How Long Can SSD Store Data Unpowered? Year 1 Update
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2023
- #SSD #Archive #Testing
Long term SSD data storage test. How long can an SSD store data while unpowered? I'm doing my own basic test to store and check data after 1 year and 2 years left unpowered.
Link to WD White Paper on SSD and Hard Drive data retention: documents.westerndigital.com/...
Due to suggestions, I did end up doing a read test of the data. I unfortunately did not do a read test when disks were new, but I do have the 1 year test results here:
102458 Total MB
683 Total Files
150 MB Avg File Size
1 Year Check:
SSD 1 (Worn): 207 seconds total ~ 495 MB/sec avg read speed
SSD 2 (Fresh): 225 seconds total ~ 456 MB/sec avg read speed
While I don't have the original read speed results, I'd say there is really no degradation in performance so far with those rates. 
Наука
I thought I lost my usb drive. 7 years later I found it under my car seat. Might have slip out of pocket while driving. Data still intact after 7 years of brutal environment inside car, hot, cold.
I have had a USB flash drive in my car for years and it is about 15 years old (4GB) but its for mp3´s for the car stereo and since i drive very little its seldom even powered up and i have had no problems and here in Stockholm Sweden the outside temperature can be over 30 degres C in the summer (much more in the car) and -20-25 in the winter in the worst cases and also quite humid.
USD driver is HDD not SDD 🤦
@@privateassman8839It's still based off NAND tho
@@privateassman8839 🤦hdd is hard disk drive which is the thing with the spinning disks
@@privateassman8839 It's flash memory, i.e. the same tech as an SSD. So not a hard drive, not sure why you are so confidently wrong?
The oldest SSD I have checked was a 128MB thumb from 2005, lost since then in my junk drawer, until I FINALLY cleaned it out (almost 100% useless stuff). It was filled with pictures, videos, and documents I thought I had lost forever. It was fine. BTW, back then, that 128MB thumb drive sold for $18 at Target, which was a real bargain at the time.
$18 was pretty good tbh.
Thats a flash drive not an SSD lol. Very similar, SSDs use flash memory, but theyre a bit more complex on the inside than a thumb drive.
People are always super doom and gloom abkut flash media, SD cards etc over time. Its way overblown. If you dont abuse them and write read too often, theyll likely last a long time. Ive got SD cards that have been in devices with ocassional uae for like 15y and it still works fine.
I've still got a 32MB microSD card. I bet that was advanced at the time.
That's an SLC, 🥇 gold
Crazy to think about the fact that few years ago I paid around the same prize for 128gb thumb drive
What I'm actually surprised by is the fact that those 70TBW SSDs survived 280TBW. That's impressive
70TBW is guaranteed number
@@GewelReal yeah I see now. It would take at least decade of normal use to get there even, so this is reassuring
@@radiolover597 It’s _crucial_ for drives to store data as long as possible
@@radiolover597Really depends. Their P4 Plus ist really limited compared to size.
I'm not surprised in the least. Back around 2013 TechReport started an endurance test of SSDs where the Samsung 840 250 GB (early TLC drive) was the first to get errors after 300 TBW eventually failing completely at 800 TBW, and the 840 PRO 256 GB lasted the longest at over 2.4 PB before failure, yes that's right petabytes. Unfortunately Samsung never released the TBW for the normal 840 Series but they did for the 840 PRO which were rated at 73 TBW for enterprise usage, so we can assume the 840 Series was rated lower. Also in the test was an Intel 335 240 GB which lasted 750 TBW before failing and only had a single reallocated sector, Intel also didn't explicitly state the TBW but they did warranty it for 3 years with 20 GB writes per day which comes out to around 22 TBW.
In another test in 2017 by a German outlet they had a Samsun 850 PRO 256 GB reach a whopping 9.1 TB before failing which only has a 150 TBW, maybes me feel confident about my 6 year old 512 GB model I use as my main drive that only has 53 TB so far.
So yeah not surprising to me that they have surpassed their rated TBW by so much, reliability has gotten good especially for modern drives.
I read somewhere that modern NAND flash is almost immortal when run in SLC mode, since the charge level in the floating gate always remains far below spec, leakage at those levels is miniscule, and signal processing is way easier when the controller only has to check for the presence or absence of a charge. Though using SLC flash for bulk long term storage would be pretty silly for most applications due to the price.
By the way, this video was a pretty good reminder to power up some of my old forgotten devices to keep their little machine spirits from starving to death.
You can buy a SLC ssd for about the price of a hard drive up to 2TB. Silicon Power makes some decent SSD's.
@@JessicaFEREM Thats for sure not SLC, you are probably reading some advertisement bs like "SLC Cache" and other stuff they shove into names to make you think its something better. All it means is that your TLC cells are used as a cache in SLC mode meaning that your drive is only fast when empty because they didn't want to include actual cache on the drive.
