100% of my QLC drives are now dead.

[sLowEnd]

It's all about profit. Companies will do whatever they need to to make money.

Yeah, they are. That's part of the reason why I don't believe QLC drives as a whole aren't a viable product type for the typical target user. If it was just one or two companies making QLC drives, I'd be a little be leery, but all the big players have given it the green light.

 

[Wirko]

I actually want to buy a really cheap QLC SSD and write Linux ISOs to it until it becomes ash. As it turns out, it won't be so simple. SSDs below 15 EUR (128GB) on Amazon are either TLC or undefined, and cheapest QLC models cost around 30 EUR (500 GB), which is far too much for the purpose. Those are the Kingston NV1 and A400 or the Sabrent Rocket Q or Crucial P3 for example, but the Kingstons might not even be QLC in their lowest capacity variants. So I'm going for the next worst thing, which right now appears to be an undefined "Intenso" for 10 EUR.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah, they are. That's part of the reason why I don't believe QLC drives as a whole aren't a viable product type for the typical target user. If it was just one or two companies making QLC drives, I'd be a little be leery, but all the big players have given it the green light.

The fact that something is done by all companies doesn't make it right. All companies jumped on non-exchangeable phone batteries, but it's still wrong, shown by recent EU regulation.

 

[Wirko]

How does one test/assess reliability given it will run in SLC mode when near empty and thrash when near full?

You seem to think that an almost empty SSD writes data in pseudo-SLC mode, and the data remains this way forever. If the firmware can be manipulated then this could be true (our SSD DB mantainer Gabriel has suggested he can do that and I'm interested in seeing what comes of it).

But an SSD working as intended will always move data from pseudo-SLC to TLC cells because (1) it's been taught to make room for more data as soon as possible, which includes room for new pseudo-SLC cache, and (2) needs to do its wear-levelling routines, which it can't do if it's close to 100% filled with pseudo-SLC data.

 

[A Computer Guy]

I actually want to buy a really cheap QLC SSD and write Linux ISOs to it until it becomes ash. As it turns out, it won't be so simple. SSDs below 15 EUR (128GB) on Amazon are either TLC or undefined, and cheapest QLC models cost around 30 EUR (500 GB), which is far too much for the purpose. Those are the Kingston NV1 and A400 or the Sabrent Rocket Q or Crucial P3 for example, but the Kingstons might not even be QLC in their lowest capacity variants. So I'm going for the next worst thing, which right now appears to be an undefined "Intenso" for 10 EUR.

Crucial P1/P2's are QLC. There may be some still liquidating the last of their stock somewhere out there on the internet.
(edit)
I take that back. It seems some may be TLC or QLC. ( https://www.techpowerup.com/ssd-specs/crucial-p2-1-tb.d115 )

 

[sLowEnd]

The fact that something is done by all companies doesn't make it right. All companies jumped on non-exchangeable phone batteries, but it's still wrong, shown by recent EU regulation.

This isn't a question of moral correctness. It's about profitability and risk. I'm quite sure they don't pay their actuaries to sit around and do nothing.

 

[AusWolf]

This isn't a question of moral correctness. It's about profitability and risk. I'm quite sure they don't pay their actuaries to sit around and do nothing.

Oh absolutely. The term "wrong" implies on some morals, which is obviously not a thing in free market capitalism (no politics intended - all I'm saying is that morals and profit are far from being similar things).

 

[newtekie1]

Yeah, they are. That's part of the reason why I don't believe QLC drives as a whole aren't a viable product type for the typical target user. If it was just one or two companies making QLC drives, I'd be a little be leery, but all the big players have given it the green light.

The interesting thing is some of the big players have done it right. I believe the main issue with QLC drives is that they are built to be as cheap as possible, and that means they are putting cheap as possible controllers on them. And those controllers are where the weakness is. The QLC isn't what is failing on most of these drive. There are extra cells in all the drives to take over when a cell goes bad, and when those extra cells are used up, the drive is supposed to go into read-only mode. But that usually isn't the failure state of most of these QLC drives. The drive just dies, because the controller dies.

But there are some well done QLC drives out in the wild. Look at Intel's 660P and 670P. You almost never see someone complaining about one of those dying. And OEMs are using them constantly for system drives in their computers. Intel did it right with those drives, and it is proof that QLC isn't terrible. It's the crappy implementations of some that is the issue.

 

[SomeOne99h]

But there are some well done QLC drives out in the wild. Look at Intel's 660P and 670P. You almost never see someone complaining about one of those dying. And OEMs are using them constantly for system drives in their computers. Intel did it right with those drives, and it is proof that QLC isn't terrible. It's the crappy implementations of some that is the issue.

Very interesting take .. I mean, Samsung 870 EVO TLC SSDs had high failure rates even though they are TLCs.

 

[AsRock]

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.

I have 3 die on me over the years with light usage, it's not always the nand that fails.

 

[SPDIF]

Very interesting take .. I mean, Samsung 870 EVO TLC SSDs had high failure rates even though they are TLCs.

Yeah, but this was all caused by bad firmware, they did update everything, but unfortunately the damage that was done stayed even after firmware updates. If you did update the firmware before use, then nothing would happen. But what user thinks on update and SSD newly out the box? You expect it to work good. Crucial had the same problem with their MX500 SSD, numerous firmware updates...

Anyway i don't have any QLC drive here, and i never will. Until they can prove me it is a viable solution i stay with MLC for now. Even if they would give me a FREE QLC SSD, i would not wanted it here. Maybe good enough for House, Garden, Kitchen use and simple office or internet PC, but surely not for games and data storage!

 

[Klemc]

Yeah, but this was all caused by bad firmware, they did update everything, but unfortunately the damage that was done stayed even after firmware updates. If you did update the firmware before use, then nothing would happen. But what user thinks on update and SSD newly out the box? You expect it to work good. Crucial had the same problem with their MX500 SSD, numerous firmware updates...

Anyway i don't have any QLC drive here, and i never will. Until they can prove me it is a viable solution i stay with MLC for now. Even if they would give me a FREE QLC SSD, i would not wanted it here. Maybe good enough for House, Garden, Kitchen use and simple office or internet PC, but surely not for games and data storage!

What firmware ?.. mine reported buikld 2023-3 if i remember :

https://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B07MLJD32L/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[cst1992]

As a consolation note, you can still use the warranty and get new SSDs, sell them to someone to suffer in your place and buy beautiful TLC or even MLC SSDs like those Samsung sata 860 etc... zero losses.

Lock this man up, he's evil.

/jk

 

[Waldorf]

@GerKNG
did you try cloning/imaging the drive(s)?
usually better to do that and work with the image, not the drive (for recovery).

 

[SPDIF]

What firmware ?.. mine reported buikld 2023-3 if i remember :

We had it over the 870EVO... NOT the 970EVO.

 

[DaveLT]

I too had a string of QLC Nvme ssds fail. It was a simple JBOD array that wasn't written to like hell. (10TB at most on 2TB drives)
They were intel 670s...
After that, we decided not to buy anymore QLC
And with Nand being cheaper than the controllers, it's become that TLC is cheaper to buy than QLC because QLC needs way better controller which just be used to make a high performance TLC... Dramless. QLC also needs dram.
So I really wouldn't bother with QLC.

 

[Klemc]

We had it over the 870EVO... NOT the 970EVO.

Sorry, i thinked i had a 870, really, since always lol ! I am surprised it's a 970 tb !

EDIT:
oh well, it's SSD & NVMe, allright.