You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The power on hours of my - otherwise great and perfectly reliable - Samsung 970 EVO Plus are odd. Search engine turned up this discussion on Ask Ubuntu:
The values for my servers are definitely increasing so I don't think these Samsung drives reset the counter to zero at each power cycle like some Transcend SSDs do. The factor of 8 looks consistent with my devices.
Do you have sources to verify if that is indeed correct? Seems to apply to 980 series, too. Although the Reddit discussions I found are much more vague than the cited one on Ask Ubuntu.
If you are fine with the reasoning, please multiply the values at least for Samsung 970 EVO and 970 EVO Plus by a factor of 8.
Kind regards,
Patrick
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
OK, some more research and it seems it is not quite as simple as I thought.
I have two 970 EVO Plus 1 TB that correctly show 4 years of power on time and definitely have not been in service for three decades (x8) ;-)
I have a 970 EVO Plus 500 GB that I received on Oct. 23rd and that shows 10 hours of operation while the reality is more like 80.
All drives have the same firmware version 2B2QEXM7.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The power on hours of my - otherwise great and perfectly reliable - Samsung 970 EVO Plus are odd. Search engine turned up this discussion on Ask Ubuntu:
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1147619/nvme-samsung-ssd-970-evo-500gb-wrong-smart-power-on-hours
Describe the solution you'd like
The values for my servers are definitely increasing so I don't think these Samsung drives reset the counter to zero at each power cycle like some Transcend SSDs do. The factor of 8 looks consistent with my devices.
Do you have sources to verify if that is indeed correct? Seems to apply to 980 series, too. Although the Reddit discussions I found are much more vague than the cited one on Ask Ubuntu.
If you are fine with the reasoning, please multiply the values at least for Samsung 970 EVO and 970 EVO Plus by a factor of 8.
Kind regards,
Patrick
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: