Advice Request SSD vs HDD reliability

[shmu26]

I used CrystalDiskInfo to check the Total Host Writes on my SSD, and despite the crazy number of system image restores that I have done, my usage is only 5200 GB, after 3 years. It looks like I will never succeed in wearing out this 250 GB Crucial SSD.

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.

Right. I don't know how a normal person could possibly thrash his SSD enough to wear it out.
Maybe if he is a privacy maniac, and he hard wipes on his entire disk twice a week. But then he is not a normal person.

 

[Digerati]

I don't know how a normal person could possibly thrash his SSD enough to wear it out.

As noted, even data centers use SSDs and those drives are banged on constantly 24/7. So a normal user, no.

Maybe if he is a privacy maniac, and he hard wipes on his entire disk twice a week.

That would be pointless anyway because of the way data is stored on a SSD (by flip-flopping gates electronically and not by orienting magnetic particles). And because of the wear-leveling features of SSDs, wipe programs do not work on SSDs. This is why Windows and other programs don't wipe (or defrag) them. You have to use Secure Erase programs.

 

[tonibalas]

Based on my experience SSD these days are reliable.
But i agree that is also a matter of money.If someone want to buy an ssd he/she should give a some more money to buy a good one
which will also have more years of warranty.
3 years ago i paid 90 euros to buy the Samsung SSD evo 850 with 5 years of warranty.
I could get another ssd with 60 euros and with 3 years warranty but i bought Samsung to have those 2 extra years.
In my opinion reliability between SSD and HDD is very hard to be specific which one is better.
Choosing one or the other in my case is a matter of performance

 

[Digerati]

If someone want to buy an ssd he/she should give a some more money to buy a good one
which will also have more years of warranty.

I agree. But IMO, the same advice goes for just about anything, including hard drives, power supplies, cases and more.

 

[Local Host]

As noted, even data centers use SSDs and those drives are banged on constantly 24/7. So a normal user, no.

Data Centers use HDDs, at max use hybrids, no Data Center uses SSDs.

 

[Digerati]

no Data Center uses SSDs.

Gee whiz. It sure would be nice if people did their home work before making such absolute and false claims. I sure don't assume I know it all. So I verify my facts before posting so I don't make false and/or incorrect absolute claims. What a concept, huh?

Why would Intel, Micron, Samsung, HGST (and others) make SSDs for Data Centers if there wasn't a market for them?

Just a few seconds to check with Bing Google would show there are some Data Centers currently using SSDs. Some use them exclusively, others use them in hybrid setups with traditional hard drives. NOT hybrid drives, but SSDs and hard drives working together. That is, they use SSDs as faster buffers and caches for hard drives and higher priority data. Like RAMDisks or functionally like dedicated page file SSDs supporting hard drives.

Facebook has been using SSDs in their data centers for years. It is their early adoption that has exposed many of the advantages and disadvantages to using SSDs. But the conclusion is the advantages outweigh the disadvantage - at least if your criteria/priority is the same as Facebook's.

Amazon and Dropbox also use SSDs.

Yes, hard drives are still widely used and will likely be for years to come. But then I never said SSDs have (or will soon) totally replace hard drives - though I believe one day they will. SSD prices continue to drop while densities increase. And hard disk platter densities are already pushing theoretical limits. Hard drives are too slow, big, heavy, slow, mechanical, power hungry, slow, and hard drives generate more heat. Did I mention they are slow too?

 

[LDogg]

From a personal stand point, working with my own builds and with customers, I've found that SSDs seem to be more reliable then HDDs. If you're having a problem on whether you want to use an SSD or HDD you could use both by using a caddy in conjunction your HDD with the SSD in-built. It's the choice I made with my rugged laptop. Had no problems, ever.

~LDogg

 

[Local Host]

Gee whiz. It sure would be nice if people did their home work before making such absolute and false claims. I sure don't assume I know it all. So I verify my facts before posting so I don't make false and/or incorrect absolute claims. What a concept, huh?