The fact is that although real SLC is rare and expensive it is worth it to those who need speed and longevity. I would still very strongly advise against storing any important data on just one storage medium type. Ideally the more important it is the more copies there should be as well as a diversity in the type of media. This way if one copy is bad you hopefully still have good ones left. This can be for personal documents that don't get shared with ANYONE or with ones that you do share for various reasons. Also if the documents backed up were scans of any paper copies keep them too. That just gives you one more backup even though there may be more labor in scanning them again. Then if all else fails hopefully you still have the paper copies. Just remember to store them in a cool dry place where insects will not get in and destroy them. Some people may think that multiple backups is overkill but they don't realize that keeping those is a good idea. They are just cynical and think it is more money and while drives are not free they are surprisingly cheap these days. A 1 TB 2.5 inch hard drive was just a bit over $50 for me after taxes.
Even the MLC SSD nowadays is almost impossible to find in ordinary consumer market and only limited to server/data center level
If I could reflash my 512GB MLC to become 128G SLC, I would definitely do that!
Add to the statistics pile... I have an SSD as a boot drive in a rack server. I powered the machine down in the summer of 2016. Not expecting anything, I booted it back up about a month ago (2023) - so it had just sat for 7 years - and it was perfect! Everything fired up like nothing had happened.
For clearance you would have to make sure the hashes are matched, but ig it counts as a test.
I was going to comment on how useless a one year video would be (anyone who has known what an SSD is for more than a decade knows that they can safely expect one to last way way longer) but then it occurred to me: what if all the SSDs and flash drives that we have that have retained data for a decade or more have done so because they are a decade or more in age? What if modern SSDs are much worse? Thank you for this series.
I agree. You would need to have decades of drives to do this test and by then the units would be obsolete. Its a nice thought. I have a box full of old thumbdrives that i will probably never use, but when i go to look at one for making a giveaway content, i have to move data that has been sitting there for years and years (sometimes over 10yrs). I don't see data loss. Furthermore this test would be rendered useless unless people bought the same drives as you. I would for maintenance if just pluging in the drive is good enough, or you should move it to refresh it (ie does plugging it in refresh the state of all bytes to max) this test should be doable in some way.
I did buy SSD in the year 2011, but it didn't survive power surge. It took me a decade to buy another SSD, because data reliability is much more important than speed. However I also have an USB stick, which I bought in the same time and there are some MP3s in it. I tried to listen them this year and while you can still access them, some of them are corrupted. The corrupted data isn't constant. Part of the songs are all right and part of the songs have cracking sounds in it.
I was rather shocked to see the _manufacturer_ only claims a year! I'm certainly not going SSD any time soon!
I've got an old Kingston HyperX 2.5 that I still use to this day on random machines for a donor boot drive, etc. It's wearing down according to the S.M.A.R.T report, but still well within usable range even after ... 11 years.
But it does have some issues it appears in some part of it from time to time, and having (I think) identified the problem area of the memory in software side of things; I tend to just format around the sectors via byte based formatting.
Works like a charm after that, for the most part.
Meanwhile, some western digital m.2's I bought not even a couple years ago in total between them all have failing life spans despite being generally well taken care of. One of them outright failed I think in a bad enough way that it corrupted all sorts of boot files that to the best of my ability at least cannot be fixed without serious risk to the rest of the data on the device.
Sure, failures happen. But the other 2 similar m.2 drives I have aside from that one that failed; also have failing life spans already too.
Not a good look for WD from my angle.
Current machine being used has 2 P1600X optane m.2 drives. Low storage capacity, but so far absolutely zero issues. A little slower than the absolute fastest stuff out there now I admit; but stable as stable by definition gets as far as I am seeing so far. I've had these for about half a year so far. The WD's already started showing degradation by this point.
I love it. I might spring for the 500$ 960 GB U.2 version instead. (on sale right now.) If it's just as reliable as its m.2 smaller version, then I am quite happy to pay that much, and more; to go with a Raid 60? setup perhaps?.
Anyways. Aside from all of that; Samsung evo 2.5 drives seem to do well as far as I care so far as well. I've had a few in the past, but they got sold with other machines I built for people who didn't want to spend a lot on a new drive. Zero'd the data on those drives for them, did a test or two for reliability insurances, and didn't see any reason to not pass them on for a lower cost. Can't say for certain how long those are lasting those customers in the past, but based on how well my kingston one is doing and how well my other samsung 2.5's have done over the past decade prior to each's own sale as second hand; I suspect they are probably still working to this day. Aside from catastrophe somehow. I suspect my new 2TB one will probably last a decade before replacing it becomes a concern at all. Smart data on all my 2.5's of samsung brand in the past basically still had 97+% life span left prior to selling as used.
