Wow I just learned Bleachbit is bad for SSD, is Ccleaner bad too?

[Mussels]

I would say "unnecessary" and "ineffective" rather than "bad" - at least for newer generation SSDs.

Most "wipe" programs default to 1 or maybe 3 passes. A small handful of "writes" is not going to hurt, or put excessive wear, on a SSD - even an older generation SSD. And even if you went to super-duper military specs and selected 256 passes. So what? Why are you trying to secure-erase a SSD anyway - except to get rid of the drive?

The bigger problem, as I see it, is TRIM, overprovisioning and wear-leveling features used on SSDs will actually prevent the wipe program from touching each and every storage location on the disk - which is necessary to ensure "all" previously stored data has been obliterated.

So a "wipe" program - that is, a program that over-writes files - is "unnecessary" because the erase/delete function used on SSDs does not leave data behind in the same manner as a hard drive for a recovery program to restore, nor does it leave residual magnetism behind that Agent 007 could read. And a wipe program is "ineffective" because the wear leveling features prevents such wipe programs from writing a bunch of random 1s and 0s to each and every storage location.

So, if you want to ensure all previously stored data on a hard drive is unrecoverable, use a wipe program. If you want to ensure all previously stored data on a SSD is unrecoverable, use Secure Erase. Most SSD makers provide free secure erase utilities on their websites. And more and more motherboard BIOS firmware include "secure erase" right from the BIOS Setup Menu.

And if you really, once and for all want to ensure your data is unrecoverable, use a drive shredder.

Are you kidding?

You can buy 1TB drives with under 100TB life spans (WD green 960GB is only 80TBW) , and you think eating up a bunch of those cycles wont hurt?
If these erase programs aren't matching up perfectly with the drive itself, each 1KB it overwrites could result in many more writes being actually used on TLC and QLC drives, multiplying the issue massively.

And yet you think TRIM, the only feature that can possibly prevent the drive dying from this abuse is the issue...

 

[Bill_Bright]

You can buy 1TB drives with under 100TB life spans (WD green 960GB is only 80TBW) , and you think eating up a bunch of those cycles wont hurt?

No I'm not kidding. Again - we are not talking about 1st generation SSDs anymore.

Look, you are right "IF" this is something you do very frequently. But why would any "normal" user run such a program that performs an "abnormal" number of writes on a SSD over and over again? That makes no sense. That, for sure, would be "abuse" - as you yourself noted. All bets are off if you abuse the device.

Over the decades, I have "wiped" several 100 hard drives. And in the last 5 or 10 years, I have run Secure Erase on dozens of SSDs - the vast majority are for users who are getting rid of those drives. I cannot think of any case where I ran wipe on a HD, or Secure Erase on a SSD more than once. Maybe, maybe twice. Why would there be a need for a normal user to run such programs over and over and over again?

Also, we have to be realistic. You would have to write 10s of gigabytes of data to the disk every day to use up that 80TBW. 80TB is lot! That is 80,000 gigabytes - of writes! And frankly, 80TBW is small these days!

1, just 1TB can hold 250 movies (500 hours of HD content)! 6.5 million .pdf documents. Over 1000 standard file cabinets of documents. In just one, single terabyte of space.

And also, speaking of being realistic, instead of spending $69 on a WD Green with only 80TBW (though this says 100TBW), maybe one should spend $79 on a WD Blue 1TB that has a TBW spec of 600TBW. You would have to write 100s of Gigabytes of data to the disk every day, day in and day out. Who does that?

We have to remember that "reading" from a SSD does NOT affect this wear and tear issue. Only "writes" do. This is exactly why SSDs are ideal for page files too.

 

[Rock N Roll Rebel]

anything that over-writes files for a secure delete is bad for SSD's.
All these programs have multiple features.
If you clean cache files that need to be re-created, that does add more writes.

There is no reason or benefit to run these cleaning programs more than once every few months, less is best.

yep and I learned that windows built in cleaner are good enough I will stay away from these third party cleaners

 

[Shrek]

This is exactly why SSDs are ideal for page files too.

Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.

 

[Athlonite]

meh just record a 1TB (or however big your SSD is) black screen video and write that to the SSD then delete it and write it again

Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.

and that's why I use a shitty old Samsung 870 SATA SSD for it I just make a 16GB partition and when the F'd i'll make another one

 

[Bill_Bright]

Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.

Not really - not compared to the number of reads. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs excel at!

We have to remember that many (if not most) laptops these days come with SSDs only. These drives are not dying long before the laptop itself dies.

