Hard data on Mac reliability?

[LarTeROn]

I've noticed that Apple have chosen to make the system dependent on the SSD in order to boot with the newer M series Macbooks.

Instead of rumours, I'd like to:

1) know how reliable Macbooks actually are.
2) confirm that this new design prevents data recovery, unless you can get the whole laptop to a very low level and expensive recovery centre -- how more difficult does this vulnerability of shorting to ground make data recovery, and is there a way to reduce the chances of failure?

Don't we have any data on how Macbooks fail? We shouldn't be reliant on Apple for this.

 

[SRQrws]

While it would certainly be interesting to have that data, I can't imagine how it could possibly be available independently from Apple. Nor would it be available independently from any PC manufacturer. Apple gets failure data from returns, information from their tech support people, logs from active Macs, repairs they conduct and repairs reported to them by certified repair shops. They own the data and can choose to report it, or not. How could any outside agency possibly have access to this? Yes, Consumer Reports and JD Power provide reliability data, but theirs is based on small samples from people who choose to report to them. And the accuracy of that data would be inferior to the data apple gets directly.

 

[jlc1978]

One way to back into it is via extended warranty costs. While Apple doesn't release numbers, using some industry wid estimates you can get an idea of what Apple may spend on repairs. Estimates start as little as 20% of the cost is used to actually cover repairs. AppleCare+ for a 14" MBP is $100/year. (actually 99$ but let's use 10$ to keep the math easy) At 20%, that means $20 is spent on repairs. If you assume Apple's average cost of repairs is $300 after any deductible costs, that means it takes 15 sales to cover Apple's costs; yield a failure rate estimate of 1 in 15 or about 7% for all types of failures. Given the various failure points for a MBP requiring expensive repairs, I'd say SSD failure rates are pretty low. Since electronic devices such as chips, absent external causes due to abuse or other damage, typically either fail early or last a long time, and there hasn't been a rash of failure stories like happened with teh butterfly keyboard, I wouldn't worry about SSD failure but still keep multiple separate backups. Relying on data recovery, is, IMHO, a bad idea.

I suspect most people buy a newMac before the SSD fails.

 

[Fishrrman]

"confirm that this new design prevents data recovery, unless you can get the whole laptop to a very low level and expensive recovery centre -- how more difficult does this vulnerability of shorting to ground make data recovery, and is there a way to reduce the chances of failure?"

If the internal SSD fails on an m-series Mac, you can't boot the computer from an external drive, AT ALL. The internal SSD must be functional in order to boot "externally".

I'm going to take a guess that if the internal SSD fails, only Apple would have the means to possibly recover personal data from the internal drive. Perhaps even they couldn't do it.

I doubt any commercial 3rd-party data recovery outfit could "get at it".
Well, perhaps some "dark" government agencies could... how are your contacts with them?

If you have an m-series Mac, your only option against internal drive failure is to keep the internal SSD backed up regularly to an external drive. If the internal SSD actually fails, then I'll speculate that the entire motherboard will need to be replaced, after which you can restore the data from the backup.

This is a "fact of life" with m-series Macs.
There's no way around it -- it is what it is.

You can either live with that, or... you can't.
It's up to you.

NOTE:
This may not apply to the m4 Minis and Mac Studios, which DO have "removable" SSDs.
But for MacBooks and MacBook Pros...the drive isn't readily "replaceable"...

 

[FreakinEurekan]

confirm that this new design prevents data recovery

Data recovery is irrelevant, IMO. If the data is important, back it up.

 

[Icehart]

Apple does not manufacture its own SSDs; instead, it sources them from third-party suppliers. Based on this, we can reference the industry-standard failure rate, which is typically less than 1% over five years of usage.

 

[dmccloud]

Apple does not manufacture its own SSDs; instead, it sources them from third-party suppliers. Based on this, we can reference the industry-standard failure rate, which is typically less than 1% over five years of usage.

While the failure rate might be in that range, your basis for said conclusion is not valid. Unlike standard SSDs which contain both the storage controller and NAND memory, Apple's controller is integrated into the M-series chip, while the chips used for the actual storage are separate and located directly on the logicboard.

