MX500 rapid erase cycles, seems to be poor wear levelling

[chrcoluk]

Hi guys

So I decided to open up crystal diskinfo on my laptop, I replaced the SSD with a brand new 500 GB MX500 earlier this year. Usually I use Samsung SSD's.

The 94% health took me by surprise, as the SSD is not even half a year old, and the laptop is just running windows, no games, no large downloads, not even web browsing.

It does however have backups of the OS made on the second partition. Usually one done before every windows update (once a month) and automated ones once a week, only one full backup is made per month, the rest are incremental.

The full backups are typically around 16GB compressed, incremental is highly variable, of the 3 done this month, two are under half a GB, the other one is 4GB. Last month two were under half a GB, one was 5GB.

Here is the data as provided by crystal diskinfo.

Power on hours 3227 (134 days) (laptop is on 24/7)
Total host writes 2038 GB (roughly 4x drive capacity)
Average block erase count 100 (almost one a day)

This means either write amplification approximately 25x which seems very high (dont think this is the case I believe the SMART writes are "after" amplification), or the wear levelling algorithm is poor.

The drive is manually overprovisioned by 10%, in addition the partitions combined are about 60% utilised. Overall 270 GB used out of 500GB.

Average drive writes per 15GB.

I do think the total host writes is "after" amplification, so I think the issue seems to be poor wear levelling algorithm.

Has anyone else noticed rapid erase cycles on MX500s?

 

[ThaiTaffy]

I haven't done any testing on mine but after reading this post I will take a look and let you know.

 

[WhitetailAni]

I have one, it boots macOS that I do use every week or so.
Power On Hours: 3210
Total Host Writes: 850GB
Average Block Erase Count: 0

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Back ups should not be stored on the same disk they are for and connected all the time
They should on a separate hdd and disconnected after completion and verified otherwise they're just as at risk as the original install different partition or not.

I have some mx100 256gb & 128gb that are really old and most are still 100% to 99% as os drives.
So where did you buy this mx500 miners have been selling some since chia or what ever it was crashed

 

[chrcoluk]

It was from amazon direct (not 3rd party).

I have found this thread on toms hardware, (I am still reading it)

A very interesting read so far on page 7.

I seem to have the same symptoms as these guys, the drive was installed in January (yet power on hours is 134 days).

I calculated my write amplification as 25x based on erase cycles, calculated as 20X using their formula.

Question - Crucial MX500 500GB SATA SSD - - - Remaining Life decreasing fast despite only a few bytes being written to it ?

The Remaining Life (RL) of my Crucial MX500 ssd has been decreasing rapidly, even though the pc doesn't write much to it. Below is the log I began keeping after I noticed RL reached 95% after about 6 months of use. Assuming RL truly depends on bytes written, the decrease in RL is accelerating...

forums.tomshardware.com

The 2 smart values these guys are using to calculate write amplification are from my MX500.

F7 - 73840348
F8 - 1550641798

Also my laptop is very rarely turned off its on 24/7 which seems to be the worst case scenario for the problem they discovered.

Hi,
Back ups should not be stored on the same disk they are for and connected all the time
They should on a separate hdd and disconnected after completion and verified otherwise they're just as at risk as the original install different partition or not.

I have some mx100 256gb & 128gb that are really old and most are still 100% to 99% as os drives.
So where did you buy this mx500 miners have been selling some since chia or what ever it was crashed

These backups are not to solve hardware failure, but for rollbacks on things like bad windows update, or operator error.

Eventually though they will be going direct to my NAS when I have it configured and online and they are also copied to my main PC currently so a second copy is on a hdd. Please respect the thread is not about where backups should be going.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Maybe address the simple question I asked you I'll use double spaces like you so you don't miss it lol


Where did you buy the ssd.

RMA if the ssd really bothers you.

 

[newtekie1]

I've got a 1TB MX500.

Power on hours 16141
Total host writes 56026GB
Average block erase count 86

There are really only two things that determine SSD drive life. Number of NAND blocks left for re-allocation and host writes. And the host writes are actually only for warranty purposes, the drives will be capable of way more than they are actually rated for.

I actually think that Average Block Erase Count starts at 100 when the drive is brand new, and then decreases as the drive wears. The current and worst values should always be the same, and the threshold on my drive is set to 0. That means once it drops to 0 it will trip a SMART error.

Edit: Actually, I have a brand new MX500 500GB, I can check to see what that value is, but I bet it is going to be 100 out of the box.

