Absolutely this. If you have been following this monster thread you can see that there are multiple causes involved, and different users will be experiencing totally different causes.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ssd swap - high usage of Terabytes Written
- Thread starter Forti
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Absolutely this. If you have been following this monster thread you can see that there are multiple causes involved, and different users will be experiencing totally different causes.
Soory about skipping about 100 pages of comments.
Does anybody know if there is an app that can store and show daily write amounts?
Would that be quite a simple app to make (I'm not a coder, but maybe I should...)?
Does anybody know if there is an app that can store and show daily write amounts?
Would that be quite a simple app to make (I'm not a coder, but maybe I should...)?
Hi Folks!
In late March of this year I bought a new in box 27" 2020 iMac with a 512GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB, and then migrated all my files and apps from my 16" 2019 MacBook Pro, which has almost the same specs that the iMac have.
Well, during these months I've noticed that the mds_stores, launchd and photolibraryd process tends to write a lot of things into my SSD, and this makes me worry about because this machine is almost new and its internal SSD can't be replaced if it fails. According to smartmontools, it shows that 2.75TB have been written to this day, with a moderate usage (I use it about 2-4 times a week for edit photos in Lightroom, office tasks and watching videos mostly), while my 16" 2019 MBP SSD, with the same use, has 18.5TB written in two and a half years.
Smartmoontools test:
Activity Monitor Processes, with Safari opened with few tabs and a video streaming playing in the background:
My question is, How much time it will last until it dies? Should I still worried about this?
Any answer will be very appreciated!
In late March of this year I bought a new in box 27" 2020 iMac with a 512GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB, and then migrated all my files and apps from my 16" 2019 MacBook Pro, which has almost the same specs that the iMac have.
Well, during these months I've noticed that the mds_stores, launchd and photolibraryd process tends to write a lot of things into my SSD, and this makes me worry about because this machine is almost new and its internal SSD can't be replaced if it fails. According to smartmontools, it shows that 2.75TB have been written to this day, with a moderate usage (I use it about 2-4 times a week for edit photos in Lightroom, office tasks and watching videos mostly), while my 16" 2019 MBP SSD, with the same use, has 18.5TB written in two and a half years.
Smartmoontools test:
Activity Monitor Processes, with Safari opened with few tabs and a video streaming playing in the background:
My question is, How much time it will last until it dies? Should I still worried about this?
Any answer will be very appreciated!
I don't think you have anything to worry about, since you're writing at a rate of 1.4 TB/month, and this drive should have a capacity of a few hundred TBW. If, as an example, we use the 300 TBW figure for the 512 GB WD SN850, that's 214 months = 18 years.Hi Folks!
In late March of this year I bought a new in box 27" 2020 iMac with a 512GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB, and then migrated all my files and apps from my 16" 2019 MacBook Pro, which has almost the same specs that the iMac have.
Well, during these months I've noticed that the mds_stores, launchd and photolibraryd process tends to write a lot of things into my SSD, and this makes me worry about because this machine is almost new and its internal SSD can't be replaced if it fails. According to smartmontools, it shows that 2.75TB have been written to this day, with a moderate usage (I use it about 2-4 times a week for edit photos in Lightroom, office tasks and watching videos mostly), while my 16" 2019 MBP SSD, with the same use, has 18.5TB written in two and a half years.
Smartmoontools test:
Activity Monitor Processes, with
My question is, How much time it will last until it dies?
Any answer will be very appreciated!
Of course, that's no guarantee against drive failure, but it shouldn't fail because of writes per se.
Hi Folks!
In late March of this year I bought a new in box 27" 2020 iMac with a 512GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB, and then migrated all my files and apps from my 16" 2019 MacBook Pro, which has almost the same specs that the iMac have.
Well, during these months I've noticed that the mds_stores, launchd and photolibraryd process tends to write a lot of things into my SSD, and this makes me worry about because this machine is almost new and its internal SSD can't be replaced if it fails. According to smartmontools, it shows that 2.75TB have been written to this day, with a moderate usage (I use it about 2-4 times a week for edit photos in Lightroom, office tasks and watching videos mostly), while my 16" 2019 MBP SSD, with the same use, has 18.5TB written in two and a half years.