And many PCs come with SSDs only, or SSDs in the boot position where, by default, the PF goes. And again, these drives are not dying prematurely. This computer I am using is SSD only - and after 6.5 years of 4 - 5 hours per day of daily use, the boot drive (with its Windows managed PF) is still 96% good.

For the best performance, the PF should go on the best performing drive.

We MUST stop basing our opinions on obsolete, 10 year old information. We must stop perpetuating these myths about SSDs. What was, no longer is.

But hey! If you want to bottleneck your paging performance, by all means, move your PF to one of your slow, clunky, hard drives.

 

[Mussels]

Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.

Shreks right on this one bill.
paging is literally writes by its entire nature

For performance yes you want pages on an SSD - but low RAM situations are going to eat up writes and eat them up fast because by nature they're a lot of smaller


Since i've got an excess of RAM i use a RAM cache designed with TRIM in mind that prevents un-neccesary writes, and i'm saving approx 40% of the intended writes to the SSD
It's a write cache that avoids re-writing something that was TRIM'd (by un-deleting) and by delaying page file and temp file writes for 60 seconds, often enough they never needed to be written and were just deleted.

In the lifespan of a decent SSD, this is nothing. 2GB a day of my 1200TBW drive is a slow trickle of reduction... but this is literally the best case scenario with a usual 32GB+ of free RAM.
Low RAM situations have a lot of un-needed writes that just burn out drives.


Just because it's the right thing to do for performance doesn't mean it's not eating the drives up. I've already proven that modern SSD's have very low TBW's, they've HALVED over the generation before them - it's stupid to burn them out with wasted writes from cleaning programs, or excessive paging.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Shreks right on this one bill.
paging is literally writes by its entire nature

Well, of course it writes! You can't read data from any drive if has not been saved to it first. So what? Why would the system (OS and CPU) write "high priority" data to the PF if that information was not going to be needed (read) soon?

But once again, so what??????? No one is talking about 1st generation SSDs!!! Or at least I sure am not. Come on people! SSDs have been around for 30 years!!!!!

Why would Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo provide more expensive SSD only PCs and laptops if those drives were going to die prematurely as you keep suggesting they will do?

The odds of any "normal" computer user wearing out their modern generation SSDs before the rest of the computer dies of old age, or is retired by the user due to the rest of the HW or SW getting superseded or going obsolete, are minuscule!

We used to have to replace the spark plugs in our cars every 10 - 20,000 miles. Today's spark plugs typically last at least 60,000, many 100,000 and beyond. So do you still replace them every 10-20 because that is what we used to do?

This is just one more example of so many computer users refusing to accept that computer technologies have advanced and improved significantly! Why? I don't get it. Just like W10/W11 are not XP, today's SSDs are not the same as first generation SSDs. We need to stop treating them like they are.

I say take advantage of all the advantages modern SSDs provide!

But hey! If you guys want to bottleneck your systems, that's your choice. Go again and build or buy your brand new, state-of-the-art computers - most of which come with SSDs only (especially laptops - not to mention tablets and cell phones) then go ahead and slap an antiquated, clunky and "slow" hard drive in there to bottleneck your disk access. Don't forget to move your page files to that "slow" hard drive to bottleneck it even further.

Me? I started installing SSDs as the only drives in my builds in 2013 and have not, and will not look back - with no, as in zero regrets, or SSD failures, for that matter. And note that 2013 system, now serving as my backup server/computer, is still in use today with CrystalDIskInfo reporting both SSDs are still "Good" with status ratings still in the 90s percentiles.

 

[Rock N Roll Rebel]

I moved my page file to my 10TB hard drive it works just fine there is no performance hit

 

[Bill_Bright]

there is no performance hit

And how and with what did you use to measure performance before and after to determine there was no hit?

it works just fine

Well, there's no reason why it would not "work" fine. You can even have page files an each disk and they will still "work" fine. Many do this - fortunately Windows is smart enough to recognize the fastest drive and then use that PF for the more important data. Just don't put a separate page file on different partitions on the same physical drive. That will indeed, hamper performance.

Does Samsung recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Samsung recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does WD recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does WD recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does Kingston recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Kingston recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does Crucial recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Crucial recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

I cannot find any SSD maker that recommends (or even suggests) moving the page file off their SSDs and on to a hard drive. Can you?

The HowToGeek:

Warning: Be sure to keep the page file on your fastest drive! For example, many computers now have a speedy SSD as a system drive and a slower mechanical hard drive as a secondary data drive. In this case, you should definitely leave your page file on the fast SSD and not move it to a slower hard drive.

ComputerHope:

I have an SSD, should I use a non-SSD for a page file?

