Just RMA'd Crucial M4 SSD Drive

[r2o2]

I have just RMA'd a Crucial M4 SSD 2.5 256GB SATA 6Gb/s drive, which failed on my new system (built Jan 2012), after 10 months usage.

The drive blue-screened Win7 around every 1-2 hours, and when I cloned a backup image to an HDD, all was well.

The fault also exhibited when connecting the SSD as a data drive - after 1-2hrs it 'dropped out' of Explorer or crashed an application accessing it. On soft reboot, BIOS setup didn't see the SSD drive. Hard reboot brought it back, and it'd then work for another 1-2 hrs.

EBuyer.com have confirmed the drive faulty, and will replace it - though now I am wondering whether its really worth having an SSD, even though it is noticeably faster. I am thinking of refunding it instead, but not sure if I have the right to ask for a refund in this situation. The price has dropped from £260 to £150 since I bought it.

I regularly run 1 or more Virtual Machines on my PC in VMWare, and often leave it on 24/7. I am wondering if this usage pattern is 'bad' for an SSD for some reason - that would make the SSD useless to me.

Also I find the 256GB restrictive, as a Win7 partition 128GB soons fills up, and 128GB for various virtual machines soon fills up also. Above 256GB is getting a bit expensive, an HDD seems much better value.

Anybody else have any experiences to share or advice on this?

many thanks


System specs :-
Asus P8Z68-V LX Socket 1155 Onboard graphics output 8 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard
Corsair TX 650W V2 PSU - 80plus Bronze Certified
Corsair Vengeance 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 1600Mhz CL9 1.5V Non-ECC Unbuffered
Intel Core i5 2500 3.3GHz Socket 1155 6MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor

 

[Burner27]

What firmware was installed on it? It sounds like you have the '5200 hour' bug which was corrected with a FW upgrade. I would use the 0309 firmware if you haven't already sent it back.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I wouldn't get too put off by this experience. Failures do happen with any hardware. The chance of the RMA drive also failing should be very low (unless you have other bad hardware).

EDIT:
As the above poster suggests
Which version of firmware did your drive have ?

 

[r2o2]

I wrote down the info stamped on it, indicating Firmware REV 0009, though it has now been sent back to Ebuyer who have confirmed it faulty :-

Crucial M4 SSD 2.5 256GB SATA 6Gb/s
Firmware Rev : 0009
P/N : CT256M4SSD2
Serial no : 1141031D0C22

 

[Burner27]

You definitely experienced the 5200 hour bug then. It was fixed with FW 0309.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

The usage pattern isn't a problem at all with SSDs. The downside of SSDs are it's still a relatively new technology that is ironing out the bugs of the controllers. This is why brands are almost #1 concern for SSD purchasers. Firmware between companies using the same controller also plays a role in it's reliability.

 

[Rhezuss]

You definitely experienced the 5200 bug then. It was fixed with FW 0309.

Is this for any M4s? I just got my M4 128gb today and gonna install it this weekend...I should upgrade the firmware to 0309 if it's not already up to date?

 

[Burner27]

Is this for any M4s? I just got my M4 128gb today and gonna install it this weekend...I should upgrade the firmware to 0309 if it's not already up to date?

This is for any M4. I know that the 0309 was specifically released for that bug. If your drive comes with the 010G then I wouldn't bother flashing back to 0309 since it'll have the fix in it already. If it comes with 0309 leave it there as the 010G has gotten mixed reviews. I know that I am contradicting my own advice with those statements but I have 4 x 256GB M4s in RAID0 and I have not upgraded their current FW (0309) to the 010G because I saw the reviews on the 010G.

If you have FW 0009 ----> upgrade to 0309
If you have FW 0309 ----> stay there
If you have FW 010G ----> stay there if you don't have any issues. If you do install 0309 if you feel adventurous

 

[r2o2]

Thanks Burner27, great advice.
That 5200 hour bug sounds precisely what I experienced.
I will check what firmware I get back from Ebuyer.

Though for future reference I wondered what this ominous warning could be all about on Crucial's firmware update page :-
"UEFI-based Systems: During validation of this firmware update we noticed instances where our update tools do not recognize the SSD with some systems using UEFI. The target device is not recognized as an updateable device during the reboot process. If this happens, the firmware update will not occur, and you’ll retain the firmware version you started with. Windows will then restart normally. If this sequence occurs, you cannot upgrade to this firmware version at this time, but you’ve done no harm to your system (or your data)."

