Resolved SSD bad block

I have a Samsung SSD EVO 500 GIG HD which is 3 years old. Its about 30% used..In event viewer, today and today only, it sez there is a bad block

Never had an ssd before. Is this a sign of impending faailure?

thanks

 

I don't think so. SSDs are totally different from hard drives where new bad blocks or sectors often does indicate impending doom. Fortunately, SSDs are smarter than hard drives. Now if you check again in a week and you see more, then for sure, I would be shopping for a new drive.

See this for more information: My SSD Has Bad Sectors | Crucial.com

In the meantime, make sure you have a copy of any data you don't want to lose. And if this is a failing drive, do NOT think of this as characteristic of SSDs. They typically are much more reliable than hard drives - especially newer generation SSDs and with yours only 3 years old, it definitely is newer generation. If yours is going, you just got hit with a bit of bad luck.

That said, if me, since my own experience with dozens of SSDs here, many close to 10 years old and still going strong. In fact, I have never had a SSD fail before they were retired simply for being too small. So if me, I might want to make sure my power is good. I always have my computers supported by a good UPS with AVR and I verify my outlets are wired correctly and properly grounded to Earth ground by using a good AC Outlet Tester.

 

I think I read that same article as you! Should I run chkdsk with no switches?

thanks

 

I always run chkdsk /r from an elevated command prompt. If you don't use switches, it only reports errors (if any) - it does not try to fix them.

Note you can also run Error Checking from within Windows with the drive's Properties > Tools. That's the same as chkdsk. You will likely be prompted to have it run at next boot.

Just note either way can take a long time and appear to be hung up. Just let it run.

 

Hmmm, not good. so, I ran chkdsk and properties error checking and both reported no errors. I decided to do a system image and it looked good all through the backup, but at the end it failed by saying there are bad bad blocks on the source volume. looked in the event viewer and it had bad block errors all during the back up. so I just backed up the little stuff i had in docs and downloads to the external drive. maybe a different HD utility?

thanks

 

Never make image of any hard disk/partition which has bad blocks. The image may carry them over to the new hard disk when you restore it. Just backup the files using copy to a new hard disk. That way at least all good files would be available.

 

I agree with Pete and you can see what Samsung Magician says. But if me, and I kept getting these errors, I would not trust the drive.

(My bold underline added below)

BTW, I am sure this was just your fingers having a mind of their own, but the EVO is a SSD only. Not SSD HD!

That said, dig out your receipts. Depending on the specific EVO model you have, they come with either a 3 year or a 5 year warranty.

 

ok, I'll try the magician.. Just to be clear, the SSD is a samsung SSD 870 EVO 500GB. I do have the receipt, but it's a custom build I specified to an independent shop in san diego. last year I moved to Utah. The only use for this machine was to draw and design aircraft parts using Corel Draw. There's 88 gig used and about 378 gig free space. I'd like SMART to mark that bad block. The few apps I have are working fine and all of my docs, downloads, and corel draw stuff is there. The other apps are Microsoft 365, and a network design tool called Packet Tracer. OneDrive backs up all pics from my camera. So looking in the event viewer, the bad block reports started about seven minutes after start up yesterday. None today and none from the past two weeks. i'll report back in a couple of days

 

The SSD has intelligent software inbuilt which marks & removes the bad blocks but if you are getting a lot of errors, you may loose data.
Don't worry about the disk, worry more about your data.

 

Magician reported LBA failing. not a bunch. chkdsk is grim. I've backed up the data.




Log Name: Application
Source: Chkdsk
Date: 8/1/2024 8:52:21 PM
Event ID: 26212
Task Category: None
Level: Information
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: DESKTOP-153OK6S
Description:
Chkdsk was executed in read-only mode on a volume snapshot.

Checking file system on C:
The type of the file system is NTFS.

WARNING! /F parameter not specified.
Running CHKDSK in read-only mode.

Stage 1: Examining basic file system structure ...
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 is cross linked
starting at 0xdf6e93 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0
in file 0x19af7 is already in use.
The attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 in file 0x19af7
has allocated length of 0x49ca000 instead of 0x82a000.

Deleted corrupt attribute list entry
with type code 80 in file 19AF7.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x4 and segment
reference 0x92000000019af7. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 19AF7
is corrupt.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x0 and segment
reference 0x13000000000013. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 13
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x5 is cross linked
starting at 0x685061 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x5
in file 0x1be77 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1BE77
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x7 is cross linked
starting at 0xbc749c for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x7
in file 0x1cf81 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1CF81
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0x62488d for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x1e86e is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1E86E
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0x62488e for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x1e9da is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1E9DA
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x8 is cross linked
starting at 0xb873e3 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x8
in file 0x45410 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 45410
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x6 is cross linked
starting at 0xce115d for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x6
in file 0x4a545 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 4A545
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0xf37297 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x4ddb6 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 4DDB6
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 is cross linked
starting at 0x8b7365 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0
in file 0x61092 is already in use.

