Advice Request SSD vs HDD reliability

[Wraith]

Are SSDs more reliable than HDDs? On the face of it this would seem to be a no brainer. Of course something with no moving parts is going to be more reliable. But is that really the case once other factors such as write wear rate, transistor/capacitor failure, etc, etc, are considered?
SSD vs. HDD

Honestly, this is a question that is difficult to answer. In the world of electronics, you cannot be 100% sure about the reliability. That's why it is always a good idea to keep backups. Now back to the original question. Are SSD's more reliable than HDD's? For the average consumer and under the correct circumstances, THEORETICALLY a SSD should be more reliable than a HDD. You told it right, since there are no moving parts on a SSD, there is less wear and tear. Now comes the point about the write cycles of the NAND chips on a SSD. A 1TB SSD generally has a MTBF between 350-400TB of data, which means you can write 3550-400 Terabytes of data on that SSD and believe me that is a LOT. Heck, the SSD lifespan will even be more than you if you wait for the NAND to wear out under normal usage. But there are some cases where SSD and HDD can fail suddenly without a single warning eg. if the PCB is busted due to surges. But then again if you replace the PCB, the HDD/SSD will be back to normal. As for the temperatures, both HDD/SSD are sensitive to temperatures and you should make sure that they receive proper cooling. Now coming to a very interesting debate. If you constantly write files, will a HDD be more reliable or will a SSD be more reliable? Again I'm sorry my friend, there is no clear winner. With constant writes, you will wear out the NAND much faster that's for sure but at the same time, constant writing to a HDD will make the head of the HDD move nonstop and that again will cause wear and tear of the HDD much quicker than normal. HDD's/SSD's have SMART to report their health and you can use CrystalDiskInfo to monitor the health. It can warn you about some impending failures(like a damaged hdd head, the reallocated sectors and current pending sector count will keep on rising, in case of SSD there will be a rise in reallocated nand blocks, in the OS there will be corrupt files) but sadly SMART CANNOT warn you if you have a defective PCB that is going to fail soon. So the general conseus is to have a SSD for the System Drive and a HDD to store all the files. That way you have the best of both the worlds.

 

[LDogg]

Honestly, this is a question that is difficult to answer.

I agree. Depends on what the consumer wants, what the capacity is being used for, type of laptop, personal preference over SSD/HDD, if you want to implement both and other aspects. Sometimes it's good to get both (if you can) and make an informed decision that way. The approach I took which seems to be helping me,

~LDogg

 

[Local Host]

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 home. I provided links to corroborate and provide supporting evidence for my claim? What supporting evidence did you provide? Nothing.

The links you provided do not corroborate anything you said, in fact they corroborate what I said, as they're using the SSDs in a hybrid environment with HDDs.
They're not using the SSDs to store the Major Data.

I agree. Depends on what the consumer wants, what the capacity is being used for, type of laptop, personal preference over SSD/HDD, if you want to implement both and other aspects. Sometimes it's good to get both (if you can) and make an informed decision that way. The approach I took which seems to be helping me,

~LDogg

On a laptop I would generally use an SSD, due to all the moving.

 

[Digerati]

The links you provided do not corroborate anything you said, in fact they corroborate what I said, as they're using the SSDs in a hybrid environment with HDDs.

Gee whiz. Now you are just weaseling and changing your own story. In post #26 above, you said,

no Data Center uses SSDs.

Since you just change your claim as new evidence is presented instead of backing up your claims with supporting evidence, and since evidence shows some data centers are indeed using SSDs and SSD makers are indeed making SSDs for the data center market, I see no reason to discuss this with you any further - unless you can show us where all these majory companies are lying (or insane! ).

 

[Local Host]

Gee whiz. Now you are just weaseling and changing your own story. In post #26 above, you said, Since you just change your claim as new evidence is presented instead of backing up your claims with supporting evidence, and since evidence shows some data centers are indeed using SSDs and SSD makers are indeed making SSDs for the data center market, I see no reason to discuss this with you any further - unless you can show us where all these majory companies are lying (or insane! ).

I changed nothing, in the same comment,

Data Centers use HDDs, at max use hybrids

So stop wasting my time.

 

[Digerati]

I changed nothing, in the same comment,

Huh?

Since when does "no Data Center uses SSDs" mean the same thing as "they use SSDs"? Adding the qualifier "in a hybrid environment" does indeed change what you said.

It is you wasting everyone's time by changing your "stories", failing to explain how Facebook, Amazon and Dropbox data centers apparently don't count (in your mind anyway), or why those drive makers are making data center SSDs for [supposedly] a non-existent market.

But for sure, if it is wasting your time, then PLEASE don't bother replying.

 

[Local Host]

Huh?

Since when does "no Data Center uses SSDs" mean the same thing as "they use SSDs"? Adding the qualifier "in a hybrid environment" does indeed change what you said.

It is you wasting everyone's time by changing your "stories", failing to explain how Facebook, Amazon and Dropbox data centers apparently don't count (in your mind anyway), or why those drive makers are making data center SSDs for [supposedly] a non-existent market.

But for sure, if it is wasting your time, then PLEASE don't bother replying.

Neither Facebook nor Amazon, nor anyone else are using SSDs as data storage in their Data Centers, which is something you would know if you cared to even read the same sources you quote.
They using SSDs as cache in a hybrid environment with HDDs to get the best of two worlds, they're not using replacing HDDs with SSDs like you state.
And this changes nothing in what I been saying so far, but seems you have reading problems.
The future is in hybrid drives.