What else... oh; haven't booted up my other newest m.2 from samsung yet; cause the pro drives apparently need a firmware update right away prior to real use or you suffer a ridiculous drop in lifespan for the drive. no thanks.
So, I'm considering getting another optane drive for booting for that machine, and fix the samsung drive that way first before letting it get real use. Slight cost to the wallet, that mostly can be justified by just how stable those optane drives seem to be as boot drives.
Seriously. I can't begin to explain just how nice and stable this setup has been with them.
Does this also apply to USB thumb flash drives ? I have several 256MB USB flash drives that I purchased over 10 years ago and they all still hold the original data and pass all low level surface checks. I see from your video that SLC flash is more reliable than modern MLC flash memory. I think you should be writing to them 8 hours a day for a year before they start to degrade and not once then storing them away for year.
I have a couple of 60GB slc ssd drives of 13 years old, not powered on for at least 10 years. Data was still fine and one drive still worked perfectly. One has become really slow, like 100KB/s write speed. These were used in a server and cost 750 euros a piece. It ran an intensive database application.
I use 2x 8TB qlc ssd drives for storage and backup every 1-3 months for 9 months now, so far no issues. The backup is powered off and stored at a differend location.
Check the SMART info on that slow one. When SSDs have used up all their hot swap cells they tend to drop the write speed way down to prompt people to back it up before it dies. Some SSDs when they fail will block writing completely. Some SSDs will self brick and make themselves unreadable so you data is inaccessible.
@@greggv8 that drive didn't have diagnostics I could read, maybe a proprietary tool would be able to but I'm not sure.
@@imqqmi From my experience the data in those flash drives outlasts the functionality of the controllers. All the broken SSD's I encountered had a dead flash controller.
For craps and giggles you could just wipe the slow drive and try to write then see if the performance returns to normal as some have experienced with some models of Samsung drives.
@@MrKillswitch88 would be worth a try because many SSDs slow a lot when they're over 50% full
Appreciate the time and effort you are taking to conduct these tests! Looking for to the next results.
Crazy how humans managed to create such micro architecture and it still managed to surpass over 4 times it's manufactured limit. Kinda mind boggling. Also great experiment, and an informative video about digital data storage to boot. Love to see more!
Think that's crazy back in 2015 TechReport had a Samsun 840 PRO reaching over 2.4 PB written without error which is 33 times its rated limit of 73 TBW, and in 2017 a German outlet had a 850 Pro 250 GB last a whopping 9.1 PB before dying which is 60 times its rated limit of 150 TBW.
Since SSD's, they are dancing to prevent parallel architecture. Every storage chip should be part of a "striping RAID" by default, pulling 100% of the available bus bandwidth for data transfer. The whole storage market became a collective scam.
I just found a 12-year old USB drive recently.. a rabbit-themed Chinese New Year exclusive Kingston USB drive with a whopping 8GB storage, which was top of the line back in the day. Coincidentally this year it's the Year of the Rabbit as well, so it has come full circle. Worked fine. My files and backups from 12 years ago are still in there, and when viewed based on detailed properties they're all still showing that they're created or last modified 12 years ago!
wow, succinct, no bs, no flashy garbo, just a simple, concise, and effective presentation. thank you sir.
My dad recently found a micro SD card he lost in our gravel driveway. He plugged it in and it still had all the video footage from 2014 completely intact. Who knows how many times cars have driven over it and its been rained and snowed on during those 9 years!
I lost a Sandisk USB pendrive, 16gb, somewhere around the house, i moved 3 times during that time, i find it with the last move i made, it was stuck under a flap of a box of random stuff! Ow, how long was this pendrive lost? About 10 years, yeah, crazy, i know! And did it still had anything on it? Yes, yes it conserved all the data wonderfully, it had some pictures and music on it. It's insane that a usb pendrive can hold data for that long!
During my last move I came across a box of my old floppy disks. (5.25 inch and 3.5 inch) Although these were all in perfect physical condition (being kept in a sealed box the entire time of their storage) They had been sitting for the best part of 40 years. Not a single one of those disks could be read anymore. Some of them I managed to format to make them useable again but this was just out of curiosity. Most of them couldn't even be low level formatted any more. Seems the magnetic coating on those disks was not too reliable.
Not the same kind of memory.
@@KenFullman I had some Atari floppies in storage for 3 years. Not climate controlled. I have been able to read several with no problems. A few had 1 or 2 bad sectors.
@@KenFullman technically the only way that should’ve happened is if they were exposed to any some sort of magnetic field while they were in storage
Yup, the data is just not there yet. But with experiments like in this video we will get there.
Thanks a ton. This is a really valuable underrated experiment and I'm grateful that you have the patience and the go to try this.
