• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are SSD's able to predict when they'll fail?

fuzzybabybunny

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
I remember reading something about this a long time ago. I heard that SSDs are actually able to predict when they are going to fail based on the known life cycles of the memory chips or something. They can only do so many read/write cycles so the SSD can keep track of the number and let the user known when imminent failure is approaching. Which would make them completely safe in RAID 0 since the SSDs would let know you well ahead of time and you can just swap out with a new drive.

Or something.
 
They can give you a general idea of when they will fail due to using up all of the write cycles. However, the VAST majority of ssd failures are due to bad firmware/testing/overall quality. In fact, from what I've seen over the years, the average user with a good quality ssd is unlikely to use up all of the write cycles within his/her lifetime. Not the computer's lifetime, but the actual user's lifetime.

The best ways to compete in the ssd market are on speed, price and reliability. Intel/samsung have reliability sewn up, though crucial is pretty decent as well. So, unless you want to have your USP be "we're the cheapest!", you want to be the fastest. Typically, the fastest will push the reliability envelope a little bit (or a lot in some cases), and ssd's are already so incredibly fast compared to hdd's that many people just buy the intel/samsung and call it a day. With recent prices on the m4 and with it's well-earned quality reputation, crucial has been doing pretty well, but even with them they had to be be quite a bit cheaper than intel/samsung to get people to pull the trigger.
 
I see. So basically a Samsung/Intel/Crucial drive in RAID 0 would be incredibly fast and incredibly stable as well?
 
I have 2 m4's in RAID 0 and I really like it. However, I failed to seat them properly and had to rebuild the array after a couple of days. I ran the computer for a week or so in AHCI mode instead of RAID 0, and it was noticeably slower. Since I've rebuilt the array I appreciate the speed even more.

Double the drives = double the failure rate, so even with extremely stable ssd's you're playing with fire on RAID 0. However, to me it is definitely worth the risk. If I'm able to keep the array going until Haswell gets here I'll probably look to get another couple of m4's (assuming the price continues to drop).

edit: nice camera equipment btw. My wife has a 5d mark II, 24/70 L series, and 70/200 f/2.8. I don't know what all those numbers mean, but she is mighty proud of them...
 
Last edited:
No problems running RAID0. Been doing it for years. Have had drives fail (no SSDs though) and just restore system image minus the drive and all is well.

You just have to have a realistic backup plan - regardless if you have a single disk or a closet full of 'em!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top