There are people who suggest using an HDD as a second drive for a page file, reducing the overall read/writes done to the SSD, and extending its life. However, today's SSD are rated to transfer 20 GB+ of data daily for 5-years and often have an MTBF of 1,000,000 hours. Moving the page file to a slower hard drive can cause the computer to have to wait for the slower HDD to catch up to the SSD.

But again, if you want to prevent taking full advantage your SSD, that's your choice, and your money. But PLEASE do not assume that is best for the normal user. It is not.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the Backblaze report, "The SSD Edition: 2022 Drive Stats Mid-year Review" just came out and makes for an interesting and apropos read.

It must be noted that the SSDs used in these data centers were used as "boot" drives on busy servers. That is significant because serving as the boot drive is exactly how we "normal users" use our SSDs in SSD-only laptops and PCs. The big difference is servers in busy data centers are much more active than the typical home PC or laptop.

Note the following from that report - which has been tracking SSD error rates and AFR (annualized failure rates) since 2018.

...SSDs are more reliable than HDDs, at least when used as boot drives in our environment. This supports the anecdotal stories and educated guesses made by our readers over the past year or so. Well done.

To be fair, the article also notes the likely event of increased failures as time goes by

is possible ... perhaps when they start to reach their medial wearout limits.

However, it is important to stress again that these SSDs are being used in busy data center servers - in constant operation 24/7/365, year after year - a much more strenuous and active scenario than nearly all home, school, or work computer environments that nearly all of us here at TPU subject our systems to.

Now the downside, of course, if that SSDs are still more expensive per gigabyte than HDs - but the prices are [albeit, agonizingly slow] leveling out. But also a factor is the lower power consumption, less heat generation and of course, silent operation of the SSD compared to hard drives.

 

[Snotspat]

I once managed to write 2PB to a 120GB SSD.

That was an early generation OCZ Vertex 2, using SLC NAND. And the reason it occurred was that I was running Windows 7 with 1GB of memory, playing a lot of WoW etc. The system felt fine, but it was paging like crazy.

It's still possible to purchase SLC drives for industry applications, but they're very expensive, and usually in 16-32GB size. How ever, I was lucky to pick up another 120GB SLC drive for 20 Euroes, used, from someone who knew what is was, and the significance of it. I'll likely use it as a L2 cache using Primo Cache for my spinning HD.

---

If OP is worried about third parties getting a hold of sensible information via physical means, perhaps use Bitlocker? And when you're going to websites where you don't want to save any information locally, use the browsers Privacy function (the Privacy function does not hide your identity, some people think that. What it does is to prevent cookies, or other files, from the session to be written to your PC).

 

[Athlonite]

less heat generation

When's the last time you've seen an HDD hit 70c while copying a large file

 

[Bill_Bright]

When's the last time you've seen an HDD hit 70c while copying a large file

I fail to see the point of picking some arbitrary number out of thin air with some arbitrary scenario.

SSDs generate less heat. That's just the way it is.

 

[Athlonite]

I fail to see the point of picking some arbitrary number out of thin air with some arbitrary scenario.

SSDs generate less heat. That's just the way it is.

the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true

for example
Seagate 2TB HDD: 32c idle
C2 Temperature 32 OK: Always passes
Samsung 980 Pro 1TB NVMe SSD:
1 Temperature 34 °C OK: Always passes
yeah OK it's only 2 degrees difference in idle but if started copying a 10GB file to either drive I know which one is going to get hotter by alot and it's not the HDD

 

[Icon Charlie]

the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true

for example
Seagate 2TB HDD: 32c idle
C2 Temperature 32 OK: Always passes
Samsung 980 Pro 1TB NVMe SSD:
1 Temperature 34 °C OK: Always passes
yeah OK it's only 2 degrees difference in idle but if started copying a 10GB file to either drive I know which one is going to get hotter by alot and it's not the HDD

Going to have tp agree with this as I keep taps on my computer almost on a daily basis. Yea geeky person here.

Currently my SSD and HD are equal in heat. This all depends on how and where your HDD/SSD are mounted.

As far as CC Cleaner hurting my SSD's? I have not seen any issues on my current one Samsung 860 EVO, 16-20 hours per day 7 days per week, 3 years.

 

[Bill_Bright]

the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true

Do not assume your anecdotal sample size of one renders the whole point moot. Do SSDs generate heat? Of course. Can they generate a lot of heat? Of course. But over the course of normal operations, the typical SSD generates less over all heat than a hard drive performing the exact same tasks in the exact same scenario.

Are there exceptions to the rule. Again, of course. But do exceptions define the rule? No!