Deleted corrupt attribute list entry
with type code 80 in file 61092.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x0 and segment
reference 0x15000000000015. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 15
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x3 is cross linked
starting at 0x92745a for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x3
in file 0x73ce2 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 73CE2
is corrupt.
851968 file records processed.

File verification completed.
Phase duration (File record verification): 7.39 seconds.
File record segment 13 is an orphan.
File record segment 15 is an orphan.
27880 large file records processed.

Phase duration (Orphan file record recovery): 0.00 milliseconds.

Errors found. CHKDSK cannot continue in read-only mode.


Checking file system on C:
The type of the file system is NTFS.

WARNING! /F parameter not specified.
Running CHKDSK in read-only mode.

Stage 1: Examining basic file system structure ...
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 is cross linked
starting at 0xdf6e93 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0
in file 0x19af7 is already in use.
The attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 in file 0x19af7
has allocated length of 0x49ca000 instead of 0x82a000.

Deleted corrupt attribute list entry
with type code 80 in file 19AF7.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x4 and segment
reference 0x92000000019af7. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 19AF7
is corrupt.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x0 and segment
reference 0x13000000000013. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 13
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x5 is cross linked
starting at 0x685061 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x5
in file 0x1be77 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1BE77
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x7 is cross linked
starting at 0xbc749c for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x7
in file 0x1cf81 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1CF81
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0x62488d for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x1e86e is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1E86E
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0x62488e for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x1e9da is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 1E9DA
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x8 is cross linked
starting at 0xb873e3 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x8
in file 0x45410 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 45410
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x6 is cross linked
starting at 0xce115d for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x6
in file 0x4a545 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 4A545
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4 is cross linked
starting at 0xf37297 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x4
in file 0x4ddb6 is already in use.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 4DDB6
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0 is cross linked
starting at 0x8b7365 for possibly 0x1 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x0
in file 0x61092 is already in use.

Deleted corrupt attribute list entry
with type code 80 in file 61092.
Unable to locate attribute with instance tag 0x0 and segment
reference 0x15000000000015. The expected attribute type is 0x80.
Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 15
is corrupt.
Attribute record of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x3 is cross linked
starting at 0x92745a for possibly 0x2 clusters.
Some clusters occupied by attribute of type 0x80 and instance tag 0x3
in file 0x73ce2 is already in use.

Attribute record (80, "") from file record segment 73CE2
is corrupt.
851968 file records processed.

File verification completed.
Phase duration (File record verification): 7.39 seconds.
File record segment 13 is an orphan.
File record segment 15 is an orphan.
27880 large file records processed.

Phase duration (Orphan file record recovery): 0.00 milliseconds.

-------------------------

anyway, glad to see SSD's are dime a dozen now

 

Why did you run it in read-only mode? You didn't give chkdsk a chance to see if could repair the problem(s).

Note that corrupted data is not good. But corrupted data does NOT automatically indicate failing hardware.

As I noted above,

Understand the /r switch implies (includes the functions of) the /f switch. So when you enter chkdsk /r, you perform all the functions of /f, plus chkdsk tries to recover readable data.

And running chkdsk from an elevated command prompt (as administrator) gives chkdsk permission to access to all the files and sectors.

FTR, if you want to see what all the switches do (without performing any functions on the disk or data), as well as examples of proper syntax, enter chkdsk /? at the command prompt.

 

So ended up replacing the drive with an MSI 1 TB. Boots faster. Next stop is seeing what kind of warranty Samsung will offer. Their website sez the 870 EVO is warrantied for 5 years. Mine started failing at a little less than 3. It still booted up before I replaced it

Thanks all for the comments

 

Just wanted to do an update on this in case anybody is interested in Samsung customer service

A couple of weeks ago, I went to the Samsung website and registered the bad SSD. Last week, I started the warranty process with Samsung. No questions asked, no receipts needed. they sent me an RMA. I take the drive to any UPS store. The people there packed and shipped it UPS RED to Conneticutt from my place in Utah. No cost to me. Samsung received the drive on Wednesday last week, On Friday last week, they shipped me back a new one UPS BLUE and I got it on Tuesday. Absolutely no cost to me.

amazing service

 

Thanks for that update.

 

Good to know that some companies are still offering good service without the customer jumping through the loop. I had also bought a Samsung SDD 4 years back & it is still going strong.

 

FWIW, I've been buying Samsung SSDs for many years now. I have some that are 10 years old and still running. In fact, I have not had a single one fail. Since all electronics will fail eventually, no doubt eventually even these will - if I don't retire them first.