100% of my QLC drives are now dead.

[Shrek]

Switch to read-only mode is useless for home users. Any modern file system will want to record last access date and metadata like that, thus the drive will fail to mount in read-only mode. It is only useful for professionals that will retrieve your data. For a price.

One boots off another drive and copies across the important files from the read only drive.

 

[Denver]

QLC = lower cost higher capacity NAND storage in the consumer space.

As I said on paper that's it, but in the real world I buy a decent 2TB, TLC SSD like Kingston NV2 for $90-100. Is there any QLC that is considerably cheaper than this, enough to ignore the inferior longevity? I don't think so.

 

[Tomgang]

This is quite the unlock for sure. I have had like 10 ssd since 2011 where i got my first ssd with a crucial C300 64 gb. Not a single failure of a ssd even after years of usage. But none of them has either been a QLC based ssd as far i know. I only buy ssd from crucial and Samsung as i have only had good experienced from it. while I have had like 3 hdd failure. So in my opinion ssd are more reliable than hdd.

So what i have had over the time
1 crucial C300 64 gb
1 crucial M5 64 gb
1 crucial 512 gb i cant remember the model name of
1 crucial mx300 2 tb
1 Samsung evo 860 256 gb
1 Samsung evo 870 4 tb
1 Samsung 950 pro 256 gb
2 Samsung 980 pro 1 tb
1 Samsung 980 pro 2 tb

But based on all the comments, seems i did wisely to avoid QLC ssd's. Even from the manufacturer i buy from.

 

[faye]

As I said on paper that's it, but in the real world I buy a decent 2TB, TLC SSD like Kingston NV2 for $90-100. Is there any QLC that is considerably cheaper than this, enough to ignore the inferior longevity? I don't think so.

The Intel 670p is regularly around $65 for the 2TB, so it's a bit less. If one were really stretched for cash there's an argument to be made.

 

[bug]

QLC = lower cost higher capacity NAND storage in the consumer space.

Except... it's neither.

One boots off another drive and copies across the important files from the read only drive.

If you can do it without mounting the drive first... sure. dd can probably do that, but how many people know how to use dd?

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

How do you know if an SSD is QLC?

 

[Shrek]

Except... it's neither.


If you can do it without mounting the drive first... sure. dd can probably do that, but how many people know how to use dd?

Mounting a read-only drive should not be a problem, just as one mounts a DVD

 

[Wirko]

As I said on paper that's it, but in the real world I buy a decent 2TB, TLC SSD like Kingston NV2 for $90-100. Is there any QLC that is considerably cheaper than this, enough to ignore the inferior longevity? I don't think so.

The NV2 is not reliably TLC, see the TechPowerUp database.

 

[sam_86314]

How do you know if an SSD is QLC?

http://vlo.name:3000/ssdtool/

Not all drives are supported, though.

Alternatively...

...copy a large file and watch it drop to like 200MB/s or less.

 

[Shrek]

...copy a large file and watch it drop to like 200MB/s or less.

What if the drive is not very full and in SLC mode?

 

[Wirko]

Switch to read-only mode is useless for home users. Any modern file system will want to record last access date and metadata like that, thus the drive will fail to mount in read-only mode. It is only useful for professionals that will retrieve your data. For a price.

Maybe it won't mount as a system drive but as a second drive it will. I did that in Windows. The next thing you need to get around are ACLs (access control lists) on NTFS folders. Which you can't change because they are read-only. By the time I switched to Linux, the damn 660p (or 600p?) I was trying to save data from was dead.

Mounting a read-only drive should not be a problem, just as one mounts a DVD

Or a locked SD card.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Except... it's neither.

You have to consider it's emergence prior to the world wide cough. Also pricing right now is all over the place making QLC not an attractive option now in a time where 1TB & 2TB are "normal" capacities people are installing and using. If you bump up in capacity for example 8TB, A Samsung 870 QVO can be had for $330 which is pretty cost effective in my opinion.

 

[sam_86314]

What if the drive is not very full and in SLC mode?

Copy enough data to exhaust the SLC cache.

TPU reviews show this very well.

DRAMless QLC Drive (176-layer Micron QLC, Phison E21)

Corsair MP600 Core XT 2 TB Review

The Corsair MP600 Core XT is a competitively priced entry-level M.2 NVMe solid-state-drive with support for PCI-Express 4.0. Under the hood it uses a Phison E21 controller, paired with 176-layer 3D QLC NAND flash from Micron.

www.techpowerup.com

DRAMless TLC drive (232-layer YMTC TLC, Maxio MAP1602)

Netac NV7000-T 2 TB Review - $80 for 2 TB

The Netac NV7000-T is available at unbelievable pricing of $80 for 2 TB. It still is one of the fastest SSD's we've ever tested, matching WD Black SN850, Samsung 980 Pro and Phison E18 drives. Netac even includes an optional heatsink with their solid-state-drive.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Flyordie]

This post makes me glad I bought 100% TLC drives. :-o

All my TLC drives have 256MB DRAM cache. The most recent 2 I bought have 1866Mhz Samsung DDR3 chips.

 

[Tahagomizer]

Honest question: How do you kill an SSD with "light usage, game installs"? In the computer I use for work and playing games I have an 1 TB Intel 660p as an OS and and game drive. After a few years it doesn't show any appreciable wear and this machine is used 10+ hours every day. Do you reinstall every game ten times a day?
The only SSD of mine I remember dying was Intel 330 and I believe it was an SLC.

 

[Launcestonian]

How do you know if an SSD is QLC?

Very good question. The TPU SSD database does not have everything. I bought a brand new PNY drive very recently & its not listed.

 

[W1zzard]

Very good question. The TPU SSD database does not have everything. I bought a brand new PNY drive very recently & its not listed.

