Samsung 870 EVO - Beware, certain batches prone to failure!

[Rottmeisterest]

So I bought new 870 Evo 1tb (made July 2022), when testing with Samsung magician, it immediately gives me ,,Failing LBA" message on the upper corner, although s.m.a.r.t is completely clean with no errors, it also passes short-and full scan wo issues, CrystalDisk shows no problems either.
Not sure whats goin on here...

 

[E.S]

The date of manufacture probably doesn't matter.
There seems to be a problem with older firmware.
Also, new firmware has a new problem of increasing SMART ID "FC".
Isn't "FC" counting relocated bad blocks? I have a suspicion that

 

[Rottmeisterest]

The date of manufacture probably doesn't matter.
There seems to be a high probability that the problem will occur after 2000 to 5000 hours with the old firmware.
Also, new firmware has a new problem of increasing SMART ID "FC".
Isn't "FC" counting relocated bad blocks? I have a suspicion that

It has the latest firmware and it threw Failed LBAS straight out of box

 

[80251]

I was going to buy the 4 TiB EVO until I read this thread then I went with the much slower 4 TiB QVO.

 

[Joe Bauers]

Oh, no... I have 2 of 2Tb 870 EVO (((

 

[Gungar]

I have no problems with my 4tb 870 evo, bought last year.

 

[80251]

Is the 4 TiB model of the Samsung 870 EVO immune to these failure issues?

 

[CiTay]

Is the 4 TiB model of the Samsung 870 EVO immune to these failure issues?

No, just look at the screenshot in the first post, that's one of my three 4TB ones (the other ones have no bad/reallocated sectors so far).

 

[E.S]

Is the 4 TiB model of the Samsung 870 EVO immune to these failure issues?

Why are you asking such a question now?
you should know the answer.

I can't talk about the new firmware and the SMART ID "FC" problem, which is important, because it's been replaced by a trivial topic.
Are people here not interested in new firmware issues?
I think that it is strange.

 

[tonster76]

Just google Samsung EVO failure, and landed here.
Mines a 2TB failed after less than a year, not even a primary drive. Jan 2021

 

[E.S]

There may be a lot of people on this forum who want to dismiss the problem with the new firmware.
Samsung employee?

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Think most have skipped 870 series except some bold that did qvo's instead
I believe the whole 870 series should be recalled personally.

Funny some say new samsung magician should report and bad ssd hell has anyone shown SM doing this ?
I have my doubts

 

[Shou Miko]

Hi,
Think most have skipped 870 series except some bold that did qvo's instead
I believe the whole 870 series should be recalled personally.

Funny some say new samsung magician should report and bad ssd hell has anyone shown SM doing this ?
I have my doubts

I am wondering if the 870 will be the last SATA SSD series from Samsung but personally I am hoping to see 880 and 890 because there is still a use for good an realiable SSD's because Samsung's SATA SSD's are maybe the best their NVME's I am not happy with.

 

[ThrashZone]

I am wondering if the 870 will be the last SATA SSD series from Samsung but personally I am hoping to see 880 and 890 because there is still a use for good an realiable SSD's because Samsung's SATA SSD's are maybe the best their NVME's I am not happy with.

Hi,
I definitely will never be in any hurry to buy another sammy ssd that isn't labeled Pro.

 

[Shou Miko]

Hi,
I definitely will never be in any hurry to buy another sammy ssd that isn't labeled Pro.

I don't want to pay for something named "Pro" I only got my Windows 8 Pro because it was cheap upgraded it from because I had a bunch of XP Pro licenses I had when I was trying to take an education so I got the XP Pro's for next to nothing and the 8 Pro cost me like £60 or something it should been a upgrade version but it's a Retail so I don't complain not sure what happened but never complained.

I always use the evo they are enough for most people and I can recommend 840, 850 and 860 those their the once i personally had and never had one of them fail.

 

[ThrashZone]

I don't want to pay for something named "Pro" I only got my Windows 8 Pro because it was cheap upgraded it from because I had a bunch of XP Pro licenses I had when I was trying to take an education so I got the XP Pro's for next to nothing and the 8 Pro cost me like £60 or something it should been a upgrade version but it's a Retail so I don't complain not sure what happened but never complained.

I always use the evo they are enough for most people and I can recommend 840, 850 and 860 those their the once i personally had and never had one of them fail.

Hi,
Yep I have some 850/ 860's around
Pro versions would be for os not storage for obvious price issues

 

[Pwnstix]

I posted about 6 months ago about my 4TB 870 EVO with failing uncorrectable error counts and ECC error rates, which Samsung replaced for me. My replacement still seems to be doing okay; I check SMART regularly to look for any failures.

 

[E.S]

I posted about 6 months ago about my 4TB 870 EVO with failing uncorrectable error counts and ECC error rates, which Samsung replaced for me. My replacement still seems to be doing okay; I check SMART regularly to look for any failures.

