Storage Reliability

[Real_PhillBert]

I have never bought an SSD, but I recently had a coworker who had the HDD in his work machine die, which got me to thinking. Are SSD's still less reliable for consumers than HDD's?

 

Recently my father brought up his need for a new PC for himself and my mother because their current PC is over 10 years old and he would like to get a new modeling program. So I looked at their machine and they currently have a 250Gb HDD that has only 120 Gbs of data on it. He keeps nothing at all on the computer. So I was thinking about building a new machine and simply using a 250 or 500 gb SSD and forgo a normal storage drive.

 

So I ask you guys, have you personally experienced a drive failure in a personal machine?

 

Thanks in advance for your responses!

[DarrenP]

I have never bought an SSD, but I recently had a coworker who had the HDD in his work machine die, which got me to thinking. Are SSD's still less reliable for consumers than HDD's?

 

Recently my father brought up his need for a new PC for himself and my mother because their current PC is over 10 years old and he would like to get a new modeling program. So I looked at their machine and they currently have a 250Gb HDD that has only 120 Gbs of data on it. He keeps nothing at all on the computer. So I was thinking about simply using a 250 or 500 gb SSD and forgo a normal storage drive.

 

So I ask you guys, have you personally experienced a drive failure in a personal machine?

 

Thanks in advance for your responses!

The thing with SSD's is that they have a limited number of read and write cycles. Whereas HDD's do not. They are mechanical so are subject to fail a some point. Where as SSD's might last longer but are still subject to be unusable due to the read and write cycles on the Flash NAND being used up. I would suggest an SSD. Although also an HDD. 

 

Another thing just replacing a SSD in a machine wont necessarily make it faster there are many factors at play in older PC's. Such as CPU, and RAM. I have seen SSD's and HDD fail. Many times infact. (I'm a computer Technician.) I will say though I've seen far less SSD's fail. Another thing with SSD's. The S.M.A.R.T. Functionality will tell you when it's going to fail. Also SSD will usually run out of write cycles before reads. Thus you can get your stored items off them even when their write cycles are used up. As there are a lot more Read cycles than Write. 

[Real_PhillBert]

The thing with SSD's is that they have a limited number of read and write cycles. Whereas HDD's do not. They are mechanical so are subject to fail a some point. Where as SSD's might last longer but are still subject to be unusable due to the read and write cycles on the Flash NAND being used up. I would suggest an SSD. Although also an HDD. 

 

Another thing just replacing a SSD in a machine wont necessarily make it faster there are many factors at play in older PC's. Such as CPU, and RAM. I have seen SSD's and HDD fail. Many times infact. (I'm a computer Technician.) I will say though I've seen far less SSD's fail. Another thing with SSD's. The S.M.A.R.T. Functionality will tell you when it's going to fail. Also SSD will usually run out of write cycles before reads. Thus you can get your stored items off them even when their write cycles are used up. As there are a lot more Read cycles than Write. 

 

I was under the impression that SDD's have a limited number of writes but not reads. Am I incorrect?

 

I think you misunderstood my post a bit. I have no plans to just throw a SSD in their current machine, I would build a whole new one and substitute an SSD for the HDD.

 

Thank you for the informed reply

[DarrenP]

I was under the impression that SDD's have a limited number of writes but not reads. Am I incorrect?

 

I think you misunderstood my post a bit. I have no plans to just throw a SSD in their current machine, I would build a whole new one and substitute an SSD for the HDD.

 

Thank you for the informed reply

My bad. I thought you were just going to throw it in the old one. I was like NO please no... 

 

Anyway yes SSD's do have a limited read cycle... Will you ever reach that? Extremely unlikely. 

[Real_PhillBert]

I edited my OP to actually say I was going to build a new PC. I didnt realize I never actually said it.

 

My bad. I thought you were just going to throw it in the old one. I was like NO please no... 

 

Anyway yes SSD's do have a limited read cycle... Will you ever reach that? Extremely unlikely. 