I had a CF card sitting there in it's container for around 20 years untouched. When I hooked it up to see what was on it... I still had all my photos. I had an SD card that went missing for me somehow. I found it well over 1 year later in the wash machine. It was still perfect and I am currently using it again now. If it can handle hundreds of washes in super hot water and then cold water... it's very durable.!
I found someone's cheap SD card in the dirt and snow on the street and it works perfectly clean. Although such cards very sensitive during writing, broken few by interruption and many fake on market from China.
@@fontende Once in my life I bought a cheap card, thought they're all the same. it died 1/2 way through a trip. I said NEVER AGAIN. Since my CF card was SanDisk and it was always good. The one in the wash machine was a higher end SanDisk card. I bought the CF Card back in 2000-ish. It was $125 for a 125 Mega Bite Capacity! Now (because of that) I don't mind spending a bit for a card, they're all cheaper than that was!!
@@fontendethat's funny you're mentioning China because I have a silicon power 32 gb micro SD card made in china that I bought in 2012 and I never had any data corruption and it's still working fine. It's currently in my Samsung galaxy a21s, that I use as a secondary phone
@@galaxiedance3135it's easy to spot cheap cards, they're for most part, not branded. SanDisk quality has also gone downhill recently and I prefer using Kingston instead
This valuable research. Thanks for the time you spent so far on this. Keep on going! We are watching!
It's really weird how the RUclips algorithm works. I normally don't watch videos with only 40 views, but this one piqued my interest.
Great video! I'm looking forward to future updates. See you again in the coming years. :D
Hey, glad you liked it. Thanks for the positive comments.
Very cool. Just one thing I'd recommend: Write the data in a raw format to the SSD. I don't know how to do this in Windows but on Unix systems, for example on Linux, you can copy the bytes coming from /dev/urandom onto the SSD directly (without filesystem or partition table) and just calculate the hash of that.
For example:
sudo dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdc bs=2M oflag=sync status=progress
sudo sha256sum /dev/sdc # this will print the SHA256 hash
Then later you can just calculate that one hash again and determine if anything changed much more easily, without a filesystem. And it would also be more accurate since you're checking every single byte.
You're right, he should test for absolute changes. Filesystems and the like often have error correction which could interfere with these tests.
@@HappyGick most filesystems don't have data checksums (ZFS does, but FAT certainly doesn't). the real issue is that all SSD firmware actually uses a redundant encoding for blocks, and you can't count on being able to read data before it's been corrected.
so the hashing is probably pointless: the firmware is already detecting and correcting corruption, and won't return incorrect blocks (will return an error instead).
@@markhahn0 Then these tests would measure how recoverable an SSD is after it's been unused for years. There's no way to measure absolute changes.
This has been immensely useful info as it's extremely rare to find such long-term experiments. Eased my mind quite a bit as well, thanks!
I like this video. It got my curiosity up, so I dug out a box of old thumb/usb drives as well as ten year old (give or take a year or two or more) sata ssd drives that were used in car washes, pos's, etc. While it took about five days to go through them, none of them shown any loss of data. It blew my mind that they were more reliable than the spinning hard drives that I had stored, and went through because I was curious. out of the 87 various thumb drives and 32 ssd drives none were bad. Out of the 148 ide drives four were bad and out of the 59 sata drives 3 were bad, they were all stored in working condition. Thanks for the video, and now I got a "gonna do someday" project behind me.
I enjoyed the brief lecture on how ssds work. Upon seeing the title of this video I didnt realize that I dont really know how data is stored on ssds. Very informative!
Thank you for your contribution. Experiments like these are hard to come by and very interesting to me.
Nice experiment! Well planned and prepared! W8ing for upcoming results.
Wow what a systematic and comorehensive testing you have done 👌. Appreciate all the efforts and time. I have fallen in love with this channel. So much advanced knowledge is available regarding storage and other topics.
Keep it up. My best wishes
Interesting. Subscribed to see the results next year
This is something I wondered about too many times and couldnt find a good answer or even a test for that matter. Thank you so much.
Really nice to see someone testing this. Hope to see findings in a year.
An absolute wonderful, gem of a video. Loved to see the long term planned video, this what makes the Internet so incredible.
AWESOME - thank you for doing these types of tests!
it's very satisfying to see the proof in the pudding. thanks for running these tests and making the video
I never really thought about this before I have just transferred over 3tb of movies from two hdds to my second nvme 4tb drive in my PC and i would have just left it like that forever, but, oh the reality, i must think again so thanks
I've had laptops sitting around for years with SSDs and they booted just fine with all data intact many years later. About the only times I've ever heard about this happening was with MUCH lower quality flash chips.
No doubt. But the conundrum is that older SSD's were SLC or MLC which are more robust with more room for error. Modern SSD's in the last 5-8 years are primarily TLC or QLC which wear down more quickly and a small amount of data leakage can result in data corruption.
