SSD's vs HDD's

Do SSD's last longer than HDD's? As in, they don't break down? I'd imagine so because they don't have moving parts, but I'm not sure.

Other urls found in this thread:

packet.company/blog/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

no they dont

depends on your on how many read/write cycles you do

both could break anytime, but HDDs are a lot more likely to suddenly break because of moving parts.
generally, HDDs most often fail suddenly and without any warning whereas SSDs tend to fail gradually, because the flash storage stops working after X erase cycles. google wear leveling.

>no they dont
Yes they do, unless you use some shitty TLC Samsung EVO drive that starts dying after 100TB. Get a modern Samsung Pro, Intel or Plextor drive and that shit won't die unless you try to make it die.

SSDs have a capped limited life because each gate holding a bit can only be written to a specific number times before it stops being able to be changed. Unless you're using a SSD for 10+ years you probably won't ever run into memory loss due to this. HDDs don't have this, but they do have corruption and moving parts so their lifespan is more based upon build quality than the specific technology inside them.

SSD warranties are longer than HDD. Just think about that.

Also the SSD microcontroler will be the first to go of anything

The only shitty evo drive was the 840. 850 survives well into 200TB.

They won't mechanically break down, but they do have less life in terms of read/write cycles.

Total acute SSD failure is way more common than chronic "wear-down"
Like wearing it down isn't even a reasonable thought for normie consumers, but total failure is more likely (it's not very likely nowadays though)

>bought Intel drive
>shitty TLC
>8 year warranty

Are you kidding? The 840 itself lasts ti 600TB. The 840pro lasts to 2.1PB. Pretty sure the 850evo is better than the 840, and the 850pro better than the 840pro.

Does that apply to 850 Pro only or both 850 Pro and the normal/standard one too?

For the average home user you're going to be pretty unlucky to have either type of drive fail.

I mean if your HDD lasts 12 years and the SSD "only" lasts 10 then really who gives a fuck. Still got a 10yr old disk in your current system anyone?

You can fucking guarantee that your extremely low tolerance microscopically delicate 7200 RPM spinning disk read by platters will encounter a major fault before some memory chips do. Is this even a tech board?

Depends on too many factors to summarize. How you store them, how you use them, and the quality of the components you buy is a major factor.

Most modern high-quality SSDs come with 10 year warranties though, and in 10 years' time you'll have moved on due to increasing storage requirements alone. So I wouldn't worry about them failing on you.

Also, I would only buy SSDs if you have a good use case for them. (For example: You're trying to minimize boot times, or you need extremely high IOPS and can't buy enough RAM to cover your working set)

>840
>shitty
mine's been on for over 16 000 hours and it's still fine, fuck you on about.

The framework scandal. Shit frameworks also affected the 850 pro iirc. Cancerous Samsung software

Anyone has experience with crucial mx ssds? I don't care about muh xtr3me speedz but more about reliability and endurance

If you want reliability and endurance under heavy load, get an intel enterprise SSD

If you don't care about reliability under heavy load and don't mind losing an SSD, get whichever one has a high enough warranty to last its projected usage.

Where's that one picture where it says "you did not agree to the collection of your personal information so your firmware will not be updated" in Samsung Magician? I refuse to use their products because of that.

You'd have to be writing a shit ton of data everyday for years and years to kill an SSD. The average user won't get close to that.

Has everyone forgotten that if you don't power up an SSD for a long time, it will start losing data.

That doesn't happen with hard drives. You can plug in a hard drive that's 10 years old and it will work like it did 10 years ago.

>Has everyone forgotten that if you don't power up an SSD for a long time, it will start losing data.
No, I haven't. That's part of the reason why I said it depends on too many factors in Most of the time this is not something you need to worry about in the slightest. It depends on your use case and working conditions. (Humidity? Temperature? How long is it going to be unpowered?)

SSDs are for primary devices, nobody is leaving their main machine switched off for 8 months.

HDD last way longer.
Because after years of active use, they get used as a backup drive for many more years.

Whereas an old SSD is too slow to be useful.

>slow

mean small

>they don't break down
>have a limited amount of write cycles

yes they do faggot.

850 pro will outlast you. it has a 10 year warranty and you can write 80gigs a day for 10 years on it without it breaking a single fucking cell.

i even defrag my 850pro. just for shits and giggles.

fuck i even have my torrent folder on it.

I thought you weren't supposed to defrag ssd's because it clusters all of the data onto a few memory chips instead of evenly spreading them out over all the chips, thus wearing down one or two memory chips a lot faster than others.

But I'm still working on my A+ so I could be wrong.

>defragging an SSD

You're stupid. Any recently updated defrag utility will detect an SSD and will not even give you the option to defrag. Except this one for some reason.

You're correct

I dare you to find me a HDD that can take 7PB of writes without failing.
They'll easily outlive you and your grandchildren, even in heavy use.

packet.company/blog/

No, that explanation is completely wrong. Your SSD controller will do internal load-balancing to spread out all writes over flash cells.

The main reason people say to avoid defragmenting SSDs is because defragmenting will reduces the lifespan of your SSD far more quickly than your normal average consumer workload would, and because for high-end SSDs (especially NVMe SSDs) it tens to be unnecessary.

That said, extreme fragmentation still can and will be a thing if you're using your FS at capacity or doing something it was badly tuned for (e.g. torrenting on a CoW FS), and while fragmentation doesn't lower performance as much on an SSD as it does on a HDD, it can still cause big read spikes and high CPU usage when reading heavily fragmented files.

tl;dr use a good filesystem and keep enough free space and fragmentation shouldn't ever be an issue for you

Haters gonna hate.


Enjoy your shitty Evo.

Enjoy your dead drive.

Fucking
W H E N
H
E
N

still alive and kicking lol.

if it dies tho, it has a 10 year warranty so im good senpai.

>if it dies tho, it has a 10 year warranty so im good
>implying the drive matters at all
>implying data loss, OS-tied stuff isn't 10x worse

You really are dumb aren't you Mr. SSD Defragger?

>not having backups

stop buying ssds until you can afford a nas

Apparently before the end of this year under the name of QuantX.
Here's some speeds they showed.

>>>OS-tied stuff
>backing up OS drive disk images
>implying you're even talking about the same thing

I did not mean media, I mean your OS partition. You don't back it up, losing it is a fucking pain. Learn to read.

Nobody will claim a hard drive warranty. All your "it's not REALLY illegal" files being shipped out to god knows where? Ya right.

>You don't back it up, losing it is a fucking pain.
If losing it is such a fucking pain, then why not back it up? Sounds retarded to me

What are you even talking about dude?

Hard drives come blank.