Are SSDs more reliable than HDDs?

  • Yes, significantly more reliable than HDDs

    Votes: 34 69.4%
  • Yes, but only marginally more reliable than HDDs

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Very little difference in reliability between SSDs and HDDs

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • No, SSDs are less reliable than HDDs

    Votes: 11 22.4%
  • Total voters
    49

SHvFl

Level 35
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
If you don't buy the worse no brand you can find on the planet and "waste" 5 minutes to research, the ssd that you will select will be 10 time more reliable than any hdd you will select.
 
Last edited:

Dhruv2193

Level 7
Verified
Just a reminder, the thread relates to reliability, not performance.
Reliability and perfromance are more or less interlinked. If by reliable you mean that you can count on the hdd to last long then it will do so. And if performancewise is your criteria, then ssd anyday is better. But ssd is not the only thing which increases speed. If you have good processor, good amount of ram and enough space in hard disk and no viruses then also system will run smooth.
 

uninfected1

Level 10
Verified
Obviously a sample size of three is not going to be very reliable, but a couple of friends of mine have both experienced failures of SSDs that were less than three years old. On the other hand, Hard Disk Sentinel says my nine year old HDD has 100% health and performance and over 900 days of life left.
 

Kuttz

Level 12
Verified
Theoretically SSD is more reliable but in reality its not proven anywhere. I have an HDD running for 8 years under heavy use still running as good as I got it. I also bought an Intel SSD in 2012 and I replaced it under warrenty 3 times :LOL:. Some people have expereince just oppostie of mine where their HDDs fail frequently and SSD lasting very long.
 

redsworn

Level 3
Verified
Reliability and perfromance are more or less interlinked. If by reliable you mean that you can count on the hdd to last long then it will do so. And if performancewise is your criteria, then ssd anyday is better. But ssd is not the only thing which increases speed. If you have good processor, good amount of ram and enough space in hard disk and no viruses then also system will run smooth.
You're kind of correct. But I would say performance is only a fraction of reliability aspect. Generally reliability is leaning towards longevity and ability to continuously serve the data which being stored inside the drive.

Well, actually it all depends on the purpose of usage. If it's for processing (such as rendering) then SSD is more reliable. But if it's for storing static data then HDD is the winner. One can also set up HDD in RAID to increase its performance quite significantly which would increase its reliability value. Overall, I'd say HDD is more reliable than SSD. Although things might change in the future when SSD goes cheaper (I know the price already dropped significantly as of now) and it has better longevity.
 

roger_m

Level 24
Verified
Content Creator
A decent quality SSD should last much longer than a hard drive. The following is an example of testing of SSDs.
How Long do SSDs Really Last?
The outcome of the tests conducted were astonishing: All of the drives tested were able to write more data than what was promised by the producer. Even cheaper drives were able to write more data than promised: The Crucial BX 200 drives were able to write 187 TB and 280 TB – that is more than 2.5 times the figure promised.

One of the Samsung SSD 850 PRO drives achieved a figure of 9.1 petabytes of data written! That’s 60 times the TBW figure Samsung promises on their data sheets. The other Samsung product – the Samsung SSD 750 Evo – was able to write 1.2 petabytes of data, which equals (in theory) to more than 80 years of constant writing. However, the pro models showed why their price is higher: None of them did write less than 2.2 Petabyte of data.

The test clearly proves that the fear of a limited life span is highly exaggerated in most aspects. But there are other threats.
 

n0k0m3

Level 1
Which reliability measure you are talking about? Write threshold or long term storage?

If it is about how much you can write before the drive is dead, then SSD all the way. In theory, yes HDD has INFINITE ENDURANCE, but the head does get deteriorated overtime, the gas (usually helium) leaking out, heat under load, etc... make it the worst choice for constant data read/write. SSD doesn't have any moving part so it is safe from this.

On the other hand, if you want cold storage (like off-site backup or datahoarding), SSD is a bad choice. Consumer NAND can only store data in power-off state for a minimum 1 year (required by JEDEC standard) in room temp. On the other hand, HDD can store data up to 30-50 years under the same condition. If the condition is optimal, 60-80 years can be reached. So for backup solution, I'd suggest HDD.