@@htwingnut I agree, also modern ssd's are now having to handle gigabytes and terabytes of writes instead of megabytes so a much greater density of bits increases the potential bit rate errors.
I data integrity to speed. Since I only use my rig for office and databases I am using a hdd. Has anyone tried a modem hdd? They are so underrated. I am currently booting my win 10 os in well under a minute
@@addydiesel6627 Yeah, I prefer hdd for storing docs, data, apps etc.. I only use a small ssd for booting the OS and a 2GB ram drive for my browser cache and temp files.
@@addydiesel6627what is a modem HDD?
Keep up the good work. I appreciate your deep dives.
Still amazes me how much information we can get on such a small scale
Well, wow! A test that takes 3 years to finish, thanks for doing this!
Thanks for making this. Super interesting stuff.
Interesting test! See you next year!
This is interesting and impressive. I am actually writing a review on NVM right now, and I'll state that the more common standard I see these days in academic work is 10-year retention, so you may see no degradation even after 4, but seeing it empirically confirmed is cool. Pivotal 10-year retention is always extrapolated from very accurate readings of the floating gate over smaller time periods, so I was unsure of that actually translates to real world success. Cool to see that it does even in cheap drives. Of course all these measures are statistical anyways, so you might always see a faulty device or just bad luck or have a gate hit with a cosmic ray or whatever, but even so the longevity improvements of modern SSDs is amazing.
I started using SSD at work in around 2006. I'd backup configs and drivers to encrypted zips across two drives.
Out of 24 drives. 2 are totally dead (I haven't tried logic analyser on actual chips yet), rest are fine . Mixture of IBM, Samsung, Fujitsu, Seagate, Kingston drives. Some I'd already re-purposed for RPI. All the SSDs from 2012 are still fine in the Last PC I built.
This is very interesting and scary. Interesting because I had a 2GB USB drive around 2004 that I carried a lot of my school assignments and left in my office drawer. When I went back to it around 2009 and try to use it, it no longer works. It was just some old school assignments docs and spreadsheets so no big deal but if it was more important files it would have been a problem.
As more and more users switch out from the older HDD drives to SSD and NVME for faster OS bootup and read/write, it is going to be crazy if we don't use the pc or laptop for a few years and then find out the SSD or NVME no longer have the data.
Recently cleaned up one of my storage and found an old PC that I had around 1998 with a 6GB Hard Drive. Connect to it and it works great 25 years later. I doubt SSD or NVME would be able to retain the data that long.
Great stuff! It's pretty amazing how we've managed to store data in nano charges and on tiny chips. I thought vinyl was cool, but when we figured out magnettic tape and the various laser writing technology, things went crazy.
Data storage in general is a fascinating and incredibly faceted topic.
Keep up the great work!
Nice! Waiting for the update!
Subscribed and it's a very interesting topic you got here
All i have to say is thank you for your continued service sir.
The 1 year retention spec is a minimum based on end of life with all write cycles exhausted. SSDs with only a few cycles on them will retain data for far longer.
What impresses me is how much he blew the write cycles out of the water, and it's still perfectly fine. Definitely interested for the two year data hold next year.
Man, awesome video, couldn't stop watching, and thoroughly explained. Good job! I know it's your own pocket money but I wonder if also testing some TLC and QLC would have surfaced something.
very cool effort ❤, thanks !
Good to know. Thank you for this test! Appreciate it
Like the other commenters, I have also found super old thumb drives and such without any issues. My favorite is a little mini mp3 player I bought around 16 years ago. I put my entire library on it at the time and used it daily pretty much up until 2010 when I replaced it with my first smartphone. It has sat in various drawers and whatnot over the years and still works to this day.
Awesome video!
very well done tests, very well presented video, thank you a lot :)
This is such an important thing to do, but also so nerdy. I love it.
Thank you for doing this -- it is appreciated :)
Cool experiment 😉. thanks!
I found a similar test to this on the internet, but it was a lot more comprehensive, and it included recording temperature and storage temperature. The higher the recording temperature, the longer the endurance; the lower the storage temperature, the longer the endurance, so you want to record hot and store cold. You can also use a parity archive tool, which uses a repair file to fix your corrupted files. The larger your repair file, the larger the amount of data you can fix. About once a year, I make an image of my hard drive which I put on an SSD, add a parity archive file (made with Multipar), and store the whole thing in the freezer. I could be wrong, but I reckon that shold be safe for a minimum of 5 years, perhaps even 10.
Each one of those gates is like a mini battery, holding a cluster of electrons as a charge....
If you toss a battery into the freezer then that's gonna go flat real soon.
I don't know why or how your strategy could work, but I hope for your data's sake that you're right.
I'm not confident about my 1:1 comparison of battery:NANDflash transistor either, but one of us is gonna be right in the end haha.