 

[R-T-B]

Hi,
Maybe address the simple question I asked you I'll use double spaces like you so you don't miss it lol


Where did you buy the ssd.

It was from amazon direct (not 3rd party).

 

[ThaiTaffy]

Gove

I actually think that Average Block Erase Count starts at 100 when the drive is brand new, and then decreases as the drive wears. The current and worst values should always be the same, and the threshold on my drive is set to 0. That means once it drops to 0 it will trip a SMART error.

Edit: Actually, I have a brand new MX500 500GB, I can check to see what that value is, but I bet it is going to be 100 out of the box.

Mines about 2 months old and indeed has values of 100 throughout the error report

Though I think it's more than likely the software looking at my temporary files hddView attachment IMG_20210923_111411.jpg

 

[eidairaman1]

Hi guys

So I decided to open up crystal diskinfo on my laptop, I replaced the SSD with a brand new 500 GB MX500 earlier this year. Usually I use Samsung SSD's.

The 94% health took me by surprise, as the SSD is not even half a year old, and the laptop is just running windows, no games, no large downloads, not even web browsing.

It does however have backups of the OS made on the second partition. Usually one done before every windows update (once a month) and automated ones once a week, only one full backup is made per month, the rest are incremental.

The full backups are typically around 16GB compressed, incremental is highly variable, of the 3 done this month, two are under half a GB, the other one is 4GB. Last month two were under half a GB, one was 5GB.

Here is the data as provided by crystal diskinfo.

Power on hours 3227 (134 days) (laptop is on 24/7)
Total host writes 2038 GB (roughly 4x drive capacity)
Average block erase count 100 (almost one a day)

This means either write amplification approximately 25x which seems very high (dont think this is the case I believe the SMART writes are "after" amplification), or the wear levelling algorithm is poor.

The drive is manually overprovisioned by 10%, in addition the partitions combined are about 60% utilised. Overall 270 GB used out of 500GB.

Average drive writes per 15GB.

I do think the total host writes is "after" amplification, so I think the issue seems to be poor wear levelling algorithm.

Has anyone else noticed rapid erase cycles on MX500s?

Hi,
Back ups should not be stored on the same disk they are for and connected all the time
They should on a separate hdd and disconnected after completion and verified otherwise they're just as at risk as the original install different partition or not.

I have some mx100 256gb & 128gb that are really old and most are still 100% to 99% as os drives.
So where did you buy this mx500 miners have been selling some since chia or what ever it was crashed

Hi,
Maybe address the simple question I asked you I'll use double spaces like you so you don't miss it lol


Where did you buy the ssd.

RMA if the ssd really bothers you.

Contact Crucial about it and then RMA if you are that concerned about it

 

[ThaiTaffy]

Contact Crucial about it and then RMA if you are that concerned about it

Like I said I don't think those numbers are accurate as newtechie1 explained

 

[R-T-B]

The current and worst values should always be the same, and the threshold on my drive is set to 0.

Only the data field matters. Ignore the other fields when reading SMART data.

 

[GerKNG]

i have/had four MX500s (all 1TB) and some of them are beyond their TBW (400+ TB written) and the average block erase count is still 0

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
This one is so old one of my first ssd's ever bought
One I hammer as a benchmark ssd system images restored so many times I've lost count I'm surprised it's not farting dust lol

 

[newtekie1]

Only the data field matters. Ignore the other fields when reading SMART data.

That is not true, the Threshold field matters, it is the point where a SMART error will be reported.

 

[Pandarambe]

Hi there,
I too notice my Crucial MX500 SSD Health Status is deteriorating quite fast surprisingly. I bought this SSD around March 2021 this year. If you know what the values speak off, feel free to share your thoughts.
In comparison with my Samsung EVO C drive which is 5 years today, the Health Status is at 86% LOL.

 

[freeagent]

You guys has some good luck!

I bought an M4 256 and it died @ 98% life left. Any pc that it’s plugged into will not make it past post.. and it went in the bin. Had good luck with Intel and WD ssds lol.. hope you get er fingered out!

 

[eidairaman1]

Hi there,
I too notice my Crucial MX500 SSD Health Status is deteriorating quite fast surprisingly. I bought this SSD around March 2021 this year. If you know what the values speak off, feel free to share your thoughts.
In comparison with my Samsung EVO C drive which is 5 years today, the Health Status is at 86% LOL.
View attachment 217963

Might be a bad batch, RMA it and move on.

 

[chrcoluk]

As a comparison my other 500GB SSD a 850 pro, has 65 erase cycles and is about 7 years old. Its had heavier write use as well including around 1 year in a ps4 pro that auto records game footage.

I could RMA the ssd, especially as I have a spare unused MX 500 to swap in immediately (both brought together so if bad batch probably same), I dont know if its a defective unit or firmware flaw though, if its the latter it just buys 8 months usage rather than fixing the problem.

But I will report to crucial and if they offer a RMA will follow it through.

Also I have now installed storage executive which confirms it as a legit drive.

I've got a 1TB MX500.

Power on hours 16141
Total host writes 56026GB
Average block erase count 86

There are really only two things that determine SSD drive life. Number of NAND blocks left for re-allocation and host writes. And the host writes are actually only for warranty purposes, the drives will be capable of way more than they are actually rated for.

I actually think that Average Block Erase Count starts at 100 when the drive is brand new, and then decreases as the drive wears. The current and worst values should always be the same, and the threshold on my drive is set to 0. That means once it drops to 0 it will trip a SMART error.

Edit: Actually, I have a brand new MX500 500GB, I can check to see what that value is, but I bet it is going to be 100 out of the box.

I have just double checked.

The 'raw' value (far right in diskinfo) is 100.
The 'current' value which starts at 100 is now 94.

Hi there,
I too notice my Crucial MX500 SSD Health Status is deteriorating quite fast surprisingly. I bought this SSD around March 2021 this year. If you know what the values speak off, feel free to share your thoughts.
In comparison with my Samsung EVO C drive which is 5 years today, the Health Status is at 86% LOL.
View attachment 217963

You have it reporting in hexadecimal, the value for your erase cycles is 140. You have 5472GB writes, on a 250GB SSD so not quite as high amplification as me but still very high.

 

[R-T-B]

That is not true, the Threshold field matters, it is the point where a SMART error will be reported.

Sure but without the data field it's meaningless.

My point is current and worst are useless to most users analyzing the data.

 

[WhitetailAni]

I bought an M4 256 and it died @ 98% life left. Any pc that it’s plugged into will not make it past post.. and it went in the bin. Had good luck with Intel and WD ssds lol.. hope you get er fingered out!

Heh, the Crucial M4 128GB that my dad bought in 2011 is still going strong as my Windows boot drive. 88% life after 10 years of service, could not ask for a better drive.
I have 2 Samsung 850 EVOs and 1 840 EVO (all 250GB) that I use elsewhere (iMac G5, P4HT, Mac mini 2011) and they have been doing great. I'm sticking with Crucial (first) and Samsung (second) for SSDs, they have served me well.

As for OP, I'd recommend RMAing the SSD if it worries you.

 

[chrcoluk]

I filled in their offline chat form, so I could provide as much detail as possible for them to digest I will let you guys know what happens.

The SSD assuming it can get all the way through its rated life span will still out live the warranty, and there is a workaround posted on toms hardware, so I am not overly concerned, but if I can get a fix either via RMA or new firmware I will take it so fingers crossed.

The firmware is M3CR023

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Don't make things like they used to.

 

[newtekie1]

I hooked up a brand new fresh out of the package MX500 and confirmed that the Average Block Erase Count does in fact start at 100. Which confirms that it is a percentage that counts down and OP's drive is still at 100%. There is no point in bugging Crucial support about this, trying a workaround, or returning the drive, the number starts at 100 and goes down from there. Your drive is functioning completely normally.

That then begs the question where does CrystalDiskInfo get it's health status from? One would think it is likely reading Percent Lifetime Used, which from what I can figure is just the Total Host Writes compared to the rated TBW. But those numbers don't add up to the health status CrystalDiskInfo is providing(OP's drive should still be at 98 Percent Life Used but they claim CDI is saying 94% health). So I'm going to go with my theory that I've always had about CDI's health status %. It's just pulled straight out of thin air, it doesn't relate to any actual SMART data and doesn't relate at all to the actual drive's health.

Sure but without the data field it's meaningless.

My point is current and worst are useless to most users analyzing the data.

By "Data Field" I assume you mean Raw Values field. And to most people that field is totally garbage information because they can't read hexidecimal. The current field is just the raw value translated into a number most people can understand.

 

[R-T-B]

The current field is just the raw value translated into a number most people can understand.

No, it's not. Take your example screenshot. Do you really believe you have 100 relocated sectors with a data field of 0?

Just plug the data field (which CDI seems to insist on calling "raw values") into a hexadecimal calculator and be done with it. I'm telling you, the other fields are useless for this.