Smartmoontools test:
Activity Monitor Processes, with Safari opened with few tabs and a video streaming playing in the background:
My question is, How much time it will last until it dies? Should I still worried about this?
Any answer will be very appreciated!
Have a look at this post and some of the following responses.
1.15 petabytes TBW, that's 1,150 TB and only 36% SSD life used and no issues. The Apple SSDs seem to have much greater life than standard.
My own M2 MBA has written 109TB in 15 months and used 2% life. My main causes are same as your screenshot.
What is your total TBW now? use DriveDx or Smartmontools (free but involves terminal)
Total is 2.76TBW, according to Smartmontools, while my 16" 2019 MBP shows 18.5TBW.
It's good to know that I'm not the only one with this issue, and also to have in mind that the SSD will last longer than expected. I worried because some time ago I watched a YouTube video from a repair center (iBoff) that showed a pile of Macs with their SSD dead because they reached the total of TBW lifespan in a short period of time.
Now I'm facing issues with the launchd process, that has been writing a lot of nonsense data to my ssd in the last 45 minutes. Still can't understand why MacOS do this, but well, nothing to worry about (for the moment, at least).
Thanks mates!
Last edited:
Very sceptical about this. I don't think anyone in this monster thread has reported a dead Mac from high SSD life, even the 1.15 petabyte poster. Can you send a link?
I also have no idea why launchd or the others write so much, which seems to be unaffected whether I am using the machine or not.
Your Mac is Intel and this whole subject started because it seems that Silicon Macs write more. I don't believe Silicon owners have any cause for concern, and Intel Mac owners definitely not. I monitor it for interest not because I am concerned.
This video shows the pile of the Macs with dead SSD's, most of them are Intel-based, and the last one is a M1 MacBook Air:
Thanks, I remain very surprised never to have seen any reports in the mainstream Mac Forums including this one. The stated max life of a 256GB drive of 150TBW is not consistent with reports in this thread, not least the 1.15 petabyte one.
Apart from anything else I believe that the oft quoted 150TBW is what manufacturers guarantee. This video says SSDs says manufacturers "claim their SSDs will certainly die when it reaches its maximum". A guarantee is a minimum life not a maximum. I stopped watching at this point as it seems to be yet another sensationalist clickbait You Tube video. His main agenda seems to be about soldering of SSDs which is the not very original complaint which has applied to Apple and some PCs for many years.
If things were like this video implies there would be class action suits all over the place, and the forums would be full of it.
Last edited:
smirking
macrumors 601
I stopped the video as soon as he began harping about how as soon as you reach the TBW, your SSD *dies* 😱. As others mentioned, the TBW number is just a number. Something could happen, but most likely nothing does.
Also, even when your SSD actually does reach exhaustion, it doesn't just die. It just can't write anymore and remains readable. That'd still be very bad. You wouldn't be able to use your MacOS with zero writes to give, but your data would be recoverable.
What Is SSD TBW and How to Check TBW on SSD
Wondering what the TBW of your SSD is? You must wish to know how to check SSD TBW, and don't worry; you'll find the right method here!
There was one large study done in Google data centers on earlier generation SSDs that found that the raw age and not the TBW of the SSD had the greatest correlation to SSD failures. This was done on earlier generation SSDs that aren't as resilient as current day ones.
Last edited:
I stopped the video as soon as he began harping about how as soon as you reach the TBW, your SSD *dies* 😱. As others mentioned, the TBW number is just a number. Something could happen, but most likely nothing does.
Also, even when your SSD actually does reach exhaustion, it doesn't just die. It just can't write anymore and remains readable. You wouldn't be able to boot up your MacOS with zero writes to give, but your data would still be recoverable.
What Is SSD TBW and How to Check TBW on SSD
Wondering what the TBW of your SSD is? You must wish to know how to check SSD TBW, and don't worry; you'll find the right method here!www.easeus.com
There was one large study done in Google data centers on earlier generation SSDs that the raw age and not the TBW of the SSD had the greatest correlation to SSD failures and this was done on earlier generation SSDs that aren't as resilient as current day ones.
Also note comments in this post responding to the 1.15PBW report. @leman is one of the people in this forum I pay most attention to.
There is some useful discussion and examples of very high TBW in this thread.