@@Yezpahrbatteries rely on chemical reactions. NANDs not so much.
Great test. Thanks.
This is great to test. There are some considerations, however.
Planar TLC drives are especially bad for cold(offline) storage, as 3D nand flash seems to have much better data retention characteristics across a worn drive.
JEDEC specifications for TBW are intended to be performed with the drive half full for 75% of the writes, I believe? This is down from previous testing standards that required 80% or 90% full TBW ratings, which some of these drives are rated for.
Colder operating temperatures for nand flash is more damaging for drive writes, as the electrons don't flow as easily into and out of the cell. Warm storage temperatures will also more quickly lose data, as the electrons more easily flow into and out of the cell.
There are actually whitepapers on testing NAND flash of various kinds, though they're awfully hard to find these days. I've read parts of one such paper that suggest early(32 layer) TLC Nand flash has a data retention time of around 18~24 months depending on wear leveling, whereas planar TLC had something more like 3~18 months as I recall? But, my memory is hazy on the numbers. Planar data retention decreased linearly with wear, though, whereas stacked NAND for some reason beyond my understanding retains data much more consistently until much closer to cell failure.
MLC has been used by Samsung to misleadingly describe 3bit and 4bit cells. Scummy samsung.
In theory, the number of bits per cell should predictably decrease data retention time. Taking SLC as a value of 1, 2bit should be 0.5, 3bit 0.25, and 4bit 0.125.
Older microSD or thumb drives can retain data offline for a very long time, because multi-level cell nand flash wasn't as available. Some of these may have not even used NAND flash at all. Some flash storage technologies can retain data for multiple decades reliably, making flash media technically the longest lasting electronic cold storage media, for very low-density storage.
Not only does QLC seem like a horrible deal but they are always trying to make it denser too. I know everyone wants more but they don't realize what they are asking for.
Yes, exactly. Many QLC SSD's are no faster than, or in many cases even slower than even a laptop hard drive. The only real benefit are fast seek times.
I get why years ago there was a push for QLC since at the time flash was still expensive, but boy has that changed now! In todays newegg email there was a teamgroup 4TB SATA TLC SSD for $137! At those prices it's not worth using QLC drives now, even though their performance is almost the same as TLC on SATA drives. But during those years of QLC development and improvement TLC wasn't standing still. They went from 32 layer to 64 to 96 to 128, and they say more layers will keep being added. What I would love to see happen is that now that flash has gotten so damn cheap, why not make 2 & 4TB drives that are made of 100% SLC NAND? So instead of how it is now where a small portion of a drive can be used as a SLC cache, and after it's full write speeds fall off a cliff, 100% of the drive would be able to write at full speed 100% of the time. Yes, it would cost more than the TLC drives we are using now, but these would allow the SSD makers to once again have their "halo" products like the Samsung Pro drives used to be for Samsung. People would pay more for 100% SLC drives like those that do 4K video editing since as you noted SLC has the highest write cycle endurance.
I have a 240GB Samsung 840 EVO, which was the SSD that sparked the whole "Why are SSDs losing data when unpowered" frenzy many years ago. Samsung issued a software fix that they wouldn't say what it does to combat the problem. But that drive is still in this system and works fine, so whatever the fix was hasn't appeared to harm the drive. The rumor that went around was that it would "refresh" the nand by rewriting the drive over time. If true it must not do it excessively because the last time I looked at the drive health(which has been a year or so) it was at 99%.
2.5" SSD are mostly empty space, so why not pack more chips inside which are less dense? Problem solved.
@@radry100because it costs money. Chips cost per square millimetre to make. The packaging is a small part of the cost. The more you can store in a square millimetre the cheaper you can make an SSD of a given capacity.
Oh yes they do. They really don't care. "But it's still going to last longer than you will". No, not every ssd lasts people 100 years, dudes.
Hey, man, I appreciate the experiment and the video. Nice, dilligent, professional work you did there! No non-sense, too. 👍🏻
A quick side-question: What is the rack/external bay you're using there? It caught my eye instantly. Thanks!
Valuable experiment, thank you.
Madlad. Thank you for your service!
Interesting video. Thanks again.
Thanks I hope you follow through with this. Great idea. Subscribed to follow.
Great research, brother. I'm sure it will make many computer-nerds like meself sleep better at night.
very cool. thank you for the hard work.
Excellent research, was really wondering how much an ssd would last un-powered. I messed up my company's laptop ssd and I'm on parental leave for about 2 years. So it seems that time is not on my side. I highly doubt even the cheapo ssd's will fail to retain data even after 2 years of being un-powered or even minimal data loss. Anyway great video!
Even a cheap USB flash drive will keep data for 10 years - an SSD will keep the data well beyond even that. SSD/HDD manufactures are very conservative when they state the data retention dates.
