Check these out - I'm just going to leave 8.3 filenames on:   Why Disabling the Creation of 8.3 DOS File Names Will Not Improve Performance. Or Will It? . . . Conclusion - The one thing that really affects system performance is fetching data from disk. In my analysis I have found cases in which the creation and maintenance of short file names causes additional hard disk IOs. These effects are mitigated by the operating system’s caching mechanisms, though . . . The performance benefits of disabling the creation of 8.3 names are probably small. I do not think that is worth breaking backwards compatibility. As always, actual numbers may vary greatly depending on workload, hardware and other factors . . . https://helgeklein.com/blog/2008/09/why-disabling-the-creation-of-83-dos-file-names-will-not-improve-performance-or-will-it/   How to wreck your Windows network (Part 2) . . . Unfortunately disabling 8.3 name creation on Windows networks can impact a lot more than just some old 16-bit applications you still have kicking around. For example: . . . It can cause problems with batch files that expect 8.3 filenames to work and use %~s1 for expanded paths or omit quotes for names that might contain spaces . . . It can cause issues if you use Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager 2007 to manage your environment, see this blog post for details . . . It can cause issues with certain third-party products such as ones from McAfee, Symantec and others . . . In other words, disabling 8.3 name creation can cause application compatibility issues, which can impact the reliability of your network. There may be workarounds for some of the resulting issues, but workarounds by definition tend to increase the complexity of your environment, and anytime complexity goes up manageability tends to go down (complex stuff is generally more difficult to manage than simple stuff) . . . So don't disable 8.3 name creation on NTFS volumes to try and "boost performance" of the filesystem . . . http://techgenix.com/how-wreck-your-windows-network-part2/ ... View more

To help me understand completely . . . Do you know what were some of the last popular programs that used 8.3 filenames?  And what year were they from?   They could add that information to this page . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.3_filename ... View more

What do you thnk the "Remarks" on this page are talking about?   Fsutil 8dot3name | Microsoft Docs . . . Parameters ( /s ) . . . [What?] Remarks - Permanently removing 8dot3 file names and not modifying registry keys that point to the 8dot3 file names may lead to unexpected application failures, including the inability to uninstall an application. It is recommended you first back up your directory or volume before you attempt to remove 8dot3 file names . . . https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/fsutil-8dot3name ... View more

Is the write just when you install a program (one-time), or do programs that do 8.3 filenames keep those files updated, which is the un-necessary wear on an SSD (continuous) ?   If you got rid of the 8.3 filenames, doesn't it seem like some programs could become un-stable? ... View more

Is there a chart that shows how much of an improvement in speed you'll see, in various scenarios, if you Disable 8.3 Filename Creation?   For example, the Home User Desktop vs. a Server   It seems like it should be an option somewhere - but not something you see every time on the main CSE panel.   In my experience, it's better to keep inefficiencies, rather than to get rid of them, so that nothing breaks . . . Wait for a change like this to happen when there's a tidal shift. ... View more

Oh . . . It could be about how [paraphrased] . . . Windows creates 8.3 versions of file names, to allow you to access those files in the old environment   It sounds like directories that programs set up?   I've previously used CCleaner on the Registry, and Windows Disk Cleanup . . . then, when I ran these: Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth sfc /scannow . . . It would always say:  "it found something, and fixed it" . . . Never:  "scan complete, it didn't find anything"   So today, I don't use CCleaner on the Registry, and try to never use Windows Disk Cleanup, and I haven't had this issue.  I didn't notice any usability issues, just those mysterious status messages.   It seems like stripping the filenames would be similar. ... View more

I just re-did it . . . How could this not mess up many programs, if I stripped 321,367 filenames?     ... View more

I have the last post on this page, and can't get an answer: Help with disabling 8.3 file name creation please! Solved - Windows 10 Forums . . . https://www.tenforums.com/general-support/74757-help-disabling-8-3-file-name-creation-please.html#post1545029 Am I right? Disabling 8.3 filenames would mess up all of your programs? If true, why does CSE bring that up as an option? Couldn't disabling 8.3 file names cause a big problem for someone, if he did it? ... View more