Queen6
Suspended
Have a 2020 M1 Base 13" MBP. Really struggling as it's yet to slow or have any issue. Have better things to do than worry about it's SSD writes. IMHO it will be done far before it's SSD fails.
Apple has and is culpable of getting things wrong for all the wrong reasons. Primary storage 🤔Don't think Apple is so stupid, greedy or misguided as would be the end of the Mac and more...
Doubts, where's the numbers; 2016 MBP redesign was a disaster that many Pro's hated with a vengeance and railed against. The ButterBall Keyboard was a bad joke that took far too long to resolve. Apple SSD's as of May 2024 they seem to be very solid...
Still have a 2014 13" that's SSD has never been less than 90% full. Was a work tool, totally abused. Decade on seems to be impervious to the abuse, drops and all. It rattles as something is loose inside. Don't care as it's done it's time, better to keep it doing something than junk it, because internet says the SSD will fail...
Q-6
Apple has and is culpable of getting things wrong for all the wrong reasons. Primary storage 🤔Don't think Apple is so stupid, greedy or misguided as would be the end of the Mac and more...
Doubts, where's the numbers; 2016 MBP redesign was a disaster that many Pro's hated with a vengeance and railed against. The ButterBall Keyboard was a bad joke that took far too long to resolve. Apple SSD's as of May 2024 they seem to be very solid...
Still have a 2014 13" that's SSD has never been less than 90% full. Was a work tool, totally abused. Decade on seems to be impervious to the abuse, drops and all. It rattles as something is loose inside. Don't care as it's done it's time, better to keep it doing something than junk it, because internet says the SSD will fail...
Q-6
Last edited:
If the SSD dies and your computer is still worth any money, you can replace the SSD. OK, maybe you can't but it is easy work for a tech with a hot air workstation. It is a five minute job to unsolder the chip and about as long to put the new one on. The real problem will be (1) finding replacement chips in 20 years and (2) deciding that an obsolete computer is worth the cost of repair.
Apple will not actually repair the computer boards. they swap them out for new. But only for a few years and then they call the Mac "obsolete" and will not repair it at all.
The good thing is that while you have the solder equipment out, then is the time to upgrade the SSD to a larger size.
when they say the ssd is not upgradable, they mean by the end user. The chips can be replaced.
Apple will not actually repair the computer boards. they swap them out for new. But only for a few years and then they call the Mac "obsolete" and will not repair it at all.
The good thing is that while you have the solder equipment out, then is the time to upgrade the SSD to a larger size.
when they say the ssd is not upgradable, they mean by the end user. The chips can be replaced.
thebart
macrumors 6502a
I bought a refurb M1 mini March 2023. It now has 18TBW. I think it had about 4TBW when I got it. This is on the low side compared to others in this thread, but high compared to my PC, which was my workhorse and had like 6TBW after 3 years
I don't know what MacOS is doing but it seems to write to disk a lot. Regardless of how long the SSD lasts, I prefer OSes that chill the **** out and not write massive amount of data all the time while seemingly doing nothing to improve user experience.
You don’t write about the amount of RAM in your Mac Mini, your PC and your workload on each computer. If your Mini only has 8GB of RAM and you have a heavy workload macOS has to swap a lot of files to SSD. You should check the memory pressure in the activity monitor.
Samsung claims the chips are good for 1.2 PBW. (or to use the same units, they are good for 1,200,000 TBW At the rate you are writing to the SSD you have 60 years of expected life. 18 TBW is insignificant.
Why do you care about this?
thebart
macrumors 6502a
PC has 12gb RAM. Mac has 16gb. I pretty much do more or less the same work, except I gamed a bit on the PC.
there really is no downside to swapping. One of the OS' jobs is to manage what is in RAM. It wants to keep only the date theat is liley to be accessed and to not keept data that will not be.
In general the speed to access data is the probibilty in will be in RAM times the speed of the RAM + the probibilty it will be on the SSD times the speed of the SSD. If the OS is doing its job that sub will be minimized.
But there is more to it them that. Access time only matters if the user is waiting. When the user is not waiting the OS can work in the background to move stuff and even compress stuff. The idea is to minimize wait times.
So if the OS is working it will be moving data in the background.
