-
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.
Tests show modern SSDs can handle a thousand years of use
- Thread starter GoodEnough
- Start date
Blanky
Platinum Member
I researched this a while back and came upon a matrix that showed the failure rates of SSD vs mechanical and they were significantly better.
Mechanical just suck ass. Even data centers are now moving their systems onto SSD. Mechanical still serve a purpose for large amounts of data on the cheap, but I look forward to their death. They are a seriously ancient technology.
Mechanical just suck ass. Even data centers are now moving their systems onto SSD. Mechanical still serve a purpose for large amounts of data on the cheap, but I look forward to their death. They are a seriously ancient technology.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
What I'd be curious to know is how consumer drives would fair out in a semi enterprise environment. Ex: a large array of disks with 10+ VMs on them with continuous IO. Nightly backups between raid arrays and just generally lot of data moving around all the time 24/7.
That's what's keeping me from using SSDs for mass data storage, I don't want to have to worry about wearing them out and them being purely consumables that I'm always having to change every couple years. Though I guess if you end up getting 5 years average out of them, that's still fairly good. You probably want to upgrade to whatever is available at that time anyway and slowly swap the drives with bigger ones then grow the array.
The thought of building multi TB raid arrays with SSDs makes me all happy inside. If the prices would start matching spindle drives I'd probably consider it.
And perhaps, in the future, something like this:
http://www.ncix.com/detail/supermicro-sc417e16-r1400ub-4u-rm-72bay-60-55979.htm
/fap.
That's what's keeping me from using SSDs for mass data storage, I don't want to have to worry about wearing them out and them being purely consumables that I'm always having to change every couple years. Though I guess if you end up getting 5 years average out of them, that's still fairly good. You probably want to upgrade to whatever is available at that time anyway and slowly swap the drives with bigger ones then grow the array.
The thought of building multi TB raid arrays with SSDs makes me all happy inside. If the prices would start matching spindle drives I'd probably consider it.
And perhaps, in the future, something like this:
http://www.ncix.com/detail/supermicro-sc417e16-r1400ub-4u-rm-72bay-60-55979.htm
/fap.
brianmanahan
Lifer
seriously? its the best freaking system upgrade in the last 15 years, in day to day performance
you can get a 120GB for the OS and main programs for like 80$... i paid over 200$ for one a couple years ago and it has been worth every penny
Last edited:
MrPickins
Diamond Member
Bateluer
Lifer
Having experienced an SSD in my main machine for 2 years now, its not an option any more. SSD for the boot drive is mandatory in any build I do.
Hopefully, my next major rebuild will see me move entirely to SSDs. 🙂
rommelrommel
Diamond Member
480gb is getting affordable as a main drive, I would still have a multi tb hard drive too but next time I upgrade my ssd from the current 120 it will be big enough for everything but my backups and torrents.
DesiPower
Lifer
Game load time will not get any better, stick with the HDD and the vintage SSD 😉
/ibtm_2
Carson Dyle
Diamond Member
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Having your operating system, applications and your most used data and files on SSD gives a huge performance boost. On my desktop system a 128GB drive is at least twice as large as I need for that, and a 128 can be had for very cheap.
rockyct
Diamond Member
I guess the main downside of SSDs is that if they fail, they are completely dead (as far as I know). At least when hard drives fail, you typically can pay for a data recovery. However, if the average SSD hypothetically lasts 10 years in the real world, the odds of a drive failure are pretty low though.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
That's good news. I know I always try to build my rigs to future-proof 1,000 years out.
Yup, even my ancient E8400/3.6Ghz is still a useable system due to upgrading to an SSD, pressing the power button and having a running desktop in 15 seconds vs 80-95 with a 7200rpm platter-based drive is nice, then your programs leap off the drive and load so much faster it's crazy.
well that's good because chrome has decided to write a couple terabytes to my drive to better report my browsing habits to google over the last week.
lozina
Lifer
From the earliest SSDs I always said I'd be happier buying a new SSD every couple of years than suffer through the use of intolerable mechanical drives any longer.
Having said that, even my first SSDs are still running fine today.
I guess this is it, from my newegg invoice:
bought in 2010. I feel like i got something else even earlier though hmm... guess not
Having said that, even my first SSDs are still running fine today.
I guess this is it, from my newegg invoice:
bought in 2010. I feel like i got something else even earlier though hmm... guess not
Last edited:
dullard
Elite Member
My first SSD failed. It ran almost 4 years. But it decided to put the bootmgr on a bad sector during one of its file reshuffling cleanups. After a few weeks, I was able to get it up an running again. But then, it was only 64 GB and had nothing but Windows on it (and two really slow booting programs).
I replaced it with a new SSD that is significantly faster, 4 times larger, and cost under $100. Heck you can often find 256 GB SSD going for $70 to $90. That is enough space for Windows and most programs that most people will install today. Then I put all the data on a regular 3 TB drive (also cost me under $100). Size and speed, that is the way to go.
I replaced it with a new SSD that is significantly faster, 4 times larger, and cost under $100. Heck you can often find 256 GB SSD going for $70 to $90. That is enough space for Windows and most programs that most people will install today. Then I put all the data on a regular 3 TB drive (also cost me under $100). Size and speed, that is the way to go.
halik
Lifer
I've had the same experience with the first-gen (ish, circa maybe 2009?) SSDs. The ones in my apple laptops haven't had that problem though, going on multiple years.
Still though, hardware failure on SSD means your data is completely gone... so backup is an absolute necessity.
PliotronX
Diamond Member
Agreed, and on the topic of the article, seems a bit preposterous. I did not know that SSD's have been around before Jesus. He must have had some tiny models. I would not trust an SSD that old, reason being most SSD failures are so catastrophic that only a specialized lab could retrieve anything. I guess the data could be retrievable in thousands of years, but as a normal operating device, hell to the no. Besides, in thousands of years we will probably have Johnny Mnemonic brain implants that dwarf the world's largest datacenters today.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