"confirm that this new design prevents data recovery, unless you can get the whole laptop to a very low level and expensive recovery centre -- how more difficult does this vulnerability of shorting to ground make data recovery, and is there a way to reduce the chances of failure?"

If the internal SSD fails on an m-series Mac, you can't boot the computer from an external drive, AT ALL. The internal SSD must be functional in order to boot "externally".

I'm going to take a guess that if the internal SSD fails, only Apple would have the means to possibly recover personal data from the internal drive. Perhaps even they couldn't do it.

I doubt any commercial 3rd-party data recovery outfit could "get at it".
Well, perhaps some "dark" government agencies could... how are your contacts with them?

Apple does not have the ability to perform data recovery. If the system in question is using FileVault, then the data is likely gone for good. If FileVault is not used, then third-party data recovery specialists might be able to recover the data, but even then there are too many variables to put odds on success.

 

[LarTeROn]

Data recovery is irrelevant, IMO. If the data is important, back it up.

It goes without saying. But I still don't trust it.

edit: To be exact, I think there's something about ADHD and backup that just don't mix well. It doesn't matter how good the tech is if you're not organised about it. What usually happens is that you have a solid backup system in place, but what push comes to shove, it's just a lot easier to pull the drive out, do data recovery myself and copy over the recent files... than trying to figure out which copy in the backups is most recent - cloud or NAS. In reality what can happen is that you get mixed up and copy the wrong file over and delete your backup. It seems simple, but in my experience people just don't do backup well. It takes experience, and the only people with that experience -- I mean battle tested, is IT departments.
Then there's the times when it's not actually been backing up properly and I got no message. And yes, I know, I know, I should have it setup better than that and be more organised.

But what I'm saying is that data recovery has been easier than backup in my experience. It's just a better track record because the biggest problem is between the screen and the keyboard.

Of course I'm not saying don't backup -- that would be black and white thinking. I'm just saying that I've appreciated this function over the years. It's like losing the headphone socket; not that much of a big deal, but for a while it made recording audio output properly from a phone next to impossible.

Maybe I'm biased though from bad backup experiences like Android seedvault exclusions.

 

[Fishrrman]

Get an external USB3 SSD.

Get CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper.

Create a cloned backup (using either CCC or SD).
Update it ("incrementally") once a day.

You'll be about "as backed up" as most people would need to be.

But as for "data recovery" from the m-series MacBook Pros (and MacBooks)?
Probably not gonna happen with a failed drive.

 

[MacCheetah3]

It goes without saying. But I still don't trust it.

edit: To be exact, I think there's something about ADHD and backup that just don't mix well. It doesn't matter how good the tech is if you're not organised about it. What usually happens is that you have a solid backup system in place, but what push comes to shove, it's just a lot easier to pull the drive out, do data recovery myself and copy over the recent files... than trying to figure out which copy in the backups is most recent - cloud or NAS. In reality what can happen is that you get mixed up and copy the wrong file over and delete your backup. It seems simple, but in my experience people just don't do backup well. It takes experience, and the only people with that experience -- I mean battle tested, is IT departments.
Then there's the times when it's not actually been backing up properly and I got no message. And yes, I know, I know, I should have it setup better than that and be more organised.

But what I'm saying is that data recovery has been easier than backup in my experience. It's just a better track record because the biggest problem is between the screen and the keyboard.

Of course I'm not saying don't backup -- that would be black and white thinking. I'm just saying that I've appreciated this function over the years. It's like losing the headphone socket; not that much of a big deal, but for a while it made recording audio output properly from a phone next to impossible.

Maybe I'm biased though from bad backup experiences like Android seedvault exclusions.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/data-recovery-advice-for-512gb-pcie-based-ssd-on-2017-mid-year-macbook-air.2454659/post-33844860

Then there's the times when it's not actually been backing up properly and I got no message.

There are integrity checks, but nothing is perfect. A part of the backup routine is (at least occasionally) testing your backup (i.e., do a recovery of a few files and ensure they open and are otherwise intact). Even Apple doesn’t emphasize this step either, sadly.

Back up your Mac with Time Machine - Apple Support

If you have a USB drive or other external storage device, you can use Time Machine to automatically back up your files, including apps, music, photos, email, and documents.

support.apple.com

Anyway...

Instead of rumours, I'd like to:

1) know how reliable Macbooks actually are.

There is/was a member performing tests on a few Macs to determine actual SSD endurance. Unfortunately, I can’t find any of their posts. However, I was able to dig up a coupe of others:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-ssd-usage.2415914/post-32935304

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-ssd-usage.2415914/post-32848461

@smirking would probably be willing to provide updated information.

Suffice it to say, there are plenty of posts around here showing Apple’s SSD implementation, NAND choices can reach petabytes of writes before any indication of failure — which is something most users will never get anywhere near before they decide to replace the entire computer.

 

[smirking]

There is/was a member performing tests on a few Macs to determine actual SSD endurance. Unfortunately, I can’t find any of their posts. However, I was able to dig up a coupe of others:

You might be looking for a thread that started from this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-silicon-soldered-ssd-upgrade-thread.2417822/post-32921841

Here's another starting point for an interesting discussion about disk endurance:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ssd-swap-high-usage-of-terabytes-written.2284893/page-145?post=32834182#post-32834182

@smirking would probably be willing to provide updated information.

I've since traded-in that 16GB M1 Pro MBP after having it for 3 years. I don't recall where it ended up, but it was no worse than 4% lifespan used at that point.

My typical use on that 16GB M1 Pro was lots of RAW photo editing in Capture One Pro, daily use of PHPStorm with multiple large Web development projects, all the usual "Office" programs, 3-4 browsers simultaneously, a VM Web server, and occasionally Windows 11 on Parallels.

I never paid any attention to memory pressure and relied heavily on swap every day. My memory graphs weren't pretty. That disk got a lot of writes, but the lifespan indicator barely moved because I had a 2TB drive. Even if it was a 512GB drive, it'd still be well less than 20% expended after 3 full years.

Really folks, don't stress out about wearing out your SSD.

 

[benwiggy]

confirm that this new design prevents data recovery,

Yes. You should assume that data recovery is impossible.

And remember that if the logic board fails for any reason, then you're not going to get the data off, even if you unsolder the SSD chips, because it's encrypted (even without FileVault).

You need to make backups as simple and automatic as possible. This was easy with Time Capsule: -- now you'll need a NAS, or a desktop Mac sharing a TM disk.

 

[smirking]

You need to make backups as simple and automatic as possible. This was easy with Time Capsule: -- now you'll need a NAS, or a desktop Mac sharing a TM disk.

A NAS is more work to setup than Time Capsule, but it's not that hard. I have one of the lower-end Synology NAS 2-bays for my Time Machine backups.

Anyone who'd have difficulty setting that up would be better off plugging in a backup drive directly anyway. Just beware that Time Machine backups are infamous for becoming corrupted. Never rely on a single Time Machine backup alone.

 

[posguy99]

I've noticed that Apple have chosen to make the system dependent on the SSD in order to boot with the newer M series Macbooks.

Instead of rumours, I'd like to:

1) know how reliable Macbooks actually are.
2) confirm that this new design prevents data recovery, unless you can get the whole laptop to a very low level and expensive recovery centre -- how more difficult does this vulnerability of shorting to ground make data recovery, and is there a way to reduce the chances of failure?

Don't we have any data on how Macbooks fail? We shouldn't be reliant on Apple for this.

Is the outright refusal of people to make backups somehow Apple's fault?

 

[G5isAlive]

Just beware that Time Machine backups are infamous for becoming corrupted. Never rely on a single Time Machine backup alone.

always good to have two back up solutions, and I had heard about Time Machine getting corrupted but usually its tied to another issue like a NAS disconnecting ... could you comment more on this? Need to know because I do use Time Machine

 

[jlc1978]

Never rely on a single Time Machine backup alone.

I’d say never really on a single backup. I have TM, CCC as well as two encrypted cloud backups of my data.

 

[smirking]

always good to have two back up solutions, and I had heard about Time Machine getting corrupted but usually its tied to another issue like a NAS disconnecting ... could you comment more on this? Need to know because I do use Time Machine

Fortunately, I've never lost any data this way, but what happens to me usually goes like this.

