Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Digerati" data-source="post: 769040" data-attributes="member: 59833">And who are you saying made that claim? It sure was not me. In fact, I specifically said, &quot;But if used for long term, off-line (no power) archival storage, the data should periodically be refreshed.&quot;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 &quot;Drive A&quot; more reliable than &quot;Drive B&quot;? 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&#039;t keep writing millions and millions of times to archived disks! I agree, SSDs would NOT be the &quot;ideal&quot; 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 &quot;primary&quot; (frequently accessed data) storage and this is where more and more data centers are using SSDs. And to costs, as noted <a href="https://www.networkcomputing.com/storage/6-reasons-ssds-will-take-over-data-center/1773773354" target="_blank">here</a>, 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 (&quot;time is money!&quot;) and even the costs of SSDs looks much more attractive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Digerati, post: 769040, member: 59833"] And who are you saying made that claim? It sure was not me. In fact, I specifically said, [I]"But if used for long term, off-line (no power) archival storage, the data should periodically be refreshed."[/I] 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 [U]are[/U] using SSDs. And to costs, as noted [URL='https://www.networkcomputing.com/storage/6-reasons-ssds-will-take-over-data-center/1773773354']here[/URL], 64[B]T[/B]B 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification