Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hardware
Hardware Discussions
SSD vs HDD reliability
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wraith" data-source="post: 768796" data-attributes="member: 74314"><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite135" alt=":giggle:" title="Giggle :giggle:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":giggle:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wraith, post: 768796, member: 74314"] 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. :giggle: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
