Where I first saw it http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...rked-to-death-and-last-far-longer-than-rated/
Pushing till they died
The first deaths chart
As you can see only the samsung 840 even had reallocated sectors after 100TB of writes. Other models going to 600TB before seeing any reallocated sectors
Putting that into perspective, say you wanted to do something silly on your SSD like rip a blu-ray to it every day. After doing this every day for a year you'd end up on the high side of that average being around 11TB of writes (assuming the high end blu ray rip of around 38GB and the low around 22, and just taking 30GB as an average)
Even with that silly example you would be able to stress the ssd that way for 9 years before seeing any reallocated sectors on the worst case scenario of all drives tested. According to their test results you'd have to do this for over 50 years for any of the drives they tested to fail and that was the earliest failure Or you could do two blu-rays a day of writes for 25 years
Many people have said this isn't really an issue, and many of us have already decided the performance from an in-depth windows environment perspective was such a boost that we didn't care whether or not we would have to replace it within a few years. Also the prices were cheap enough that replacement wasn't a huge concern, but now we should be able to breath some sigh of relief. These will be irrelevant technology in terms of speed long before my typical usage case ever sees that volume of writes to any of the SSDs I own. Now we just need a cost-benefit-analysis showing all the datacenters in all the world how much they'd save with SSD migrations for all data Then more production and lower prices. Can't wait for my solid-state server I guess the jury is still out on MTBF in hours, but I don't think SSDs will ever see the same treatment as it just doesn't make as much sense for Power-on-hours to degrade SSD life.