This all depends on how and where your HDD/SSD are mounted.

No it doesn't. Think about it for a second. Does a 100W lightbulb "generate" more heat in a closed closet compared to an identical 100W lightbulb in a large open room? NO!!!! It generates the exact same amount of heat. Now does the closet heat up more than the large room? Of course.

This really is a matter of simple physics. There are no moving parts in SSD creating friction and consuming (or wasting) power. On the whole, SSDs consume less power than hard drives. They are more efficient than hard drives.

Less power consumed with more efficient use of that power means less power is wasted in the form of heat! Simple physics, along with simple common sense.

SSDs may "feel" hotter to the touch than a hard drive but that is only because they have much less mass, and just as importantly, much less surface area to heat up.

Google it if you don't believe me. SSDs consume 2 - 3W. HDs 6 - 7W.

 

[Icon Charlie]

No it doesn't. Think about it for a second. Does a 100W lightbulb "generate" more heat in a closed closet compared to an identical 100W lightbulb in a large open room? NO!!!! It generates the exact same amount of heat. Now does the closet heat up more than the large room? Of course.

Yes it does... And that is just common sense. The more air flow to a SSD/HD the cooler it gets. Proper placement of your components can get you overall positive results.

IF I place my SSD closer to a heat source, (Example. a video card) it gets hotter.
IF I place my SSD without proper air flow. It gets hotter.

The Same goes with my HDD.

This is one of the reasons I have my Icy Docks to keep my SSD/HD cooler as well as to be able to hot swap on the fly. It is also a helps keep your overall rig cool.

EVERY Celsius counts. This is why I spent 6+ hours messing with different configurations on component placement in order to get optimum airflow/cooling results.

AS posted before in a very lengthy article, my rig cooling set up is 2, 140mm Artic Fans and 1 120mm Corsair. I am using hot components (MSI A-PRO as an example as the mosfeds are hotter than other MB's) as stated in the article. I ran my rig normally in very hot weather with excellent results.

The Reason for my success in my Rig is because I have that side panel cooling and the ability and flex ability of using the 5.25 enclosures on my Corsair Carbide THAT has been removed on current models because...

Little Timmy wants his Eye Candy.

By using my ICY Dock I am getting cooler air from outside of the case, being pulled in and flowing around my SSD than just mounting it inside the case. The Celsius difference is 1 to 3 degrees cooler when using my Icy Dock than normally mounting my SSD inside of the case.

Agree to disagree. I have my data on my Rig on where I should place my components in my computer case to cool it as efficiently as possible. Air-Flow Management (practical applications since 1995) is a lost art because...

Little Timmy wants his Eye Candy.

Again we can agree to disagree and that's fine. But I'll continue to use the knowledge in using the practical applications of Air-Flow Management and that means in my case I'll place my components into positions where I can get the best results in cooling. Your mileage may vary but what works well for me might work well for you.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yes it does... And that is just common sense.

Then use your common sense!!!! Read what I said!!! Clearly you are not doing either!

The more air flow to a SSD/HD the cooler it gets.

100% true!!!! But that has absolutely nothing to do with how much heat the device "generates" or "creates". That only has to do with how quickly and effectively the "case cooling" is at extracting the heat the device is creating.

Proper placement of your components can get you overall positive results.

Yes. But again, that has nothing to do with how much heat a device is creating - the ONLY point I made when I said, "SSDs generate less heat!"

So to your claim, how hot a device gets does indeed depend on how or where your HD/SSD is mounted. But again, that has NOTHING to do with how much heat the device "generates".

 

[freeagent]

I think you only need a PF if you have low ram, or max what you have already. You could just simply turn paging off.. and not worry about writes at all..

 

[Snotspat]

I think you only need a PF if you have low ram, or max what you have already. You could just simply turn paging off.. and not worry about writes at all..

Don't ever turn your pagefile off.

 

[freeagent]

Don't ever turn your pagefile off.

How come?

It seems to run just fine..

 

[Snotspat]

How come?

It seems to run just fine..

Because it can cause instability or crashing.

If it hasn't done that for you, then its because Windows haven't required it, in which case you also gained nothing by disabling it.

 

[R-T-B]

If these erase programs aren't matching up perfectly with the drive itself

Then you should repartition your drive you barbarian.

But why would any "normal" user run such a program that performs an "abnormal" number of writes on a SSD over and over again?

Paranoia. Sadly it's very common in todays world.

How come?

It seems to run just fine..

It won't be long until you encounter that one application that makes you find out...

 

[freeagent]

It won't be long until you encounter that one application that makes you find out...

TM5 actually..

Anta777 Absolute