73 % of SSD owners won't experience malfunction of SSDs – study

[Nurmi]

HyperX 3k 240gb & Samsung 850 Evo 250gb.  :wub:

[euniqe]

My seagate hard drive which was significantly younger than my oldest SSD failed. 

 

It is technically impossible for SSD's to be less reliable (mechanically/physically) than HDD's IMO. No moving parts etc.

[GlassBomb]

Of about two thousand survey respondents, over 75 per cent use SSD technology in laptop and/or mobile devices

 

I find this to be a very high number. Most pre-built computers (lets face it, that is what people actually buy) normally comes with a harddrive. Because ermagerd, more space = more better!

 

The earlier generations of SSD's did have a much higher failure rate than today's. Which is true for pretty much everything. But most of the ones sold today are very solid.

[Fetzie]

My seagate hard drive which was significantly younger than my oldest SSD failed. 

 

It is technically impossible for SSD's to be less reliable (mechanically/physically) than HDD's IMO. No moving parts etc.

 

Badly designed controllers can reduce the life-span of the drive significantly and cause data corruption.

[Tedster]

Stop buying OCZ SSDs then!

 

My A-DATA SP900 aswell as my new Samsung 850 EVO haven't failed on me yet.

Yup, I learned that the hard way. Completely died after 14 days.

[Misanthrope]

>know return rates on SSD sales

>can confirm article is a hoax

 

Maybe not a hoax but like it has been pointed out, intentionally skewed by including data from earlier generations.

[flibberdipper]

My SSD has a problem. My G3258 fucking holds it back booting Windows since I'm a bit of a power user. I mean, when an E7400 machine with 1/4 the RAM boots up WAAAAAAAY quicker... You know you have a lot of shit, and your CPU can't process it fast enough.

[norritt]

Stop buying OCZ SSDs then!

 

My A-DATA SP900 aswell as my new Samsung 850 EVO haven't failed on me yet.

 

I'm using 2 OCZ Agility 4 Drives 128GB and 512 GB both have a power-on count of around 8700 hours now. No issues so far. I also used to have one of these at work - also never had any issues with it.

 

On the other hand I've seen many 3.5 inch hard drives die. A couple of years ago I bought a rig with 4 500GB Seagate Barracudas for RAID 10, 2 were DOA, 1 died within a month the last one within a year. So from my personal expriences SSDs especially the OCZ ones aren't that bad.

 

The really dangerous thing about SSDs is the fact that they fail differently. About every hard drive that failed on me pretty much signalized the approaching demise with issues like spin up problems and the computer POSTing suspiciously long till finding the conncted drives, clicking sounds or strong vibrations. An SSD will not do anything like that in most cases, it will just be gone all of the sudden. Maybe if you're very lucky you might be able to powercycle it a couple of times to get a last spark of life out of it but I wouldn't count on that.

 

Use backups (you should do that anyways), and you'll be fine with SSDs.

 

Especially in notebooks I personally regard SSDs to be a lot safer than HDDs because of the mechanical stress those devices are exposed to by constantly being carried around. Still one day the SSD will die - and again you should have backups.

 

Another good habit is to use SMART monitoring tools when working with SSDs - so you get the chance to maybe see an SSD failure coming and replace the SSD before it actually dies.

[Gunjob]

I've had two OCZ Vertex 4m 512GB arrive DOA. Both of which were crazy cheap refurbs from Scan.co.uk. My original Vertex 4m which is a non-refurb drive(brand new) has been running for years. I doubt the HDD numbers are better, I get someone in at least once a week with a HDD complaining they've lost all their data and the drive is dead etc. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

Probably most of these are OCZ drives from 2012/13 when they were shipping a whopping 60% garbage drives.

[ThomasD]

And 100% of HDD owners experience HDD failure.

 

Eventually.

[Snaeb_aka_Beans]

Personally I've had 2 OCZ SSD's fail, but the other 65 from Samsung, Intel, Kingston, ADATA & Crucial, not so much.