Why would Intel, Micron, Samsung, HGST (and others) make SSDs for Data Centers if there wasn't a market for them?

Just a few seconds to check with Bing Google would show there are some Data Centers currently using SSDs. Some use them exclusively, others use them in hybrid setups with traditional hard drives. NOT hybrid drives, but SSDs and hard drives working together. That is, they use SSDs as faster buffers and caches for hard drives and higher priority data. Like RAMDisks or functionally like dedicated page file SSDs supporting hard drives.

Facebook has been using SSDs in their data centers for years. It is their early adoption that has exposed many of the advantages and disadvantages to using SSDs. But the conclusion is the advantages outweigh the disadvantage - at least if your criteria/priority is the same as Facebook's.

Amazon and Dropbox also use SSDs.

Yes, hard drives are still widely used and will likely be for years to come. But then I never said SSDs have (or will soon) totally replace hard drives - though I believe one day they will. SSD prices continue to drop while densities increase. And hard disk platter densities are already pushing theoretical limits. Hard drives are too slow, big, heavy, slow, mechanical, power hungry, slow, and hard drives generate more heat. Did I mention they are slow too?

I suggest you do research yourself, before saying any more nonsense about SSDs.

• SSDs are sensitive to temperature, more so than hard drives.
• SSDs are thirsty. PCIe SSDs use around 8~14watts.
• The high level of writes on a Data Center, bring a high rate of failure (was actually reported at 99,8% failure rate in Data Center usage).
• The GB per $ and the storage limit itself, compared to an HDD, also make it a no go for Data Centers.

So no, no sane company use will SSDs in a Data Center, what you talking is small caches of SSDs, and not SSDs being widely used in any of the companies mentioned on their Data Centers.

Which as I said, fall into the hybrid category I already mentioned.

 

[LDogg]

I suggest you do research yourself, before saying any more nonsense about SSDs.

• SSDs are sensitive to temperature, more so than hard drives.
• SSDs are thirsty. PCIe SSDs use around 8~14watts.
• The high level of writes on a Data Center, bring a high rate of failure (was actually reported at 99,8% failure rate in Data Center usage).
• The GB per $ and the storage limit itself, compared to an HDD, also make it a no go for Data Centers.

So no, no sane company use will SSDs in a Data Center, what you talking is small caches of SSDs, and not SSDs being widely used in any of the companies mentioned on their Data Centers.

Which as I said, fall into the hybrid category I already mentioned.

I can second this as well. Data Centers will not use SSDs. SSDs are fine for home user et al.

~LDogg

 

[Local Host]

I can second this as well. Data Centers will not use SSDs. SSDs are fine for home user et al.

~LDogg

I cannot imagine the amount of Data Lost if companies used SSDs as Data Storage.

They more durable than consumer SSDs in terms of writes (for obvious reasons), but to maintain Data is a no go (high rate of corruption), they use it as cache in a hybrid environment. I actually had to do it not long ago for this guys, WebTuga - Alojamento Web Nacional na Cloud

 

[LDogg]

I cannot imagine the amount of Data Lost if companies used SSDs as Data Storage.

They more durable than consumer SSDs in terms of writes (for obvious reasons), but to maintain Data is a no go (high rate of corruption), they use it as cache in a hybrid environment. I actually had to do that for a major company here not long ago.

Same here. So many court summons would happen over data loss.

~LDogg

 

[monkeylove]

Both are needed because there is generally a need for more storage space.

 

[roger_m]

People, who buy SSD, are expected to buy a new computer every 2-3 years, so longevity is not really issue for them.

I never buy new computers. But whenever I replace my laptop with a newer used one, I replace its hard drive with the SSD from my old laptop. I recently replaced my three year old SSD with a bigger one. My old SSD was only 256GB and it found it to be too small, after having used 500GB hard drives for years. However, if I had not needed a bigger SSD, I would still be using my original cheap Chinese SSD.

