An SSD can fail at any time, but the "SSD Lifetime Left Indicator" should give you a percentage of how much of your drive’s estimated lifespan has been consumed.
You can go back to the first few Mac mini m1 threads and read all the doomsayer posts you want.
Actually that’s probably exactly what I want to tell you! Apart from the M3 Max logic board with four NAND chips, there are always two chips of equal size on all motherboards. So the larger SSDs are build with higher capacity chips, which probably also use a technology with higher data density (and lower lifetime).
If your guesses were true the larger drives would be significantly slower after SLC cache was consumed. Considering the larger ssds are frequently bought by pros who would dump significant large files at a time someone would be hitting the SLC cache limit and they would notice how much slower the 8TB would be after that limit is reached. Meanwhile the pure SLC low end 512gb models would be able to go from empty to full without a slowdown in transfer speeds. 4TB/8TB owners would be angry after finding out the smaller drives are much better at sustained transfers. QLC is severely crippled after the cache runs out no matter how fancy the controller is.
The 256GB drives also have an SLC cache. Try to write a very large file (100GB or so) and you'll see that the write speeds drop off dramatically once the SLC cache is filled.
We've already said that most SSDs (if they are well made) usually last longer than their rated TBW. That doesn't mean that the smallest chips are using pure SLC flash.
Maybe it’s MLC not SLC, but it’s not TLC or QLC. We’re not talking about extending their TBW rating. Apple’s 256GB SSDs according to their S.M.A.R.T stats are rated for 10× times longer lifetime than what @magbarn expects from a cheap Samsung SSD of this size.
S.M.A.R.T stats can't really tell you the whole story about TBW ratings (which, unlike SMART statistics, aren't concerned about the state of your drive, but are rather concerned with how much a drive is rated for irrespective of specific use cases that differ between users). If you don't keep your drive full, it's going to dramatically reduce wear on the drive, thereby S.M.A.R.T stats is going to show much less wear for your drive. That doesn't mean somebody else's drive won't wear faster under different usage patterns.
This is a good advice, everybody should know about. 😊
When people don't like facts, they act like it isn't a fact.
FACT: SSD lifetime may well exceed Mac lifetime, even when using some Swap memory within reason.
not making anything up , sure 150TBW is high end of spectrum but I hope apples using quality ssd. simple google search and 5. mins research and you can find info on ssd lifespans by their size.
if there were using SLC why is it so much slower then most m.2 drives on market. I think for price they really should be putting s980 or similar into them. my ps5 has faster ssd.
maybe if they keep their ssd mostly empty but most probably wont. my sister is 90% full. so its going be swapping on same remaining area constantly no? my 512 gb is 90% empty so less of issue.
lots fail early though. look at server companies. theres reason they favor some manufactures over others. I had a rather new iPhone 5 die randomly for no reason. if given option to swap or not swap id rather not swap. mean I'm sure airplane frames outlast their rated safe mileage would you get on one well past its date? I think once you pass the TBW it's guessing game on when it could fail. I dont suggest base ram to anyone who ask me what model to buy. my sister upgraded to 18gb now and less swap and improved her speed in editing photos. id get 32gb Macs if they weren't so pricey
150 TBW is the absolute guaranteed minimum for a cheap 250 GB SSD.
Its both !
