Unpowered SSDs slowly lose data

📝 Discussion Summary (Click to expand)

The discussion revolves around the long-term reliability and data retention of Solid State Drives (SSDs), especially when unpowered, contrasting them with traditional Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) and exploring data integrity methods.

Here are the three most prevalent themes:

1. SSD Data Degradation and Unpowered Retention Concerns

A major theme is the inherent instability of charge in NAND flash memory over time when unpowered, causing data loss or requiring refresh cycles. Many users shared personal anecdotes confirming this concern, particularly after extended periods of inactivity.

Supporting Quote: One user shared a personal experience highlighting the failure: "I learned this when both my old laptops would no longer boot after extended off power time (couple years). They were both stored in a working state and later both had SSDs that were totally dead," stated by "pluralmonad".
Supporting Quote: Another user summarized the general belief about media for long-term use: "SSDs for in-use data, it's quicker and wants to be powered on often. HDDs for long-term storage, as they don't degrade when not in use nearly as fast as SSDs do," noted by "dpoloncsak".

2. The Necessity of Periodic Data Reading/Scrubbing

Because SSD charge levels fade, there is strong consensus that simply powering on an SSD is insufficient; the data must be actively read occasionally to allow the controller firmware to perform internal refreshes and corrections.

Supporting Quote: A direct instruction for maintenance was emphasized: "Powering the SSD on isn't enough. You need to read every bit occasionally in order to recharge the cell," cautioned by "brian-armstrong".
Supporting Quote: Users relying on filesystems with built-in maintenance features see this as assurance: "A ZFS scrub (default scheduled monthly) will do it," mentioned by "giantrobot".

3. Reliance on Filesystem Integrity Checks (ZFS/BTRFS) over Hardware Guarantees

The technical complexity and perceived lack of transparency in proprietary SSD firmware lead many users to advocate for layered data integrity protection provided by modern filesystems like ZFS and BTRFS, which actively scrub and verify data integrity.

Supporting Quote: One user expressed confidence in system-level verification: "I'm quite satisfied with the ZFS approach. I know that a disk scan is performed every week/month (whatever schedule). And I also know that it has verified the contents of each block. It is very reassuring in that way," shared by "mbreese".
Supporting Quote: Even when discussing basic data refreshing, the conversation often circled back to manual verification methods: "More certain to just do a full read of the drive to force error correction and updating of any weakening data," suggested by "gblargg", often using tools like dd to achieve this.

🚀 Project Ideas

SSD Data Health Monitor & Refresh Utility

Summary

A desktop utility that monitors the reported health and unpowered data retention metrics of connected Solid State Drives (SSDs).
It provides actionable advice and one-click tools for users to force read cycles over entire drives, preemptively mitigating bit-rot decay due to lack of power, as discussed by users worrying about long-term offline storage.
Core value proposition: Proactive management and auditing of SSD data integrity, moving beyond relying solely on cryptic firmware maintenance.

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Prosumers, enthusiasts, and individuals using SSDs for offline/cold-storage backups.
Core Feature	Automated background monitoring via SMART data parsing; GUI/CLI tools to trigger full block reads (`dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null`).
Tech Stack	Primary CLI/Tool: Rust or Go (for robust cross-platform binary deployment). GUI wrapper: Electron or native framework (e.g., Tauri/Go-GTK). Interface with SMART data via `smartctl` wrappers or direct kernel interfaces.
Difficulty	Medium
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It directly addresses the uncertainty voiced by users like testartr ("what is the exact protocol to 'recharge' an ssd which was offline for months?") and whitepoplar ("after a full read of all blocks, how long would you leave the drive plugged in for?").
Potential for discussion or practical utility: Integrating manufacturer-specific "refresh" commands (if exposed via NVMe/SATA commands) would make this indispensable. It bridges the gap between "just plug it in" and complex filesystem scrubbing.

Pseudo-SLC Provisioning Switcher

Summary

A service/utility that attempts to interface with drive controllers (via vendor-specific ATA/NVMe commands, or potentially physical firmware flashing hooks) to toggle the available storage capacity to run in pseudo-SLC (pSLC) mode instead of native TLC/QLC.
This solves the desire to trade capacity for greatly enhanced endurance and retention, as discussed by users interested in setting endurance regions (tensility) or forcing MLC/SLC behavior (bobmcnamara, userbinator).
Core value proposition: User-controlled, explicit provisioning of storage for maximum reliability, bypassing manufacturer defaults.

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Advanced users, developers, and high-end storage enthusiasts who need maximum endurance for specific data sets.
Core Feature	A configuration tool that reads drive capabilities and allows users to select operational modes (e.g., "Set 100GB to pSLC mode"), flashing the provisioning settings if supported/accessible.
Tech Stack	Primary Tool: Python (for command abstraction and vendor interaction exploration). Heavily reliant on open-spec communication protocols (NVMe commands, ATA features).
Difficulty	High
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It tackles the "why can't we control it" lament from sevensor and others regarding QLC/MLC modes. It moves the capability mentioned in the thread ("Loads of drives do this... internally") to the user level.
Potential for discussion or practical utility: This would spark massive technical debate on reverse engineering controller firmware interfaces, making it a prime HN discussion topic. Success on even a few drive models would generate significant utility.

Integrated Backup Integrity Verification Service (BIVS)

Summary

A background service designed specifically for users relying on external backup tools like Restic or Kopia (mentioned by Terr_ and beefnugs), providing continuous, low-overhead validation of data integrity stored on attached backup media (SSD or HDD).
It focuses on detecting bit-rot/decay within the backup system itself, rather than just the source data, by periodically running integrity checks (like restic check or ZFS scrubs) on externally mounted backup volumes.
Core value proposition: Automated, cross-platform verification that complements filesystem-level checks, providing necessary auditing for offline media rotation strategies.

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Users employing modern deduplicating/crypto backup tools (Restic, Kopia, Duplicacy) for offline archival.
Core Feature	Daemon that monitors mounted backup storage paths. Executes configured integrity checks (e.g., `restic check`, `zpool scrub`) on a user-defined schedule, aggregating and notifying on any corruption found.
Tech Stack	Linux Daemon: Rust/Go. Windows Service wrapper. Integration via CLI tool invocation leveraging existing crypto hashes embedded in backup formats.
Difficulty	Medium
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It directly addresses the complexity of auditing backups where users rely on hybrid strategies (TacticalCoder's complex script) or external tools (Terr_ fiddling with restic/B2). It solves the "how do I know my backup is still good?" problem without deep filesystem knowledge.
Potential for discussion or practical utility: It could integrate optional features like downloading partial data subsets from cloud targets (like B2) to verify cloud integrity without incurring massive egress costs, addressing Terr_'s B2 concern.