I'm using a 2TB backup drive for about 1.5TB of data. That's not enough space so I exclude all sorts of things.

When the Time Machine disk gets close to full, I might exclude more things to stave off the dreaded "not enough space" error.

I eventually get that error anyway so I manually delete some old volumes because Time Machine didn't do it automatically for some reason. At some point, something will go wrong and the next time I attempt a backup, it'll tell me that Time Machine could not backup because the volume is invalid (or something like that).

It mostly happens when I'm trying to use too small of a Time Machine disk, but I have had it it happen to me once on a backup drive where I had plenty of space and wasn't monkeying around to try to squeeze in backups.

Like @jlc1978, I keep backups in multiple forms. I have a Time Machine volume in a NAS as my everyday backup, but also do periodic disk clones. My NAS has 8TB volumes so hopefully that'll spare me from going through the issues I described above again.

 

[ChrisA]

I've noticed that Apple have chosen to make the system dependent on the SSD in order to boot with the newer M series Macbooks.

Instead of rumours, I'd like to:

1) know how reliable Macbooks actually are.
2) confirm that this new design prevents data recovery, unless you can get the whole laptop to a very low level and expensive recovery centre -- how more difficult does this vulnerability of shorting to ground make data recovery, and is there a way to reduce the chances of failure?

Don't we have any data on how Macbooks fail? We shouldn't be reliant on Apple for this.

If you are worried about data loss, you have to look at the common way data is lost. A failed drive is way down on the list. The #1 cause is "user error". The #2 cause is "loss of the equipment". That means theft or a fire or an accident.

If the Mac is reliable or not has no bearing on the most common ways to loose data.

What you need is a redundant backup system that is easy enough to use that you will and can use it. Fortunately Apple Time Machine is nearly foolproof and easy to use. You simply let it run and every hour it copies changes to some external storage.

Then, because a common way to lose data is theft or accident, you need an off-site backup. Something like Backblaze will run continuously and keep a versioned backup in the cloud.

Doing both is good enough for most people but you could add another layer if you need do.

The point is that backup has to be automated and hands off, or you forget or put it off.

 

[benwiggy]

I had heard about Time Machine getting corrupted but usually its tied to another issue like a NAS disconnecting ... could you comment more on this? Need to know because I do use Time Machine

It mostly happens when I'm trying to use too small of a Time Machine disk,

The only times I've seen/heard of problems with TM are: 1) when people mess with it;** and 2) when they run out of space. Sparse images on network volumes can be slightly less reliable than a local external drive.

I've been using TM since it was released in Leopard, and never had a problem. I tend to use drives that are many times larger than the data I'm backing up. Currently, I have a 4 Tb drive backing up a 1Tb drive which is half full. (So, 8 times bigger.)

When the TM drive gets full, I either "archive it" on a shelf and buy a new one; or wipe it and start again. I have other backup strategies as well...!

TM has saved my bacon countless times: usually recovering a file that I've accidentally overwritten or deleted. It's also useful as a migration source for a new Mac.

** By "mess with it", I mean trying to make it work differently from how it's supposed to. You can exclude files and folders; you can set the time interval: but beyond that, leave it alone.

 

[LarTeROn]

always good to have two back up solutions, and I had heard about Time Machine getting corrupted but usually its tied to another issue like a NAS disconnecting ... could you comment more on this? Need to know because I do use Time Machine

I heard that SMB and NFS are both unreliable on Mac, and the Apple file transfer protocol is disappearing soon,
so what are people using for NAS backup?

Personally, I only have a phone connection for backup at work and nightly is too infrequent.

 

[G5isAlive]

I heard that SMB and NFS are both unreliable on Mac, and the Apple file transfer protocol is disappearing soon,
so what are people using for NAS backup?

Personally, I only have a phone connection for backup at work and nightly is too infrequent.

I have no problems with SMB and my Synology NAS. I have heard some people have issues with SMB and windows servers...shrugs. SMB can be slow on startup, but then 'settles down' for me and works fine.