[bcredeur97]

so... dont buy a cheapo TLC flash SSD and youll be fine? lol

[Doobeedoo]

This study is irrelevant.

First, think about HDDs failures and problems.

Second, SSDs are still new tech and early adopters were prone to issues which could cause that percentage shown in article.

Also, there are significant amount of users who bought some cheap unpopular drives.

[Trik'Stari]

I'm pretty sure that dude has it backwards, data on an SSD is stored linearly, and scattered on an HDD. At least that's what I've always been told.

 

Simple solution: Daily backups to an HDD

 

[patrickjp93]

Drives sold in the US or Australia don't suddenly fail less than those sold in the UK..

Actually you'd be surprised. Various manufacturing plants throughout the world have different quality assurance teams and qualities of production.

[patrickjp93]

I'm pretty sure that dude has it backwards, data on an SSD is stored linearly, and scattered on an HDD. At least that's what I've always been told.

Simple solution: Daily backups to an HDD

Please tell me that was sarcasm... SSDs break data into 4KB chunks and spread them out to as many blocks as possible for parallel read and write performance.

[Trik'Stari]

Please tell me that was sarcasm... SSDs break data into 4KB chunks and spread them out to as many blocks as possible for parallel read and write performance.

As I said, that's what I remember being told. I remember that you don't have to defragment an SSD because it writes linearly instead of putting data in random places.

 

If that's incorrect, good to know. Only going on what I remember being told.

[Commander Llama]

My Vertex 2 SSDs did fail within 18 months and I was pretty disappointed.  As did my friend's pair who bought them with me.  Warranty replaced them with Vertex 3 and those are still fast and operational as I type, and I was happy with the customer support end.

 

I've since moved on to the Samsung 840 EVO myself.  It did have that slowdown problem but the first firmware fix resolved the issue.  Snappy as heck and happy I am.

[patrickjp93]

As I said, that's what I remember being told. I remember that you don't have to defragment an SSD because it writes linearly instead of putting data in random places.

If that's incorrect, good to know. Only going on what I remember being told.

The reason you don't need to defrag(god damn spell check!) SSDs is the data is purposely spread out, and the controller knows where everything is. The OS has no actual conception of how data is organized optimally on an SSD.

Furthermore, HDDs write data sequentially as much as possible (though parallel on the platters) unless the track is going to slam into existing data. At that point the path is fragmented.

[zacRupnow]

I still need to return my 840 Evo paperweight.

[Sakkura]

The reason you don't need to defeat SSDs is the data is purposely spread out, and the controller knows where everything is.

 

It doesn't even really matter if it's spread out, since any part of the SSD can be accessed equally fast. The problem with HDDs is you first have to physically move the read/write head, and then you have to wait for the disk to spin until the data reaches the head. Both of those things are glacially slow compared to just pushing electrons down one path or another.

[Robi_g]

OCZ agility 3 and Kingston V300 owner here. Neither has broken, the OCZ is about 3 years old, the kingston one is about 5 months.

[Victorious Secret]

I'm glad I got my 480GB Crucial M500 from Amazon in the sales after Christmas. This thing is fast, silent (unlike those damn mechanical drivers) and doesn't get as warm as my mechanical drive did. Currently in my shitty laptop but I will transfer it straight over once I get a desktop.

 

Crucial has some of the best value in the industry. 

 

Not quite the best at everything, but the pricing is how SSDs should be priced if these guys really give a damn about driving adoption and driving costs down. 

[Trik'Stari]

The reason you don't need to defeat SSDs is the data is purposely spread out, and the controller knows where everything is. The OS has no actual conception of how data is organized optimally on an SSD.

Furthermore, HDDs write data sequentially as much as possible (though parallel on the platters) unless the track is going to slam into existing data. At that point the path is fragmented.

Good to know. Thank you for correcting me.