I wasn't able to make a clone, and ruined my two clones, due to "bad sectors" on the source, c: . . . I learned how to use chkdsk c: /x /r to fix it . . . then determined a pre-clone check is chkntfs c: . . . I then wondered if Clonezilla's check of the source drive did chkdsk c: /r, and found out it did:   Clonezilla live Forum . . . Partclone, * WARNING: The disk has bad sectors. . . . https://sourceforge.net/p/clonezilla/discussion/Clonezilla_live/thread/c6e7c09b/   Pre-clone check on an SSD? . . . chkntfs c: - Clonezilla live . . . yes, this is correct . . . https://sourceforge.net/p/clonezilla/discussion/Clonezilla_live/thread/37c49983/   Are these the same? . . . -fsck-y . . . and . . . chkdsk c: /r . . . Clonezilla live . . . "-fsck-y" actually runs ntfsfix from the pacakge ntfs-3g on GNU/Linux, while "chkdsk c: /r" is on MS Windows. They are different . . . if you select "-fsck-y", then Clonezilla determines the correct program to use, depending on the OS (Linux or Windows) . . . https://sourceforge.net/p/clonezilla/discussion/Clonezilla_live/thread/8f0f85bb/ ... View more

I'm using that version of the firmware with no issues.   I would try this.   Command Prompt - Run as Administrator . . . chkntfs c:   If you get a message like this (I don't think I got the exact wording): The type of the file system is NTFS. Volume C: is dirty   . . . then you need to run . . . chkdsk c: /r . . . or, I just do . . . chkdsk c: /x /r What's going on?  A volume can be marked dirty if the system suffered a power interruption (power failure, plug pulling, battery removal, power button), aborted restart or ungraceful shutdown. ... View more

I have verified with Clonezilla . . . yes, this is correct   Pre-clone check on an SSD? . . . chkntfs c: . . . Clonezilla live . . . https://sourceforge.net/p/clonezilla/discussion/Clonezilla_live/thread/37c49983/ ... View more

Long Version - Crucial Support fix, and what happened 01/30/18 Per Crucial Support 1.) Do:  chkdsk c: /r . . . then re-try the clone . . . if that doesn't work, then: 2.) Win 10 / PC settings / Update & Security / Backup . . . Make an image / Restore the image when necessary - look up on-line how to do it . . . This is better than a clone, because it works faster, and is less sensitive to hard drive errors . . . They only provide Acronis to do your initial conversion to an SSD . . . but, IMO: . . . The benefit of making a clone is that . . . 1.) you can tell right away if you have a good copy, or not . . . 2.) if there's an issue, it's ready to go - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So, here's what I did, and what happened: chkdsk c: /x /r . . . "To be run at the next Restart" / Restart the computer . . . QUESTION #1 OF 2:  HOLD ON, WHAT'S THIS?  BAD INFORMATION.  /f DIDN'T FIX IT, /r DID . . . How safe is it to run CHKDSK on an SSD? - Super User . . . Run chkdsk /f (or equivalent) to fix file system errors. Do not run chkdsk /r as it is not necessary to check for bad sectors. The intensive disk activity for the check is unnecessary wear on the SSD, and is generally recognized as a bad idea . . . https://superuser.com/questions/209606/how-safe-is-it-to-run-chkdsk-on-an-ssd The computer failed to boot, #1 of 2 . . . The whirlpool hung . . . Powered off for 10 seconds / On The computer failed to boot, #2 of 2 . . . The whirlpool hung . . . Powered off for 10 seconds / On Then I got: 1.) Automatic Repair 2.) Diagnosing Your PC 3.) Repairing Disk Errors - This might take over 1 hour to complete . . . It was done in less than a minute . . . No change in S.M.A.R.T. value #202, Percent Lifetime Remaining, 98% I re-tried making the clone, and was successful.  It took 12 minutes to clone 115GB.  QUESTION #2 OF 2:  Would making an image be faster than 12 minutes? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... View more

