• 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.

"SSDs LAST 1,000 YEARS" (!!!!)

BonzaiDuck

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Just flipping through the February 2015 issue of Maximum PC.

I came across this small article, apparently posted to the Max PC web-site in December 2014, but printed verbatim in this latest issue:

http://www.maximumpc.com/endurance_test_shows_your_ssd_might_have_legs_last_1000_years_2014

Now . . . I'd had some exchanges with others recently here about HOW LONG YOU COULD EXPECT DATA-INTEGRITY TO LAST ON AN SSD WHICH HAD NOT BEEN POWERED ON FOR A YEAR'S TIME.

That's a completely different issue, and we could be more confident that archived data would last longer than that -- but we don't really know HOW MUCH longer.

But y'all seem to be worried about how long the SSDs will be 100%-totally-tip-top functional, and this article linked above not only seems to "nail it" -- the expectations are now much longer than previous guesses.

How about that?!? Huh?!? 😱
 
BonzaiDuck said:
Just flipping through the February 2015 issue of Maximum PC.

I came across this small article, apparently posted to the Max PC web-site in December 2014, but printed verbatim in this latest issue:

http://www.maximumpc.com/endurance_test_shows_your_ssd_might_have_legs_last_1000_years_2014

Now . . . I'd had some exchanges with others recently here about HOW LONG YOU COULD EXPECT DATA-INTEGRITY TO LAST ON AN SSD WHICH HAD NOT BEEN POWERED ON FOR A YEAR'S TIME.

That's a completely different issue, and we could be more confident that archived data would last longer than that -- but we don't really know HOW MUCH longer.

But y'all seem to be worried about how long the SSDs will be 100%-totally-tip-top functional, and this article linked above not only seems to "nail it" -- the expectations are now much longer than previous guesses.

How about that?!? Huh?!? 😱
Click to expand...

Oh, we all knew this. But being negative makes you feel good and appear smarter than others.

Therefore, SSDs suck and will fail after a few file copies, and forget about RMAs or warranties - they all are terrible. And that one company that sold me something that didn't work as well as I hoped 5 years ago? Everything they sell is garbage, even though they're a completely different company with different products now.

A. God. Am. I.
 
The endurance tests imply no such lifetime. It would be like reading a DVD 24/7 at 16x for a long time, then claiming they'll last 1000 years, because most people rarely play them.

How long an SSD holds data, and how long it may remain functional, has little to do with write endurance. Even write endurance gets specified to approximate retention time, which could be decades for some tens or hundreds of write cycles on typical MLC.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
But y'all seem to be worried about how long the SSDs will be 100%-totally-tip-top functional, and this article linked above not only seems to "nail it" -- the expectations are now much longer than previous guesses.
Click to expand...

I've never worried about how long my SSD's will last. I have always known they will last far longer than I want, or need them to.
 
Tech Report did a good endurance test on some SSD's about a year ago, and two of the SSD's are still running after 2 Petabytes of almost continuous writes. Yeah, I said Petabytes.

So, yeah, I'm convinced that they're more reliable than "spinning rust" drives now.
 
I've got a Kingston Hyper X(one of the SSD's in the test) in my laptop so I'm feeling pretty confident about that.

I also have an OCZ Vertex 2 that may last* 1000 years, but it only worked for about seven days....


*as a paperweight
 
Cool, will stick one in a time capsule and when they dig it up in 2987 they can hook it up. I'm sure computers in the 30th century will have sata
 
ronbo613 said:
I also have an OCZ Vertex 2 that may last* 1000 years, but it only worked for about seven days....


*as a paperweight
Click to expand...

And there we have it. That would be the same company that I don't consider because of issues. I lump them together with adata because their drives didnt' last long either. The replacement I received lasted just long enough to get me out of the warranty period and then it failed.
 
Puffnstuff said:
And there we have it. That would be the same company that I don't consider because of issues. I lump them together with adata because their drives didnt' last long either. The replacement I received lasted just long enough to get me out of the warranty period and then it failed.
Click to expand...

Well? That's more of a Quality Control issue. Some companies produce crap, regardless of the technology's potential . . .
 
I don't think that anyone seriously believes that SSDs will last 1000 years (or even 100 years). There's still a lot of FUD out there about SSDs, especially among casual and minimally informed technophiles. We still see regular threads here with new SSD users asking whether they need to disable swap files and indexing so that their new drive doesn't wear out. Heck, I just sold some RAM to a guy through local classifieds. We were chatting, and it turns out he had just ordered his first SSD (an 850 EVO) and was worried that he was going to wear it out because he wanted to store his .iso collection and mount them regularly with Daemon Tools. I did my best to reassure him.

This article is probably intended to counter the erroneous impression - probably common among Max PC's relatively casual readership - that SSDs wear out quickly, not to seriously advance the position that your SSD will be usable in 3015.
 
birthdaymonkey said:
I don't think that anyone seriously believes that SSDs will last 1000 years (or even 100 years). There's still a lot of FUD out there about SSDs, especially among casual and minimally informed technophiles. We still see regular threads here with new SSD users asking whether they need to disable swap files and indexing so that their new drive doesn't wear out. Heck, I just sold some RAM to a guy through local classifieds. We were chatting, and it turns out he had just ordered his first SSD (an 850 EVO) and was worried that he was going to wear it out because he wanted to store his .iso collection and mount them regularly with Daemon Tools. I did my best to reassure him.

This article is probably intended to counter the erroneous impression - probably common among Max PC's relatively casual readership - that SSDs wear out quickly, not to seriously advance the position that your SSD will be usable in 3015.
Click to expand...

We saw all those little frets and fears here at the forums.

So far, I've purchased two 60GB SATA-III SSDs with the Sandforce controller, a Sammy 840-Pro 500GB and two Crucial MX100 500GB units, and two more Sammy 840-EVO 256GB units. Originally, I wanted to hold off the expense and use the Z68 (or later) chipset's ISRT feature with IRST software. It all worked fine.

Now I find that I can create an SSD cache for an HDD without any special chipset with drives in AHCI mode, so I've redeployed one of the 60GB drives.

The oldest -- used 3 years for ISRT -- seems "fine" but keeps reporting weird SMART info about the temperature. Maybe I'll try to update the firmware on that one.

It's just useful to know these things won't burn out like the 100W light bulbs that need replacing from time to time . . .
 
I have a pair of Intel X25-M G2's which are nearing 6 years old, and are still reporting 99% lifespan remaining. Both have been used as boot drives with moderately heavy writes for desktop use.
 
If 1000 years means data retention times, how in the world can you come up with 1000 years as a figure without powering off a SSD for 1000 years and then testing it?

NandFlashGuy at HardForum states this about unpowered retention:

Every vendor of Nand flash must meet JEDEC specs in order to qualify it. The overall spec is JESD47F. Google it for more information. But the specifications do not change for smaller lithographies. But manufacturers may qualify up to a certain limit.

Within this specification, there are data retention requirements (JESD22-A117 and JESD22-A108) which must be met. To translate these: the data retention requirement for the component Nand to be at least one year at room temperature at the maximum cycle count. Moreover, the data retention must be roughly inversely proportional to the cycle. For example, at roughly 1/10th the cycle count, the data retention should be 10X.


EDIT: Nvm, should have read the OP.
 
Where would you store magnetic, optical and silicon media so that they'd survive the EMP of a nuk-a-ler blast?

A lead safe? Or would it even be possible to save anything of that nature? Maybe optical . . .
 
You'd have to have it isolated in a Faraday cage of sufficient strength to ground out whatever wattage of pulse touched it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top