[nickjj]

I've had a Crucial 256GB SSD (MX100) since early 2015 and I use it with Windows 10. WSL 2's file system is on there along with Docker, which I've been using full time since then. That means all of my source code, installing dependencies, building Docker images, etc. is done on the SSD.

The SMART stats of the drive says it's at 88% health out of 100%, AKA it'll be dead when it reaches 0%. This is the wear and tear on the drive after ~6 years of full time usage on my primary all around dev / video creating / gaming workstation. It's been powered on 112 times for a grand total of 53,152 running hours and I've written 31TB total to it. 53,152 hours is 2,214 days or a little over 6 years. I keep my workstation on all the time short of power outages that drain my UPS or if I leave my place for days.

Here's a screenshot of all of the SMART stats: https://twitter.com/nickjanetakis/status/1357127351772012544

I go out of my way to save large files (videos) and other media (games, etc.) on a HDD but generally most apps are installed on the SSD and I don't really think about the writes.

[tomc1985]

As a counterpoint, I burn-tested several random M.2 NVME drives over a period of a month of 24/7 writes and reads and all but one model failed before the month was up

[rbanffy]

Heat dissipation can be an issue. Writing continuously generates a lot of heat.

[tomc1985]

Part of the purpose of a burn test is to see how it handles temperature under load. We didn't have the option of adding cooling, many of the product installations took place in a hot climate, and nobody wanted to pay for a hardened part...

Anyway, my point is that SSD drive reliability varies wildly

[nwmcsween]

Nvme does, SSDs as in sata doing this burn test will probably work fine