3 ms·

I’d be incredibly surprised if that was the case, even cheap budget SSDs have 500+ TBW ratings. I’m amazed this person had 800GB of important data on a laptop

by Saris 5y ago

I’d be incredibly surprised if that was the case, even cheap budget SSDs have 500+ TBW ratings. I’m amazed this person had 800GB of important data on a laptop and yet zero backups. Especially when a backup service like backblaze is $5 a month and you just set it up in 2 minutes and it runs on its own.

salawat 5y ago
I am surprised this person had an encyclopedia and didn't Xerox it, leaving it on someone else's bookshelf. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone reaches for someone else's computer to look after their important things. Sad though it is that they learned their lesson the hard way, they can't really be faulted for it.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Nothing keeping you from using time machine with your own NAS or harddrive.
BearOso 5y ago
If there was 800GB of static data, it was almost full, so the wear-leveling process wouldn’t be optimal and it would write over a small part of the flash cells over and over. In that case you could exceed the program-erase lifetime, but not necessarily the TBW. We know the total TBW was high, though, so it was even more excessive. From what I’ve read, Apple has fixed this problem in a recent Mac OS version. Apparently, it was a swapping bug.
- lawnchair_larry 5y ago
  Where did you read that it was fixed or acknowledged as a bug? It definitely was not fixed.
  - BearOso 5y ago
    This thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-swap-high-usage-of-terabytes-written.2284893/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-swap-high-usage-of-... Posters had narrowed down the excessive writes down by limiting memory usage, so they knew it was a swap problem, and some users said the latest OS fixed it. Now that I’ve checked it again, they’re saying it’s better but not fixed.
- 542458 5y ago
  I believe that modern SSDs shuffle data around so that wear levelling does still work even with nearly full drives.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Its the difference between static and dynamic wear leveling. Static wear leveling will shuffle around the data in static blocks to even out the program-erase cycles.

by Saris 5y ago

salawat 5y ago

I am surprised this person had an encyclopedia and didn't Xerox it, leaving it on someone else's bookshelf. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone reaches for someone else's computer to look after their important things. Sad though it is that they learned their lesson the hard way, they can't really be faulted for it.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Nothing keeping you from using time machine with your own NAS or harddrive.

BearOso 5y ago

If there was 800GB of static data, it was almost full, so the wear-leveling process wouldn’t be optimal and it would write over a small part of the flash cells over and over. In that case you could exceed the program-erase lifetime, but not necessarily the TBW. We know the total TBW was high, though, so it was even more excessive. From what I’ve read, Apple has fixed this problem in a recent Mac OS version. Apparently, it was a swapping bug.

lawnchair_larry 5y ago
Where did you read that it was fixed or acknowledged as a bug? It definitely was not fixed.
- BearOso 5y ago
  This thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-swap-high-usage-of-terabytes-written.2284893/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-swap-high-usage-of-... Posters had narrowed down the excessive writes down by limiting memory usage, so they knew it was a swap problem, and some users said the latest OS fixed it. Now that I’ve checked it again, they’re saying it’s better but not fixed.
542458 5y ago
I believe that modern SSDs shuffle data around so that wear levelling does still work even with nearly full drives.
pkaye 5y ago
Its the difference between static and dynamic wear leveling. Static wear leveling will shuffle around the data in static blocks to even out the program-erase cycles.