I have absolutely no concerns about the reliability of SSDs. I've had a hard drive fail after just a few months of use.

 

[uninfected1]

Very impressed with the range of views here. I was hoping it would make my choice easier but if anything it's made it more difficult. I think the differences of opinion show there is no definitive answer as to which is more reliable. Depending on your needs, in some circumstances SSD might be preferable, in others, particularly long term storage, HDD might be a better choice. And of course this is before considering the big price difference between the two. Either way this thread will certainly be my 'go to' reference for SSD/HDD reliability from now on so thanks to all contributors.

EDIT: Something I would be interested to know is whether SSD reliability/longevity is improving regarding write wear rate.

 

[TairikuOkami]

But then I never said SSDs have (or will soon) totally replace hard drives - though I believe one day they will.

Most likely they will be replaced by something else. I have heard about holographic disks for the past 20 years, they can hold any amount data ranging from 1000TB. The only reason, why we are stuck at 4TB, is because of disk manufacturers and money. Bigger and more reliable disks would ruin them, just like Creative is facing problems, because once you buy a sound card, it lasts forever, so they cripple drivers to force people to buy new ones. Once SSD suppresses HDD in sales, they will come with something else ASAP to keep profit. Thus far, they are just stalling, so they do not have to invest money to research. I wish, that the world would be driven by something else rather than just greed. We could have been already living in the future.

HDDs and SSDs: global shipments 2015-2021 | Forecast

 

[mlnevese]

I would say there is a luck factor involved here. I had a hard disk die without any warning 4 months after it was bought. The Ssd I bought to replace it is doing well with no errors.

 

[shmu26]

I would say there is a luck factor involved here. I had a hard disk die without any warning 4 months after it was bought. The Ssd I bought to replace it is doing well with no errors.

It may be luck, but SSDs have better luck.

 

[Ink]

Running an SSD for 4 years now, no noticeable problems on the hardware side. Laptop stays on the desk or in decent laptop bag.

Do not hand electronics (phones, laptops, portable drives, DSLRs) to clumsy people.

 

[Local Host]

Very impressed with the range of views here. I was hoping it would make my choice easier but if anything it's made it more difficult. I think the differences of opinion show there is no definitive answer as to which is more reliable. Depending on your needs, in some circumstances SSD might be preferable, in others, particularly long term storage, HDD might be a better choice. And of course this is before considering the big price difference between the two. Either way this thread will certainly be my 'go to' reference for SSD/HDD reliability from now on so thanks to all contributors.

EDIT: Something I would be interested to know is whether SSD reliability/longevity is improving regarding write wear rate.

They always looking to improve the reliability of SSDs, but right now people are aiming at Hybrids instead (since you get the best of two worlds).

Most likely they will be replaced by something else. I have heard about holographic disks for the past 20 years, they can hold any amount data ranging from 1000TB. The only reason, why we are stuck at 4TB, is because of disk manufacturers and money. Bigger and more reliable disks would ruin them, just like Creative is facing problems, because once you buy a sound card, it lasts forever, so they cripple drivers to force people to buy new ones. Once SSD suppresses HDD in sales, they will come with something else ASAP to keep profit. Thus far, they are just stalling, so they do not have to invest money to research. I wish, that the world would be driven by something else rather than just greed. We could have been already living in the future.

HDDs and SSDs: global shipments 2015-2021 | Forecast

The 4TB wall was demolished sometime ago, at a consumer level we should have access to 10TB HDDs.

 

[Digerati]

I suggest you do research yourself, before saying any more nonsense about SSDs.

So no, no sane company use will SSDs in a Data Center,

Come on! Use come common sense here. I did my home work. I even provided links to companies that are already using SSDs. Or are you claiming Facebook, Dropbox and Amazon are not sane?

I guess you consider Intel/Micron, Samsung and HGST insane too for making data center class SSDs for a non-existent market! And again, I did my homework. I provided links to corroborate and provide supporting evidence for my claim? What supporting evidence did you provide? Nothing.