The tradoff was different back when machanical spinning disks were used. Disk access was slow, noisy and used a lot of power. But now writes are nearly free so the tradeoff is different
Look at the above equation. When disk access was 100X slower the total was bigger so you needed larger RAM sizes to move ther probibilty of data being in RAM. But today we have very fast SSD with 1.23 PBW lifetimes. So it makes sense to use it.
A possible problem is that the SSD has "only" about 1.2 trillion writes before it gets worn out. So we have to look at the rate. Hopw long will the SSD last. Simply devide the writes per year into 1.2 trillion and you will know the number of years.
To use more technical terms: The "working set" is non-constant and depends heavily on user interaction. You would hoe the OS tracks this and is even proactive.
In general the speed to access data is the probibilty in will be in RAM times the speed of the RAM + the probibilty it will be on the SSD times the speed of the SSD. If the OS is doing its job that sub will be minimized.
But there is more to it them that. Access time only matters if the user is waiting. When the user is not waiting the OS can work in the background to move stuff and even compress stuff. The idea is to minimize wait times.
So if the OS is working it will be moving data in the background.
The tradoff was different back when machanical spinning disks were used. Disk access was slow, noisy and used a lot of power. But now writes are nearly free so the tradeoff is different
Look at the above equation. When disk access was 100X slower the total was bigger so you needed larger RAM sizes to move ther probibilty of data being in RAM. But today we have very fast SSD with 1.23 PBW lifetimes. So it makes sense to use it.
A possible problem is that the SSD has "only" about 1.2 trillion writes before it gets worn out. So we have to look at the rate. Hopw long will the SSD last. Simply devide the writes per year into 1.2 trillion and you will know the number of years.
To use more technical terms: The "working set" is non-constant and depends heavily on user interaction. You would hoe the OS tracks this and is even proactive.
When you combine a high-performance OS with limited RAM, as is common on Macs, you're going to get a lot of swap.
Imagine you're working a lot with one set of programs, and then switch to another set. A good OS will recognize this and quickly swap the files associated with the former programs to disk if it needs to make room in RAM to use the latter. It's all about keeping what's being accessed most often in RAM, and if that's continuously changing, and RAM is limited, maintaining performance means continous swapping.
Apple of course knows this, so these SSD must be designed to tolerate heavy swap.
Imagine you're working a lot with one set of programs, and then switch to another set. A good OS will recognize this and quickly swap the files associated with the former programs to disk if it needs to make room in RAM to use the latter. It's all about keeping what's being accessed most often in RAM, and if that's continuously changing, and RAM is limited, maintaining performance means continous swapping.
Apple of course knows this, so these SSD must be designed to tolerate heavy swap.
"must be"?? Why guess when you can look it up? Answer: 1.2PBW
Queen6
Suspended
Would seem to be, I leave the worry wardens to worry. I use the Mac's as intended. Don't look, dont care as by now there would be countless thousands of M1 Mac's dropping if there was such an issue similar to the ButterBall keyboard.
Still have a base 2020 M1 13" and see no reason to replace it for the given role. I update these days when I feel they are lacking or there's a competitive edge...
Q-6
Last edited:
Dude, I just agreed with your last post. Was it really necessary to be so condescending in response to mine? But fine, if you want to go there, let's.
The fact is you completely missed my point. That number's already been mentioned several times, so why repeat it? I wanted to come at it from a different angle, based purely on design principles. You seem to know enough about this to be aware of that number, but not enough to realize that (a) that number is not official or definitive, but is instead merely an extrapolation from a SMART report; and (b) the two ways to consider this that have been discussed here (based on an extrapolated number, or based on design principles) are not mutually exclusive.
You're a classic example of what Neil Tyson describes as someone who "knows just enough to be convinced he's right, but not enough to realize he's wrong." Or to put it in my terms: Knows just enough to think he's in a position to presume to lecture others, but not enough to realize he's the one that needs the lecture.
smirking
macrumors 601
It's amazing how well this routine works. I completely beat the crap out of a stock 8GB M1 13" MBP by running a workflow I normally run on a much higher spec'd machine. It handled it just fine, but I was shocked to see that on some days it was hitting close to 1 TB of swap.
I used to be one of those people who had RAM anxiety. I'm not anymore.