 

[Rhezuss]

This is for any M4. I know that the 0309 was specifically released for that bug. If your drive comes with the 010G then I wouldn't bother flashing back to 0309 since it'll have the fix in it already. If it comes with 0309 leave it there as the 010G has gotten mixed reviews. I know that I am contradicting my own advice with those statements but I have 4 x 256GB M4s in RAID0 and I have not upgraded their current FW (0309) to the 010G because I saw the reviews on the 010G.

If you have FW 0009 ----> upgrade to 0309
If you have FW 0309 ----> stay there
If you have FW 010G ----> stay there if you don't have any issues. If you do install 0309 if you feel adventurous

Great, many thanks Burner27!

 

[jacktesterson]

I think this would have been corrected with a firmware upgrade before sending it back. Shame it was sent back.

 

[Anteaus]

EBuyer.com have confirmed the drive faulty, and will replace it - though now I am wondering whether its really worth having an SSD, even though it is noticeably faster.

If you chose to go back to a decent HDD I doubt you'd feel bad about it. I bought into the whole SSD thing and replaced my 1TB WD Black with 2 Samsung 830 256GBs for system/games. Admittedly the system boots much faster and many games load quicker, but honestly my day to day experience has been identical. If I had to go back to my HDD tomorrow I would not feel any remorse about it.

Do I think SSDs are worth it? Yes, if money isn't an issue and you want to maximize performance. That said, if you'd rather put that money some where else I wouldn't put much thought into it. Not having an SSD doesn't put you at a disadvantage as much as a weak video card, weak cpu, or lack of memory.

 

[r2o2]

If you chose to go back to a decent HDD I doubt you'd feel bad about it. I bought into the whole SSD thing and replaced my 1TB WD Black with 2 Samsung 830 256GBs for system/games. Admittedly the system boots much faster and many games load quicker, but honestly my day to day experience has been identical. If I had to go back to my HDD tomorrow I would not feel any remorse about it.

Do I think SSDs are worth it? Yes, if money isn't an issue and you want to maximize performance. That said, if you'd rather put that money some where else I wouldn't put much thought into it. Not having an SSD doesn't put you at a disadvantage as much as a weak video card, weak cpu, or lack of memory.

On returning to an old Seagate 400GB HDD, I can't say its been much of a problem, the boot is definitely a lot slower, and firing up applications slower, and VM's boot up slower, but generally none of that is a major problem, especially as the machine is left running 24/7 a lot of the time. On the whole spending your money elsewhere in the system may be of greater benefit, eg get a better spec mobo, or more memory, or some useful accessory like a 3TB USB3 drive.

 

[beginner99]

If you chose to go back to a decent HDD I doubt you'd feel bad about it. I bought into the whole SSD thing and replaced my 1TB WD Black with 2 Samsung 830 256GBs for system/games. Admittedly the system boots much faster and many games load quicker, but honestly my day to day experience has been identical. If I had to go back to my HDD tomorrow I would not feel any remorse about it.

Then do it and you will be surprised. The thing is with an ssd things work as they should (no several seconds of stuttering for know apparent reason and so on) and hence since it works as you expect it is not special. It however gets special if you move back or have to use another computer without ssd.

Also fresh windows installs general are also quick on hdd. but after installing /removing a lot and all the updates things tend to get slower. Hence if you one of those that reinstall windows every half year the benefit of an ssd is also less obvious.

 

[Burner27]

Thanks Burner27, great advice.
That 5200 hour bug sounds precisely what I experienced.
I will check what firmware I get back from Ebuyer.

Though for future reference I wondered what this ominous warning could be all about on Crucial's firmware update page :-
"UEFI-based Systems: During validation of this firmware update we noticed instances where our update tools do not recognize the SSD with some systems using UEFI. The target device is not recognized as an updateable device during the reboot process. If this happens, the firmware update will not occur, and you’ll retain the firmware version you started with. Windows will then restart normally. If this sequence occurs, you cannot upgrade to this firmware version at this time, but you’ve done no harm to your system (or your data)."

Just means if your BIOS is in UEFI mode the updater won't run. Going back to a 'classic BIOS' mode will allow you to flash the drive.

 

[r2o2]

Just means if your BIOS is in UEFI mode the updater won't run. Going back to a 'classic BIOS' mode will allow you to flash the drive.

I thought all modern PC's used new 'UEFI' type interface between OS and hardware, rather than the old 'BIOS' type interface, one of main reasons being support for GPT disk drive partition table rather than MBR type, in order to support >2.2TB drives.

I was not aware there was some option to go back to 'classic BIOS', but there is definitely a BIOS type of setup you can enter by hitting DEL key, which has all the various configurations, eg boot priority, enabled/disable onboard LAN/sound etc, overclocking settings etc. I always still refer to it as 'BIOS', even though its strictly called UEFI now.