TLDR: SSD is reliable under constant read/write, HDD is reliable for off-site storage
 

Digerati

Level 6
Verified
HDD is eternal,
:ROFLMAO:

Yeah right.

Are SSDs more reliable than HDDs?
Yes. Period.

If HDDs were "eternal", why do the best only have 5-year warranties when many SSDs come with 10 year warranties?

The issue of limited writes is moot with the latest generation SSDs. Yes, technically, it is still limited but the numbers are so high, you will never reach them. That is one reason why more and more data centers use SSDs.

TLDR: SSD is reliable under constant read/write, HDD is reliable for off-site storage
But that was not the question. Even with long term storage, should the "data" on a SSD degrade, the SSD itself will still function just fine. A HD (anything with a motors actually) may not spin up after sitting years on a shelf as the lubricant may decay and/or harden and the bearings seize. Then what good is the data if the drive itself does not function?

So the answer is unequivocal. A SSD is more reliable. But if used for long term, off-line (no power) archival storage, the data should periodically be refreshed.
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
You can drop an SSD and it won't break. HDDs are fragile, and heavy, and susceptible to damage by magnetic field and electric static.
On the other hand, a failing HDD is likely to give you warning signs before it totally dies.
The lifespan of a HDD is simply a matter of luck. It might last 2 years, and it might last 15 years. The big size HDDs -- for desktop computers -- seem to last longer. But that might just be because laptops move around more and get jostled more. Don't know.
 
5

509322

When people spend an amount of money that is significant to them, they tend to want longevity from whatever it is that they are buying. Generally speaking.

It is a common sense analysis. If you want speed, then you choose an SSD. If you want longevity, then you choose an HDD. If cost is more important, then you choose an HDD. If you want both speed and as much reliability as is technically possible from a current SSD, then you fork over the money for a large-size Samsung SSD (longevity of an SSD is directly proportional to its size).

Like most things in life it comes down to a matter of money.
 

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
People, who buy SSD, are expected to buy a new computer every 2-3 years, so longevity is not really issue for them. RAMs are sold with a lifetime warranty and they still fail, not like you will be using the same RAM in the next 5-10 years anyway. Plus warranty over 1-2 years is problematic, since local shops will not accept it and you will to send it to the manufacturer and the postage can be more than the new product. Warranty is just another AD.
The lifespan of a HDD is simply a matter of luck.
It also depends, how you take care of it. Mine are in aluminium boxes, protected from EM, dust, heat, vibrations, not to mention surge protection, etc.
 

Local Host

Level 18
Verified
Between the two HDDs last longer, but there's no accurate time as it depends mostly on luck and/or usage. Both HDDs and SSDs can last 1y, the same way they can last 15y.

Also @n0k0m3 statement is wrong and reversed, SSDs lose lifespan with constant writes, is one of the reasons you don't defrag SSDs. And consumer HDDs rarely use Helium and are sold premium, not to mention they last longer than normal HDDs.

For reliability I would go with an HDD any day, HDDs are actually majorly used to store data, while the SSDs are used to run the System (that's how you should build a system you want to last).
How can you know when your SSD is starting to wear out?
Easy, you start getting corrupt files and the disk fails to read/write data (with no way to recover the data when it dies, before that if you have a proper SSD it will engage read-only mode to backup the data).

With an HDD you can always recover the data, unless you damage the platter.

PS: Almost forgot to mention, that power surges can damage the data and the SSD itself, while a HDD will be generally safe.
 
Last edited:

Kuttz

Level 12
Verified
Instead of confusion between SSD and HDD, why not pick both of them? I mean pick a small capacity but high grade SSD like a Samsung 860 EVO/Pro 256GB for OS boot drive and a large capacity HDD for mass storage of files like mp3, videos, ISO etc. Because storing videos, mp3s etc on an SSD make little to no benefit from speed perspective. HDDs strong points is its low cost, large capacity and long data retention capability.
 

Digerati

Level 6
Verified
People, who buy SSD, are expected to buy a new computer every 2-3 years,
:( Oh bullfeathers! Got a link?

People who buy SSDs are expected to buy a new computer on the exact same schedule as they would if they had bought harddrives. In fact, it is typically the motherboard features, CPU capability, and/or operating system that motivates new purchases. Not the type of drive within.