Apparently, the firmware was not an issue, and neither are any bad blocks - nothing to worry about there, it has many extras to use, by design. Here's the answer: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Short Version - The fix #1 Run diskpart on the two messed up clones: Windows Admin Tools / Computer Management / Set the drive to online Then close Computer Management, as it will later ask you to Refresh it Windows System / Open a DOS prompt as Administrator diskpart list disk select disk 1 clean exit Windows Admin Tools / Computer Management . . . Initialize Disk as GPT (C: is GPT also) / Set it to Online . . . New Simple Volume (by default, it does a quick format) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #2 Run chkdsk f: /f on the two messed up clones: chkdsk f: /f chkdsk c: /f . . . no, do not use /f on c:, it didn't help, use /r, see next step With C:, you have to do a Restart, I saw it flash on the screen.  Results show in the Event Viewer Application log. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #3 Run chkdsk C: /x /r on C: chkdsk C: /x /r Just to make sure that all issues are found and dealt with, run a check disk scan . . . https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/stuck-chkdsk-use-fix-right-way/ chkdsk C: /scan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I was then able to successfully make the two clones - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... View more

. . . There is another post on these forums where the person is having similar issues with an M.2 MX300 Yep, that's the link I just posted above. . . . After updating the firmware and performing a Sanitize/Secure Erase the SSD begins working correctly again. Does this make sense to do?  ie. How long before it starts getting stuck again? . . . I've only just installed the M0CR60 firmware so it is still too early to tell if it has resolved the issue. Mine has done this with M0CR60 . . . It is only when you run out of spare blocks or you are seeing a high number of reallocated blocks you really need to be concerned. Do you know specifically which S.M.A.R.T. value(s) I should keep an eye on? . . . You should contact Crucial Support to report your issue just to be sure they are aware of the issue especially if you are already on the latest firmware. Yes ... View more

Apparently NVMe is not much better:   . . . "I think the MX300 SSDs end up getting stuck and the Secure Erase resets them.  I'm hoping with the updated firmware the issue won't happen again.  Whether it will be good long term is something else." . . . http://forums.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/SSD-M-2-MX300-275BG-IS-DYING/td-p/182228 Can there be a firmware update that simply fixes this? If I have to do a re-install, it will take me a week or two to get back to normal . . . which is why I've been keeping two clones . . . It never occurred to me that my C: would be usable, but become un-cloneable . . . I went to clone it the other day to the two drives . . . and it ruined them. Besides seeing the error message come up, is there a way to tell if my SSD has become un-cloneable?   If I had known my C: was un-cloneable, then I could have swapped in one of my clones, and returned the bad SSD (under warranty), that was "working." ... View more

My Seagate spindle drives were 8-10 years old, and still going.   I like SSD because it's quiet, but why do you think it's bad after only 7.5 months?   I have an M.2 slot.  I see there is the equivalent of the MX300 in NVMe . . . http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX300-275GB-vs-Crucial-MX300-SATA-M2-275GB/3642vsm159989   Do you think NVMe would be more reliable?   To do a clone with NVMe . . . I think . . . Get one of these . . . It connects with SATA, and you put the NVMe on the other M.2 slot (right?) . . . https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817998236&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Hard+Drive+Adapters-_-N82E16817998236&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwKvTBRC2ARIsAL0Dgk2ZsBelP2jsC7ykvnLD9-X8v3sD_rrhxnzliWrNemXREyqi22dKNN8aAo0yEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds   ... View more

Here's what I've found:   Firmware update - What was improved? . . . Click on the Firmware update, and it tells you . . . http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/support-ssd Crucial Storage Executive Tool - Download . . . It provides no description of what has been improved . . . http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/support-storage-executive Crucial Storage Executive Tool - Overview . . . It describes features of the software, but provides no description of what has been improved . . . http://forums.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/An-Overview-of-Crucial-Storage-Executive/ta-p/170456 ... View more