 

[LoveMachine]

If you chose to go back to a decent HDD I doubt you'd feel bad about it. I bought into the whole SSD thing and replaced my 1TB WD Black with 2 Samsung 830 256GBs for system/games. Admittedly the system boots much faster and many games load quicker, but honestly my day to day experience has been identical. If I had to go back to my HDD tomorrow I would not feel any remorse about it.

Do I think SSDs are worth it? Yes, if money isn't an issue and you want to maximize performance. That said, if you'd rather put that money some where else I wouldn't put much thought into it. Not having an SSD doesn't put you at a disadvantage as much as a weak video card, weak cpu, or lack of memory.

My 64GB M4 died after 11 months, even with the 0309 update. Many reviews on the Egg are showing this pattern too with failures right around 10 to 12 months with the newer firmware, but it's not affecting all drives. Perhaps some new bug? My RMA'd drive is now working fine (and Crucial has a relatively good service dept to talk to), but if the new one fails I'll be jumping ship to another brand.

While waiting for the new SSD, I was using a 1TB WD Black as a replacement, and I felt like pulling out what's left of my hair. The whole experience during general use felt painfully slow. I don't have a huge amount of RAM (8GB) but it's more than enough for Win7 64, so the spinner was a real drag.

 

[Mfusick]

I had RMA crucial before too... They are not as reliable real life as the as the reputation suggests.

It's just crucial owners and buyers tend to be more pc smart so less bashers and horror stories are out there.

the return data and reputation are a bit exaggerated because of the type of person buying and using them.

Other cheap SSDs have lots of horror stories because noobs set up wrong or use wrong and also the real pros bash ... Both lead poor reputations.

I'm not sure how I can read almost everyday about a crucial drive failing or done critical 5200 hour bug and in same day there ten people promoting crucial as best option for new SSD purchase.

They are decent drives but merely on par. They don't lead in performance, price or reliability but offer a decent balance of all three.

@op. for sure update firmware .

 

[sequoia464]

though now I am wondering whether its really worth having an SSD, even though it is noticeably faster.

Anybody else have any experiences to share or advice on this?

We all see things a bit differently but I will never use an HD other than as a backup, this is after I just had a Plextor M3 fail big time on me taking a months worth of work.

Just moved over to W8 and my backup program didn't play well with W8 - I procrastinated on updating it and paid the price.

That said, I have had 10 SSD's now (even a couple of Vertex 2's) and just this one failure.

 

[Burner27]

I have personally tried 17 different SSDs(not brands - trying to keep up with OldHippie) and I have not experienced one failure. I have stuck by three brands mostly: Intel, Samsung, and Crucial. They have not let me down and have provided excellent performance.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

You definitely experienced the 5200 bug then. It was fixed with FW 0309.

Yup, had it too... fixed in 30 minutes, after a pleasant phone chat with a Crucial tech support rep.

 

[BrightCandle]

I actually had no problem upgrading the latest bios on UEFI bios. It only occurs on some machines so its well worth trying it out as it may very well just work.

 

[r2o2]

FWIW - this is the FIRST time I have experienced a hard disk failure, in 25 years of usage of hard disk drives, both at home and at work. The worst I have seen is the odd bad sector, and even then that was rare.

In other words HDD's are RELIABLE.

When a disk drive is deployed for a business purpose as opposed to home use then maybe HDD is a better bet for the sake of reliability - OK, I guess it depends on what kind of failover system you have in place. If an HDD failure is a real hassle for you, then maybe better hold off on an SSD. They are clearly heavily marketed, and kind of like teamed graphics cards - are they really much benefit for most people.

 

[F1shF4t]

FWIW - this is the FIRST time I have experienced a hard disk failure, in 25 years of usage of hard disk drives, both at home and at work. The worst I have seen is the odd bad sector, and even then that was rare.

In other words HDD's are RELIABLE.

When a disk drive is deployed for a business purpose as opposed to home use then maybe HDD is a better bet for the sake of reliability - OK, I guess it depends on what kind of failover system you have in place. If an HDD failure is a real hassle for you, then maybe better hold off on an SSD. They are clearly heavily marketed, and kind of like teamed graphics cards - are they really much benefit for most people.

Recently I had 3 Seagates fail in my NAS 1 week apart, so I wouldn’t be making that statement. Before that I have had a few laptop and desktop drives go bad over the last few years. The only SSD that failed on me was a Gen1 Sandforce and I've used multiple Crucial M4s, Intel, Samsung and Corsair SSDs (I've got 15 SSDs in use right now)

They are definitely worth it. IMHO HDDs are painfully slow as boot drives, especially the 5400rpm laptop ones.

 

[Mfusick]

Agree +1million.

I can't operate a non SSD based OS install. It's painfully slow.