@@lophilip Got any proof of that?
Cheapo USB flash drives invariably use cheap flash memories paired with cheap flash controllers. Multiple low standards, multiple points of failure. Which basically means that failure is almost guaranteed given enough time.
I've had USB flash drives corrupt or lose data after just a few uses. All it takes is one failed cache write, one power failure, one operating system bluescreen - and data integrity is at risk. Good for moving files to another machine, otherwise untrustworthy.
At least proper SSD drives (even external USB SSD drives) tend to have better silicon and better engineering. Along with failsafes built into the USB/PCIe/NVMe/M.2 protocols they use - and sometimes even onboard and offboard capacitors which can provide cache store and graceful shutdown in emergencies.
Had an ASUS tablet plus keyboard transformer like device not switched for almost 1.5 years and yep it lost it os drive and cannot boot. Flash soldered so haven't taken off yet to see what on them. Two other ASUS tablets, a win8 and android were still good with roughly the same power cying. All my ignored kindle readers one fire are all OK, but the batteries really don't like holding charge.
How long to flash bios chips last? I've got some 20 year old boards that are still going strong. It's not the same, but it's kinda the same.
Ancient phones that have been collecting dust in a drawer will still power up no problem (on USB power) after years and years. That flash seems to survive just fine.
Thanks so much! Good info!
Very good interesting experiment… Thanks for taking the time and effort sharing the results. BR, Per (DK)
This is a great video. I lost a usb for many years and noticed corruption. I always wondered. thank you
Interesting, I'll have to keep tabs on this; thanks.
Subbed, so I won’t miss 4 year results😅
I found an old ssd from 2017 and recently used it in an old parts build for my friend, still booted up windows and all the maleware perfectly intact.
Thank you this is highly valuable! :)
Super interesting! Thank you
Gonna be interesting to see the result in a few years down the track
I never really gave this a thought. But I just dug out an old laptop that has an SSD that has not been turned on for at least 3 years and it booted without issue.
Good to hear. It seems there's a lot of unfounded fear online about SSD long term storage. However, there is no substitute for a proper backup to keep your data safe.
@@htwingnut Absolutely. Data is the one thing that cannot be easily replaced. I image all of my machines regularly (at least the ones I use).
just recalled that I have a 512G ssd just sitting somewhere with some cold data. I would love to move them to HDD's but because of other reasons cant really afford more now haha.
I need to check if it's still having my data. It probably is not powered for just like 8 months now but eh
@@hariranormal5584 just try to full error check so the data is rewritten (recharged), not to often tho.
recently found an old 512mb usb stick, data is easily 13 years old and still fully survived.
The minimum retention time is also once the drive has reached the specified endurance limit. A young drive will store data a lot longer.
Nice. I am sure it will last very long. Otherwise we would be hearing more widespread issue from people about this. I do not think being unpowered changes anything really compared to being powered and not being written / read in particular pages / bits. Maybe it is related to temperature. Also according to JEDEC, there are derating tables, that depend on active use temperature and offline temperature. With higher active temp, and lower offline temp, helping prolong retention. A lot, sometimes by a factor of 10 times.
On the other hand I did not see many experimental publications on it either, so it would be interesting to see more results.
I have a server rack with few servers at home. Two of these servers I unpowered about 4-5 years ago, and they are offline. They are mostly storage servers with spinning rust, but boot drives are 2x SAMSUNG PRO SATA SSD drives in one, and 2x Crucial MX500 in the other. Or something like that. Before unpowering they were running for about 6-7 years. Not much load on SSDs, or too important data. Just usual Linux updates, some logs in /var, etc. So maybe 30GB written during their entire life. I should power them up, and check out.
I do have also an old laptop with SSD, that I maybe power once a year, with pretty old drive, and it is still working perfectly.
wow this is good information, Thank you.
Hi. Very thorough, good scientific video. May I ask, do you know if data retention is better with nvme vs sata ssd? Or, due to the fact that they are both flash, they both suffer from the same issue? Thank you.
They both use the same type of NAND flash chips. So it would be the same result. I do personally think it's a non-issue for the most part. Just don't let a disk sit whether it's SSD or hard drive for any length of time without at least powering it on once or twice a year and verifying the contents are ok.
By "verifying the contents are ok" can I assume that simply plugging it in and randomly playing a video or an mp3 from the disk should suffice? Or should I scan the whole drive with Windows' Disk check or Mac's Disk utility in order to check for errors?@@htwingnut
Cool see you next year.
A question I have not seen answered yet is, "how long do I need to power the drive on for to refresh the cell charges/data integrity?" Is it a case of just powering the drive on for a few seconds, a few days, or do the actual files need to be rewritten?
Or does permanent damage occur to the drive's data retention ability when left powered off?