Let us know in the thread or email us, or send a PM, anything basically and we'll get it added

 

[bug]

Honest question: How do you kill an SSD with "light usage, game installs"? In the computer I use for work and playing games I have an 1 TB Intel 660p as an OS and and game drive. After a few years it doesn't show any appreciable wear and this machine is used 10+ hours every day. Do you reinstall every game ten times a day?
The only SSD of mine I remember dying was Intel 330 and I believe it was an SLC.

Tbh what the OP describes doesn't look like flash was actually worn out. More like a controller failure or some other component giving up the ghost.

Mounting a read-only drive should not be a problem, just as one mounts a DVD

Read what I posted above: it's a different file system. When the OS will se NTFS it will want to update (meta)data on it

 

[GerKNG]

Honest question: How do you kill an SSD with "light usage, game installs"? In the computer I use for work and playing games I have an 1 TB Intel 660p as an OS and and game drive. After a few years it doesn't show any appreciable wear and this machine is used 10+ hours every day. Do you reinstall every game ten times a day?
The only SSD of mine I remember dying was Intel 330 and I believe it was an SLC.

The 4TB Drive has written 26TB until failing... basically nothing. (1600TBW is within the warranty and that's very conservative. the flash itself could probably write 50x the TBW)

Tbh what the OP describes doesn't look like flash was actually worn out.

this.
you can't even "wear out" modern flash drives. just to reach the warranty TBW i need to fill the whole 4TB of NAND and format it again every single day for 400 days.
since it writes with ~100MB/s after the SLC Cache... good luck trying to even get close to it.

the other two failed drives... 5 YEAR warranty

 

[bug]

this.
you can't even "wear out" modern flash drives. just to reach the warranty TBW i need to fill the whole 4TB of NAND and format it again every single day for 400 days.
since it writes with ~100MB/s after the SLC Cache... good luck trying to even get close to it.

If you fill the drive and then keep pounding it with writes, I think reaching the 1,000 p/e cycles of QLC is not impossible to achieve. Not easy and a very specific usage pattern, but I think at least getting close to the wear limit is now possible. (Clearly not what the OP experienced, I'm just throwing this out there.)

 

[iameatingjam]

Yup thats why all my drives are tlc with dram. Even the secondary ones ( most of them). The price difference is just not there to justify it, in my opinion.

 

[Assimilator]

Can you all stop your anti-QLC circlejerk and USE YOUR BRAINS for 5 seconds?

If QLC NAND was so bad that drives using it were consistently failing at the rate that OP has experienced, do you really think (and this is the part where you need to use your brains) that companies would be selling products using QLC? No, they would not, because they would be haemorrhaging money and customer satisfaction like no tomorrow.

4 dead QLC drives out of 4 dead QLC drives is not an indictment of QLC, it's an indictment of something else. What that is I don't know, but it's almost certainly a problem with the way OP is using or storing these drives. Maybe an NVMe controller is breaking them, maybe they need a firmware update. What I do know is that I, and millions of others, have and use QLC drives without problems, and will continue to do so.

 

[bug]

Can you all stop your anti-QLC circlejerk and USE YOUR BRAINS for 5 seconds?

If QLC NAND was so bad that drives using it were consistently failing at the rate that OP has experienced, do you really think (and this is the part where you need to use your brains) that companies would be selling products using QLC? No, they would not, because they would be haemorrhaging money and customer satisfaction like no tomorrow.

4 dead QLC drives out of 4 dead QLC drives is not an indictment of QLC, it's an indictment of something else. What that is I don't know, but it's almost certainly a problem with the way OP is using or storing these drives. Maybe an NVMe controller is breaking them, maybe they need a firmware update. What I do know is that I, and millions of others, have and use QLC drives without problems, and will continue to do so.

No need to be rude. The OP posted their experience precisely because it's something you don't see every day.

QLC being a poor choice... that was known from day 1. Use it if your usage patterns allow it, avoid it otherwise. There's no hate here.

 

[lexluthermiester]

i'll never buy another QLC drive in my life.

Right there with you.

but "all QLC drives are bad" is quite a statement

To be fair, the newest drives are better than the QLC made just 2 years ago, however, it's still not fit for heavy use.

 

[Vayra86]

The Intel 670p is regularly around $65 for the 2TB, so it's a bit less. If one were really stretched for cash there's an argument to be made.

No its penny wise pound stupid, if they would cost 35 bucks, sure. And even then you'd merely break even, at best, but with lower reliability.

After all you get a third of the drive endurance, so why not a third of the cost? Simple math: QLC is more expensive over time. It is also more E-waste than TLC or better.

People always overlook the factor of time in any purchase or decision, its a strange thing - very human, too. Part of the reason poor people remain poor is because they feel 'forced' to purchase decisions like the one you've just highlighted. They haven't got the financial outlook to make a long term budgettary plan, even though they need it the most. Similar things apply to paying rent / subscriptions versus paying for ownership of a similar item.

4 dead QLC drives out of 4 dead QLC drives is not an indictment of QLC, it's an indictment of something else. What that is I don't know, but it's almost certainly a problem with the way OP is using or storing these drives. Maybe an NVMe controller is breaking them, maybe they need a firmware update. What I do know is that I, and millions of others, have and use QLC drives without problems, and will continue to do so.

You do you. The fact remains, QLC drives have substantially lower endurance while the price difference doesn't match that endurance gap.

QLC exists in the consumer space for a reason: lots of people have a very low level of PC usage, but still like it to boot fast and storage not to be expensive. QLC exists for the low intensity use case, and only in that use case will it have its merit. But QLC drives don't print that disclaimer on the packaging - its hidden in a spec sheet.