Comment by senectus1

Comment by senectus1 2 days ago

Had the same issue with a Crucial drive from amazon. looked just like the real thing but for some small discrepancies. Performed like an absolute dog and the SMART data was waaaay off.

amazon just refunded me the whole amount and I pulled it apart to see what was inside: https://imgur.com/a/NUSuuEh

quite annoying, though also amusing.

Cervisia 2 days ago

There is nothing obviously suspicious with what's inside. The SATA form factor was designed for HDDs; solid-state drives usually are not much larger than a M.2 drive.

These flash part numbers look like Intel. This is actually plausible; until 2018, Intel and Micron had a flash partnership. And while their Crucial brand has some good high-end drives, they are also willing to sell absolute bottom-of-the-barrel trash.

What are these discrepancies, and what's off in the SMART values?

Reply View 2 replies

cm2187 a day ago

In fact I opened a failed 3.84TB SAS SSD recently and it looked fairly similar.

Reply View | 0 replies
senectus1 2 days ago

yeah sorry i dont have those deets anymore.. I remember they gave a lot less information than another one of the same make model and size.. I also remember the official FW refused to see the device.
It was 2 years ago.. so thats all i have :-P

Reply View | 0 replies

dlcarrier 2 days ago

Run f3fix on it, and you can use whatever portion of it is real to store low-value data, like Linux ISOs, that you could re-download if you lose, but are convenient to have locally.

Reply View 0 replies

Ekaros 2 days ago

Pretty much what is expected from lower capacity SSD. Flash memory does not take that much space. And if you are not at top of range you do not need to populate all grids.

Reply View 0 replies