The uncorrectable error counts and ECC error rates issue has been fixed with new firmware "SVT02B6Q".
but "SVT02B6Q” has a new problem: the value of SMART ID "FC" keeps increasing.
This may indicate a retired bad block.
If so that's a big problem.
This is because spare blocks are limited.

 

[Zeromis]

The uncorrectable error counts and ECC error rates issue has been fixed with new firmware "SVT02B6Q".
but "SVT02B6Q” has a new problem: the value of SMART ID "FC" keeps increasing.
This may indicate a retired bad block.
If so that's a big problem.
This is because spare blocks are limited.

What is FC even meant to represent though. The field didn't even appear in the first place till installing that firmware for me. It was also already high in the first place for me too on the drive that I couldn't RMA (but fully formatted to use as a drive for non-essential data). Since then it's gone up by 49. None of the other fields have gone up at all though, the runtime bad block count and ECC error rate is the exact same value as it was before I installed the firmware and wiped the drive.

The replacement drive I got back for the one I could RMA only has a value of 1 in that field, it's been written to more in that time frame(105 days) than the old one too.

 

[kevin335200]

I have collected some of the serial numbers that are affected in the link below (not only 870 EVO, it actually impacts wide range of SSD models which are manifactured in 2021):
https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2443478
I have included a translation from DeepL at the end.

for 870 EVO: S5Y3NF0R / S621NG0R / S62BNJ0(R?) / S62CNF0R / S62CNJ0R / S6BANJ0R / S6BCNG0R

Feel free to share first nine digits of your affected SSD's serial number, I have decoded that it contains specific model, capacity, year / month of production and where it's manifactured, which can help people determine the batches that are affected.

TLDR: It usually happened when the Total Host Writes ≈ 10TB, most affected SSDs are manifactured in 2021 (so the eighth digit is mainly R), but there still exists a few cases in 2020 (i.e. the eighth digit is N) and January 2022 (i.e. the eighth digit is T, the ninth digit is 1)

Because it involves several models and different generations of controllers, e.g. PM9A1 has reports with the factory firmware ending with 7401Q / 7601Q and various OEM firmware batches, what I can tell is that there is little correlation with the controller and firmware.

 

[CiTay]

My affected 4TB: S6BCNG0R
My unaffected 4TB: S6BCNS0R + S6BCNJ0R

I also have a 980 PRO with S5GXNF0R, which is listed in your thread. So far i've only seen this problem be common with the 870 EVO, are you now saying it can affect all those models you list?

 

[E.S]

My 870 serial is not on the list and I've had problems writing 1TB.

The date of manufacture probably doesn't matter.
The reason why the 22-year manufacturing does not cause any problems is because the firmware is new.
It's the firmware that matters, not the manufacturing date.
Also, new firmware has a new problem of increasing SMART ID "FC".

 

[kevin335200]

My affected 4TB: S6BCNG0R
My unaffected 4TB: S6BCNS0R + S6BCNJ0R

I also have a 980 PRO with S5GXNF0R, which is listed in your thread. So far i've only seen this problem be common with the 870 EVO, are you now saying it can affect all those models you list?

Yes, sadly Models that I listed have reported at least one screenshot from CDI or Samsung Magician
If your 980 PRO has not been affected, you may have been lucky (obviously, only a small portion of the total shipments are affected), or you may just not have used it long enough...
S5GXNF0R has been reported in the 4th page of this thread: https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2443478&pid=50686727

My 870 serial is not on the list and I've had problems writing 1TB.

The date of manufacture probably doesn't matter.
The reason why the 22-year manufacturing does not cause any problems is because the firmware is new.
It's the firmware that matters, not the manufacturing date.
Also, new firmware has a new problem of increasing SMART ID "FC".

Not sure about 870 EVO, but PM9A1 that manifactured in 2022Q1 is still affected:

Source: https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2435363-1-1.html

 

[CiTay]

Why didn't they set the raw values to DEC in the screenshots? In HEX it's much harder to read. I even wrote the author of CrystalDiskInfo to make DEC values the default, but he seems to like HEX more...

So on the 980 PRO you are supposed to look for a non-zero ID 0E value then? Just one case of it doesn't convince me that the 980 PRO is affected. Ony 870 EVO we see a lot of cases.

 

[kevin335200]

Why didn't they set the raw values to DEC in the screenshots? In HEX it's much harder to read. I even wrote the author of CrystalDiskInfo to make DEC values the default, but he seems to like HEX more...

So on the 980 PRO you are supposed to look for a non-zero ID 0E value then? Just one case of it doesn't convince me that the 980 PRO is affected. Ony 870 EVO we see a lot of cases.

Of course it isn't just one case... Otherwise I don't have to spend this much time and effort to collect them on the Internet

Several 980 PRO examples with other serial numbers:

S69ENG0R:

S69ENF0R, before and after upgrading the firmware:

S6B0NG0R, 03 is also running out:

I don't feel the need to post more screenshots, after all, this post is still about the 870 EVO. If that still doesn't convince you, I can start a separate thread to post all the screenshots that I have collected.