when our testing began. The HyperX offers 224GB in Windows, while the 840 Series serves up 234GB. Both have 256GB of flash onboard, leaving plenty to spare for bad block replacement. We’ve barely dipped into the HyperX’s reserves, and we’ve only consumed a fraction of the 840 Series’ spare area.

According to Samsung’s SSD Magician utility, our 840 Series SSD is in “good” health despite the bad block tally. Hard Disk Sentinel, the software we’re using to capture SMART data, is less optimistic. Here’s how that application rated the health of our contenders at 100 and 200TB:

100TB 200TB
Neutron GTX 240GB
100% 100%
335 Series 240GB
88% 73%
HyperX 3K 240GB
100% 98%
HyperX 3K 240GB (Comp)
100% 100%
840 Pro 256GB
78% 51%
840 Series 250GB
66% 19%

For what it’s worth, the Samsung utility says our 840 Pro is also in good health. The same goes for Intel’s equivalent app and the 335 Series SSD. Corsair’s software doesn’t have a general health indicator, and Kingston’s utility doesn’t work with our test system’s storage drivers.

The media wear and SSD life attributes we’ve been tracking haven’t budged since testing began, so it’s hard to know which numbers to trust. It’s important to keep things in perspective, though. We’ve written 200TB to the drives—the equivalent of more than 100GB per day for five years—and most of the SSDs are completely intact. Even though a decent-sized portion of the 840 Series’ flash has expired, the drive appears to be far from failure.

Now, let’s look at the performance picture.

We tested the SSDs after 100TB of writes and again after 200TB, and they were pretty much as fast as they were fresh out of the box. The differences between our original scores and the results after 200TB work out to 2% or less:

You may recall that the HyperX drives were much faster in the random read test after 22TB than they were in a pristine state. Those higher scores persisted after 100TB, but after 200TB, performance has returned to the same levels we measured initially.

We can also track how fast Anvil’s endurance benchmark runs on each drive. The endurance test writes a series of files with random sizes until it hits a predefined limit. Those files are then deleted before the next stream of writes begins. Let’s see how the average speed of each loop has changed since testing began.

First, a disclaimer. These drives are running simultaneously on a mix of 6Gbps and 3Gbps SATA ports connected to a pair of identical test systems. The HyperX drives are connected to 3Gbps ports, while the rest have 6Gbps connectivity. We’re not interested in the relative differences between the SSDs; instead, we’re curious about how each one’s write speed changes over time.

Those spikes in the Kingston and Intel results correspond to the breaks we took at 22 and 100TB. We secure-erase all the SSDs before testing performance at each interval, and that makes the SandForce drives notably faster in their first endurance run of the next wave.

The Samsung 840 Pro speeds up after each secure erase, too, but its performance has been erratic overall. Although most of the SSDs maintain largely stable write speeds, the 840 Pro spikes frequently. This behavior goes back to our early endurance runs, so it’s likely attributable to garbage collection and internal management routines rather than flash wear. That said, it’s worth noting that the 840 Pro achieved higher peak speeds in earlier runs.

Although the 840 Series doesn’t exhibit the run-to-run variance of its sibling, the TLC drive has slowed somewhat. Since write speeds began their slow decline immediately, the recent rash of bad blocks isn’t to blame.

Interestingly, the Corsair Neutron GTX has actually gotten slightly faster since we kicked off our endurance test. The Neutron’s write speeds have leveled off over the last 50TB, though.

So concludes the latest chapter in our SSD Endurance Experiment. Already, we’ve demonstrated that modern SSDs can absorb an awful lot of writes without suffering ill effects. The Samsung 840 Series is spitting out an increasing number of bad blocks, though. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 100TB and beyond. Everything we’ve learned thus far suggests we’ll be at this for a while.

The Tech Report - Editorial ProcessOur Editorial Process

The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

Geoff Gasior Former Managing Editor

Geoff Gasior Former Managing Editor

Geoff Gasior, a seasoned tech marketing expert with over 20 years of experience, specializes in crafting engaging narratives that connect people with technology. At Tech Report, he excelled in editorial management, covering all aspects of computer hardware and software and much more.

Gasior's deep expertise in this field allows him to effectively communicate complex concepts to a wide range of audiences, making technology accessible and engaging for everyone