What I've read is that it's advisable to either copy the data to a fresh drive when in doubt, or to run a full diagnostic on it so it's basically forced to address all the bits at least once. I that won't refresh the trapped charge I don't know what will.
ssd drivers doing it automatically via controller - manual copying is only for mechanical driers. @@Krawurxus
The engineering in these things is amazing.
this is incredible , thnak you
They do tend to slow down with old stale data before they lose the data. ECC just kicks in more and more. I've seen that symptom countless times on high end name brand SSD's all the way to generic. The better drives of course will re-write a borderline sector if ECC worked a bit too hard. Moving the sector as a last resort. Point being is some drives might never lose any data if you read them each year. Too hard to call, too many controllers on the market. Good luck.
What would you recommend for storage of data, such as family photos, videos? As well as possible procedure/s to retain it long term(10-30 years)?
Doesn't reading from the ssd(powering it) refresh the individual flash cells? I would've though that if you tested the same drive after a year and 3 years, youve only effectively tested a 2 year gap of the drive not being powered?
Great video though, looking forward to the update
That's dedication!!
Thanks for sharing 👍
wow nice test
ChatGPT:
For consumer-grade SSDs, you can generally expect data retention periods of 1 to 2 years at a minimum, with many exceeding 5 years if stored under typical conditions.
For enterprise-grade SSDs and high-quality, well-maintained SSDs, you can often expect data retention periods of 5 to 10 years or longer.
Thank you. I also asked ChatGPT and got a similar answer. However I also asked if it could site source references and it said this was from general consensus. Not to mention, those spans are for SSD's within TBW ratings not 3-4x the TBW rating.
Also, the Jedec standard indicates the opposite. Enterprise disks tend to be run harder and longer and hotter as well as stored in higher temps and indicate data retention less than a year.
Very interesting. I'm going to guess that, as long as they're kept in a cool, dry place 5 years shouldn't be a problem, 10 years should still be fine but maybe expect some errors and 15 years + is pushing it. I would also guess that mechanical drives are probably better for storing really long term, like for family photo's and things, but then again they have moving parts that could fail. The problem is that it's quite a hard variable to test without spending the actual time testing!
No problem, just live longer. I'm testing vinyl records since 20th century, soon i'll start with ssd to finish testing in 22nd century.
Nice experiment. But wouldn't you test two years without power like this about three times?
After one year, you power the first set up, so they are basically reset. You check the same set again after (initial experiment start + 3 years), which is only two years after they last have been powered on.
And that is also the time frame for the second set.
Same goes if the three years would start after the first year, which makes four years.
could you elaborate please?
How do you actually factor in the reset of power levels during your tests?
Or are they not reset, because no data is written to them?
When you plug it in, it doesn't "reset" or "refresh" the cells. SSD's have to write at the page or block level. This would take a lot of time to "refresh" the cells, at least as much time as it takes to write to the entire SSD. The SSD does not know how log it's been unpowered. The only thing that would trigger it would be the wear leveling algorithm or garbage collection. But those usually require some form of file addition or deletion.
@@htwingnut Thank you for the answer it makes sense.
So basically your test is to check data integrity but if you take a brand new SSD, it should still work in 5 years even without power ? You would just lose your data ? The SSD would be still functional ? (if we assume actual material decay is negligible)
Should be a fun series!
Sarcasm? 🤣
@@marcse7en Some of my favourite past times as a kid was hanging out with the school mate nerds at the library lol!
@@TradieTrev As long as you were having fun with your mates, there's nothing wrong with that! 👍🤣
Now this is interesting Content I didnt even know that the data of the Storages can get removed from not using them for years
Thats a long mission, cool! ❤😊
I had one sitting for about 8 years. I started using it recently, no issues and works perfect
I also have 16GB thumb drives from 2007, still work perfect also. Some I started to use recently as well. Nothing was lost
as you note, TLC has an endurance of about 3k cycles, so your 128G SSDs should have a rating of about 385TB, and you took them to 280 or less. I don't know where the endurance rating of 60TB would come from - that sounds like QLC, actually.
thanks for doing this, even if it turns out not to be quite the worst-case you were aiming for...
Good point. I made an error. Newest JS600 SSD's seem to be QLC with 60TB TBW for the 128GB version: www.leven.com.tw/en/ssd/view/JS600-128GB
But original were labeled as TLC, and Leven confirmed 1000-3000 P/E cycles. Images for clarification: imgur.com/a/IkBmwf1
@@htwingnutback in November 2012 when I bought my LG Optimus l5 running android 4.0.3, I bought a silicon power (made in china) 32 gb micro SD card which was a class 4 speed card, pretty much common back in the days. I used it a lot and even though, it's now slow, it still works perfectly after eleven years.
Some people just love to put fake information on the internet like how SSD couldn't be trusted and how HDDs are great when it's the other way around
Great Video Thks