HDD > SSD/NVME???

[the_reel_d_dave]

Hey smart folks of the LTT forums!  I have a question about something I've never heard of.

 

The jist is that SSDs (and NVMEs) of a large capacity (1TB and more) will fail much faster than a HDD.  We're spec'ing a content creation machine, and the IT guy in charge of the procurement states said statement as a fact.  I've heard of bitrot, but I thought that wasn't as much a big deal as it's used to.  He insists that large SSDs and NVMEs are dying in record numbers.   I haven't been able to find anything that corroborates this online.

 

My IT guy insists we get a small SSD for the OC and programs, and a HDD for the scratch disk and long term storage.  I'd rather have a faster SSD or NVME for scratch and short term file storage instead of having to stick huge files on a slow spinny disc platter.

 

Have any of y'all hard of this?  Is my IT guy right, and I'm the dumb-dumb?  Or is my IT guy reading something else?

[Shimejii]

Nobody that knows what they are talking about has said that an NVME will fail faster then a HDD. IT guy is a complete idiot and he should be fired and be forced to change careers for spewing stuff like that as facts. 

 

HDDs have their uses, but they die FAR more often then a NVME or SSD. HDD are more prone to damage due to how they work, and the price has come down quite a bit on the 1 TB NVME drives.

 

Bitrot is not really a factor for most people as you arent just letting it sit off doing nothing. Can it happen? sure, is it common? No. 

[Ryker Robb]

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

Have any of y'all hard of this?  Is my IT guy right, and I'm the dumb-dumb?  Or is my IT guy reading something else?

This is kind of a thing, but not exactly as big of a deal as your it guy thinks it is. Ssd's have a limited amount of writes, expressed as terabytes written, or tbw, before they essentially wear out and die. Most ssd's are rated in the 100-1000 tbw range, sometimes even higher for high capacity ssds. hdds on the other hand are aren't rated in tbw, and generally can withstand much more writes than ssds can. But that doesn't mean they'll last longer than an ssd though. hdds are mechanical devices that are generally limited by power on hours, head parking count(otherwise known as load/unload cycles), etc. Whether one lasts longer then the other is debatable, but as long as your not writing more than 100gb a day(100gb*365=36,500*10 years=365,000 or roughly 365 tbw), it's not going to matter. But in certain situations, where your constantly writing to the drive 24/7, hdds could be a better choice.

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

The jist is that SSDs (and NVMEs) of a large capacity (1TB and more) will fail much faster than a HDD.

 

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

He insists that large SSDs and NVMEs are dying in record numbers.

This is definitely not true, as the larger the ssd is(given they are using the same technology, such as tlc) The higher it will be rated in tbw, as there is more nand to spread out the writes to.

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

My IT guy insists we get a small SSD for the OC and programs, and a HDD for the scratch disk and long term storage.

This isn't a horrible idea, especially as scratch drives tend to get written to a lot. But...

 

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

I'd rather have a faster SSD or NVME for scratch and short term file storage instead of having to stick huge files on a slow spinny disc platter.

This is probably a better idea. Unless you plan on using your ssd for more than 10 years or so, you really don't need to worry about hitting the tbw rating.

 

36 minutes ago, the_reel_d_dave said:

I've heard of bitrot, but I thought that wasn't as much a big deal as it's used to.

  This is mostly an issue for cold storage drives, where they might be powered off for long periods of time.

[kokosnh]

It all depends. 

SSD have a finite number of data that can be reliable written to them ( usually marked by TBW rating )

but it’s usually quite hard to hit that number in 5-10 years, that is usually the max number of years that the machine will see in usage.

 

if it’s quality top tier SSD, of large capacity, then you should be ok.

only in specific scenarios HDD would be desirable, like video recorder, that writes large amount of files, 24/7

 

as for the failure rate, if it’s top tier SSD, then it will outlive HDD, especially in the 5-10 years old.

 

SSD are better, no moving parts, no roting platters, just electric charge escaping. 

[ianm_ozzy]

The information seems about right.

 

This will explain a bit better

 

 

About 2 1/2 minutes in, it will go into the detail.

 

In short for large capacity SSDs, it is probably a QLC  drive, which has terrible longevity.

 

I have  2 old 60GB MLC drives form over a decade ago, and still fine. I have had more recent SSDs, that have failed.

 

Oh and  a small pile of even older 1TB hard drives, which I have litttle use for. They are working just fine it seems.

 

All my important data - on  a server with Hard drive based NAS storage with redundancy.

A NAS is not a backup. All my backups or on external hard drives.

SSDs typically have have  much better performance than hard drives - which is why they are used.

SSDs are rapidlly getting cheaper, at the cost of longevity.

 

 

 

 

[Timme]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:42 AM, the_reel_d_dave said:

Hey smart folks of the LTT forums! I have a question about something I've never heard of.

 

The jist is that SSDs (and NVMEs) of a large capacity (1TB and more) will fail much faster than a HDD. We're spec'ing a content creation machine, and the IT guy in charge of the procurement states said statement as a fact. I've heard of bitrot, but I thought that wasn't as much a big deal as it's used to. He insists that large SSDs and NVMEs are dying in record numbers. I haven't been able to find anything that corroborates this online.

 

My IT guy insists we get a small SSD for the OC and programs, and a HDD for the scratch disk and long term storage. I'd rather have a faster SSD or NVME for scratch and short term file storage instead of having to stick huge files on a slow spinny disc platter.

 

Have any of y'all hard of this? Is my IT guy right, and I'm the dumb-dumb? Or is my IT guy reading something else?

SSD is indeed not a permanent storage. Controllers die, and low free space is very bad for NAND's health. Everything electronic has a non-zero chance of random gg. But today most of the better drives should last you 3-5 years, if not abused.

My ideal would be a 980pro 500GB OS only and 1 TB with HMB for games and programs.

And an HDD for backup/recovery, permanent and general storage.

[ewitte]

New Backblaze Data Confirms SSDs Are More Reliable Than Hard Drives | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)