Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > alt.comp.hardware > #20729

Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out?

Show all headers | View raw

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in news:vomtr3$3cnqe$1@dont-email.me:

> On Fri, 2/14/2025 12:47 AM, Boris wrote:
>> I understand that HDDs can have mechanical failures, but when SSDs
>> came on the scene, I wondered how it is that SSDs 'wear' out.  I've
>> got many machines with HDDs (one is a 20 year old XP box, still
>> working fine) and some with SSDs, none of which have failed.  I've
>> also got many external HDDs, all still good.
>> 
>> Anyway, I've always heard that SSDs can wear out after many writes. 
>> I started to read about the physical construction of  SSDs, but I
>> ended going down the rabbit hole, reading about wear leveling and, of
>> course trim, but never found anything about *why* a SSD 'wears' out.
>> 
>> How does a SSD wear out?  And while I'm asking, does the same
>> 'wearing' out occur happen on a USB flash drive?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
> 
> The physical cells, the structure at the atomic level, is
> damaged by the writes.
> 
> Each cell has a "voltage" stored on it. Established by putting
> some electrons on a floating gate. The path for this is
> quantum mechanically disallowed, and to get the electrons
> onto the gate requires tunneling. The electrons will sit
> on the gate for up to ten years (retention time estimate, info
> on this has not been updated in a long long time so we are left
> to guess whether it scales in any way with gate size).
> 
> Imagine a capacitor, charged to any voltage between 0.000V and 1.000V.
> If we divide the cell voltage into "ranges of voltage", we can
> associate values with the voltage. 0.125V = 001, 0.250V = 010, 0.375V
> = 011 and so on. This requires some fairly careful charging. By
> dividing the voltages like this, there isn't a lot of noise margin.
> 
> The cell voltage is passed to an analog comparator. It defines a
> "window of voltages" for which 001 is the interpretation, another
> "window of voltages" for which 010 is the interpretation.
> 
> In this way, we can store multiple bits per cell (three bits in the
> example given so far, or TLC). Notice though, that the more "bits"
> we pretend to store in each cell, the voltage ranges are getting
> smaller and smaller. Our greedy stuffing of bits like this,
> shortens the estimated drive life.
> 
> If there is any threshold shift in the cell as it ages,
> then the voltages could be thrown off. This causes an
> equivalent "bit corruption", when the interpreted voltage is
> incorrect. 
> 
> Back when flash storage devices had one bit per cell (SLC),
> the noise margins were very good. You could write the cell
> 100,000 times, and the voltage value was always interpreted
> correctly. Any voltage over 0.500V was a logic 1, any
> voltage less than 0.500V was a logic 0.
> 
> But we could not be happy with our (mostly bulletproof) discovery.
> We insisted on density over integrity. Thus the TLC and QLC
> SSDs of today, stuff more bits per cell, and the corrected
> value (taking write amplification into account) is 600 writes per
> cell. Which is a large drop compared to the SLC value of 100,000
> writes per cell. 
> 
> A 1TB drive may have a rating of 600TBW. That amounts to writing
> the drive 600 times, end to end. If you buy a 2TB drive, the rating
> is 1200TBW, which is still 600 writes of 2TB each time. SSDs are
> like toilet paper, they are a consumable item, they wear out.
> 
> OK, so let's try to use our shiny new SSD. Everyone likes to write
> sector 0 (the MBR). Perhaps it receives more writes than the other
> sectors. Before I know it, the MBR has been written 600 times.
> Yet, my copy of shell32.dll has only been written 1 time. Our SSD
> got "wore out" by abusing only one of the sectors. That's not very
> good. without some clever scheme, you can "burn a hole" in the SSD.
> We had to fix that.
> 
> By mapping the sectors, using a mapping table, and "moving the MBR
> around each time it is written", that is wear leveling. The drive has
> a pool of unwritten blocks. On a write request, an unused block is
> written. Perhaps the block is at address 27, and it contained MBR
> sector 0. The map file the drive keeps then, it has to remember that
> aspect. On a read, we request sector 0, the map goes "oh, that is
> block 27", and the drive does the read at that address, and there is
> our MBR. Now, if I abuse the MBR by writing it a lot, a hole isn't
> burned in it. The sector has been "virtualized", and only the mapping
> table knows where my sector is stored :-)
> 
> When you TRIM a drive, that exchanges usage information with the
> drive. You tell the drive, "at the current time, there is nothing at
> address 27, so you can put it in your spare pile". This can improve
> the write speed of the drive, as it has more bulk material when
> it does housekeeping inside, and rearranges your data (under the
> direction of the edited map table). If you ask for a sector (white
> space) that has been moved into the free pool pile, then zeros are
> substituted. *This has an impact on your UnErase capability with
> Recuva.* If you erase a file by mistake, do a TRIM, then the erased
> file, the clusters are "gone". But other than that side effect, the
> TRIM is an attempt to give the SSD a "hint" as to which areas of the
> drive don't really need storage, because they are white space
> on the partition and no "used clusters" are stored there.
> 
> What is the end result of all this ? Well, at the end of life,
> you could have written the MBR *thousands* of times and it does
> not matter. The statistics of the free pool usage, and the
> re-circulation of the blocks, means that one block is written 599
> times, another block 600 times, a third block 601 times, but the
> blocks have been worn equally with pretty low spread between blocks.
> The "wear" on the cells, has been equalized by the wear leveling
> schemes. 
> 
> It also means, if you pop a flash chip out of the drive, and read
> it sequentially with your lab reader device, the data is "scrambled"
> and almost unreadable. Unless the technician can find the map file,
> the data is spread all over the place.
> 
> A USB flash stick doesn't do this. A USB flash stick with TLC cells in
> it, wears out in no time. A USB flash stick with SLC cells, it just
> goes and goes, seemingly forever.
> 
> Whereas, via a lot of whizzy tech, the SSD is an observably more
> reliable device, and via watching the wear life field in the SMART
> table, you can tell how many years remain on the drive. You can write
> the MBR a thousand times right now, and the predicted life of the
> drive does not change all that much. It's still "99% good". Whereas if
> you did that to the USB stick you bought from Walmart, now it is dead
> (because the MBR can't be used any more).
> 
> There is atomic level damage to the structure of the cell, on writes.
> The level of damage is temperature dependent. The predicted
> charge retention time on a write is also temperature dependent.
> Scientists noticed this in the lab, that there was less damage
> at elevated temperature. They figured out, if we could "anneal"
> the drive after some period of usage, the cells would be almost
> brand new in terms of structural damage. But nobody has figured
> out a way to make individual cells "anneal" on command. And I think
> the temperature required for this, might be slightly out of range
> for the materials used in the drive. The annealing remains as a
> lab curiosity.
> 
> Generally speaking, all storage devices like to know their
> temperature, during a write. The controls at the point of writing,
> may need to be "temperature compensated". A hard drive makes some
> adjustment, if the housing is running at high temperature.
> An SSD may be doing the same sort of thing.
> 
> If we were willing to accept a drop in drive capacity, then we
> would no longer need to be staring at the SMART table all the time.
> 
>    [Picture]   the SMART table of my SSD drive right now...
> 
>     https://i.postimg.cc/rsxhfq4x/crystal-daily-driver-4-TBSSD.gif
> 
> Notice that my drive has been running for 14,000 hours, and it is
> at 99% good. That means, based on averages, it might last to 1,400,000
> hours at the current rate of usage.
> 
> If I were a video editor, editing raw video (200GB per vid), and
> saving those out multiple times a day, I would go through that drive
> in no time. One of the reasons the usage is so low on that drive, is I
> use my RAMDisk for a lot of stuff, and the SSD does not get the wear.
> Some of my VMs, the container gets transferred to the RAMDisk,
> I do some stuff, I throw the container away at the end of the session.
> Thus, my usage is not an indication of what your usage will be.
> 
> One partition, it gets to store those pictures above. So that
> partition is contributing to the wear of the device. That, and Windows
> Defender scans (which write out some sort of status).
> 
> In terms of backup policy then, I won't have to worry for a number
> of years, about the life of the drive. However, if the drive has
> a "heart failure", like if the map file got trashed or some other
> metadata table got trashed, maybe the next day, the drive would not
> detect and I could not boot. While that outcome is obscure, there
> have been cases of my drive taking a dump like that. And that is
> why we still need backups (preferably on a cheap and large hard
> drive). 
> 
> Back in the OCZ era (first generation SSDs), heart failures were more
> common, and this had to do with the quality of the firmware the drive
> runs inside. The drive has processor cores, multiple of them, and
> the firmware the drive runs, has to juggle the map file without losing
> it. On one occasion, when Intel was entering the SSD business, their
> firmware people took one look at samples of code written, and they
> were not at all happy about the firmware qualities. Intel then rewrote
> the firmware for their drive, and did not copy anyone elses firmware
> (via buying the firmware along with the controller chip used). There
> was a general industry silence after this event, but my presumption
> is, that information made the rounds in the industry, about what sort
> of tricks were needed to improve on loss of metadata and so on.
> 
> What the drive is doing, is tricky. It must have atomic updates,
> some sort of journal inside. It must have all sorts of protections
> inside, to protect it on a power fail. The drives don't use a
> Supercap for emergency power. Some of the drives don't even have
> DRAM for the map file storage (HMB Host Managed Buffer drives).
> The ball juggling going on inside the drive is perilous. Yet,
> my drive has had a few power fails, without disappearing on me :-)
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
>    Paul

Thanks much for the  education.  I've read it over many times, and it's 
taken me to all sorts of articles, starting with those on floating gate 
transistors.

https://tinyurl.com/zcj5j4d7

I have a question:

Does each cell have only one bit ("1" or "0") of changeable information?

Back to alt.comp.hardware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

How Do SSDs Wear Out? Boris <Boris@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-14 05:47 +0000
  Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-14 03:11 -0500
    Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-17 21:46 +0100
      Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 00:28 -0500
        Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 14:26 +0100
    Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? Boris <Boris@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-18 01:42 +0000
      Re: How Do SSDs Wear Out? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 03:03 -0500

csiph-web