 

[SHvFl]

Neither Facebook nor Amazon, nor anyone else are using SSDs as data storage in their Data Centers, which is something you would know if you cared to even read the same sources you quote.
They using SSDs as cache in a hybrid environment with HDDs to get the best of two worlds, they're not using replacing HDDs with SSDs like you state.
And this changes nothing in what I been saying so far, but seems you have reading problems.
The future is in hybrid drives.

If only there was another reason that forces data storage to be mainly on hdd, especially at the enterprise level...nah must be because hdd are better and more reliable.

 

[Local Host]

If only there was another reason that forces data storage to be mainly on hdd, especially at the enterprise level...nah must be because hdd are better and more reliable.

The price per GB and bigger storage are more than enough reasons for those companies, especially when every GB matters in that market.

 

[SHvFl]

The price per GB and bigger storage are more than enough reasons for those companies, especially when every GB matters in that market.

Exactly. So i don't get why you guys are debating hdd vs ssd usage for reliability. For the love of god, data storage might move to tapes so i don't see why usage of any kind or place has any bearing in reliability.

 

[Local Host]

Exactly. So i don't get why you guys are debating hdd vs ssd usage for reliability. For the love of god, data storage might move to tapes so i don't see why usage of any kind or place has any bearing in reliability.

You'll have to ask him, as he used Data Centers to compare HDDs and SDDs reliability, while claiming companies use SSDs for Storage (which is wrong).

 

[509322]

You'll have to ask him, as he used Data Centers to compare HDDs and SDDs reliability, while claiming companies use SSDs for Storage (which is wrong).

Data centers do use SSDs. In fact, the SSD OEMs manufacture data center specific SSD models.

Intel® SSD Data Center Family

Data Center SSD for Data Center and Server | Data Center SSD | Samsung V-NAND

Plus I've been in data centers and seen SSD use with my own eyes.

Facebook and the like don't use SSDs ? Amazon doesn't use SSDs ? You better fact check.

Flash Drives Replace Disks at Amazon, Facebook, Dropbox

It is you who is the one spouting nonsense on these forums... as you usually do. You really don't know what you're talking about and you're poisoning threads.

 

[Local Host]

Maybe be link will help...

The Future of SSDs and HDDs in Data Centers

Low power consumption — When you are running lots of drives, power usage adds up. Anywhere you can conserve power is a win.
Speed — Data can be accessed faster, which is especially beneficial for caching databases and other data affecting overall application or system performance.

Lack of vibration — Reducing vibration improves reliability thereby reducing problems and maintenance. Racks don’t need the size and structural rigidity housing SSDs that they need housing HDDs.

Low noise — Data centers will become quieter as more SSDs are deployed.

Low heat production — The less heat generated the less cooling and power required in the data center.

Faster booting — The faster a storage chassis can get online or a critical server can be rebooted after maintenance or a problem, the better.
Greater areal density — Data centers will be able to store more data in less space, which increases efficiency in all areas (power, cooling, etc.)

As I been saying all this time,

Hybrid storage systems that employ SSDs where the fastest read/write rates or boot times are required, but HDDs where standard storage space is sufficient, are the best solutions.

Although SSDs offer several fundamental advantages over HDDs, the older technology still has a strong edge where it counts for many applications: cost and capacity. Assuming SSDs are unable to overtake HDDs in cost per bit of storage, the hybrid approach is the most appealing implementation in data centers.

SSDs for cache and HDDs for storage, is pretty much what everyone doing in Data Centers.

 

[TairikuOkami]

SSDLife FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

 

[jetman]

I'm not qualified to comment on which is most relaiable.

But what i would say is that both HDDs and SSDs could potentially fail- so the moral of the story is to always back up your data.

 

[Digerati]

while claiming companies use SSDs for Storage (which is wrong).

And who are you saying made that claim? It sure was not me. In fact, I specifically said, "But if used for long term, off-line (no power) archival storage, the data should periodically be refreshed."

Sadly, and once again, it seems folks are trying to justify their claims on falsehoods and, to the point of this poll, irrelevant facts. The question was not about data (or costs or performance) but hardware reliability. Is "Drive A" more reliable than "Drive B"? No where in the poll or the qualifying opening post does it mention anything about the long term viability of the data stored. In fact, the OP specifically addresses moving parts, transistors and capacitors. Write wear rates are also mentioned but as also addressed later on, those are not a concern with modern SSDs.

But to wear rates and long term storage, the write wear rate is again irrelevant. Why? Because you don't keep writing millions and millions of times to archived disks! I agree, SSDs would NOT be the "ideal" medium for long-term archival purposes. But then I never said they were, nor do I see where anyone in this thread said they were. SSDs are great, however, for "primary" (frequently accessed data) storage and this is where more and more data centers are using SSDs.

And to costs, as noted here, 64TB capacity SSDs are almost here. The largest hard drives top out at just 16TB. Factor in physical sizes, power to run 4 x 16TB HDs compared to 1 x 64TB SSD, heat, weight, vibrations, and of course performance ("time is money!") and even the costs of SSDs looks much more attractive.

 

[BoraMurdar]

This isn't even debatable...maybe 3-4 years ago, but not nowadays

 

[Digerati]

This isn't even debatable...maybe 3-4 years ago, but not nowadays

What are you talking about? And what does it have to do with SSD "reliability"?

 

[BoraMurdar]

What are you talking about?

I would quote if I was replying to your comment. My reply was the answer to the initial question "Are SSDs more reliable than HDDs?"

 

[shmu26]

When SSDs first came out, there were questions about their reliability. But SSDs sold by major brands in recent years have proven to be quite reliable, and a normal user will never even get anywhere close to wearing them out. Of course, there is a luck factor when it comes to longevity, but SSDs seem to have better luck than HDDs.