 

Ok, Makes sense to me. Thanks

[ShadowCaptain]

I was under the impression that SDD's have a limited number of writes but not reads. Am I incorrect?

 

 

 

They do, but its is quite high. For example in AnandTechs review of the samsung 840 evo it averaged at 50gb of writes a day for 8 years

 

If you fancy a  read and some tables with numbers in:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3

[IdeaStormer]

SSD lifeline also depends on your use of the system, I know people who kill even the best SSD's because they are write heavy users. From your OP it sounds like you will be fine with any modern SSD. Saying that you should still add a separate drive HDD (spinning drive) as backup to the SSD, even coping all the data off the current 250GB HD and using that after you reformat it as a place to copy files to at the very least, but I'd buy a new drive.

[Theo]

My bad. I thought you were just going to twhrow it in the old one. I was like NO please no... 

 

Anyway yes SSD's do have a limited read cycle... Will you ever reach that? Extremely unlikely.

They have a limited cycle of writes not reads

[Real_PhillBert]

They have a limited cycle of writes not reads

 

This is what I have heard many times before.

[LogicalDrm]

On my first SSD and have one HDD failed (old IDE Maxtor). So doesn't really count? Other than putting Seagate in black list for me.

[wpirobotbuilder]

I think the question of storage reliability is a question wrongly worded.

 

All storage is inherently unreliable. Eventually it will degrade and you will lose data eventually. The trick is to have backups and a disaster response plan so that the risk of data loss is minimal.

[Real_PhillBert]

I think the question of storage reliability is a question wrongly worded.

 

All storage is inherently unreliable. Eventually it will degrade and you will lose data eventually. The trick is to have backups and a disaster response plan so that the risk of data loss is minimal.

 

1) How so? I am asking if SDD's are still less reliable than HDD's for a consumer. I have included a poll to help convey peoples experiences. The question is simple, how reliable have your internal storage devices been, and if you have experienced failures, what platform failed?

 

2) I haven't seen anyone here say anything about not having a backup of your important documents. This is simply about drive reliability. I think you might be over thinking the question a bit. I am in no way suggesting that backups are not utilized, I am merely discussing the options for the best platform for primary storage, as it seems to me the reliability of SSD's has now surpassed that of HDD's.

[Real_PhillBert]

On my first SSD and have one HDD failed (old IDE Maxtor). So doesn't really count? Other than putting Seagate in black list for me.

 

Yeah this is where the question gets a bit murky. HDD's have been in consumer hands for considerably longer than SDD's so naturally there have been significantly more opportunities for them to fail. My only saving grace on the subject is that I think that the audience of this forum is young enough that the majority of members would not have been around in the 70's and 80's when things were really really bad.

[SMURG]

I've had both fail.

Interestingly the write cache SSD in my file server (which has seen about 700GB of write cycles) is still working, the drive that failed on me was the 480GB SSD I used for games. It didn't die from too many write cycles, the controller just decided to brick one day. Tyvm OCZ.

[Shadow-R]

Terve!
I had also both fail.

One of it was a Laptop HDD, I guess shocks made their way into the bearing oder the reading head.

An other one was a 15 year old HDD in an equally ancient PC.

The other side was an SSD, I guess it was a Corsair Force 3 120GB.

It failed after about 9 months in use, for a (in my opinion) clear reason.

My friends sister had no idea about it being an SSD and loaded it up unto the top.

With a few MB of free space and likely flase configured system - and with that constant small writes to the SSD - it was dying an awful death.

Sayonara!

[MoonSpot]

Get an SSD as primary and setup MS to backup to an HDD nightly/weekly. And if you like you can image it manually semi-annually or quarterly to the HDD via clonezilla(free) for good measure.

I would not forgo "normal storage" because I prefer to backup onto a different physical medium as insurance against drive failure. Having a different drive in the PC to accommodate storage of backups can be made to be a relatively seamless experience. And for $50-$75 for an HDD, its cheap piece of mind.