HardwareBanter

HardwareBanter (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/index.php)
-   Storage (alternative) (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   "How Reliable are SSDs?" (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/showthread.php?t=199427)

Lynn McGuire[_3_] February 21st 19 11:19 PM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
"How Reliable are SSDs?"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/

"What’s not to love about solid state drives (SSDs)? They are faster
than conventional hard disk drives (HDDs), more compact, have no moving
parts, are immune to magnetic fields, and can withstand more shocks and
vibration than conventional magnetic platter disks. And, they are
becoming available in larger and larger capacities while their cost
comes down."

"We’re now seeing SSDs with capacities that used to be reserved for HDDs
and at prices that no longer make our eyes water. 500 GB SSDs are now
affordable (under $100), and 1 TB drives are reasonably priced ($100 to
$150). Even 2 TB SSDs fall into a budget range for putting together a
good performance desktop system ($300 to $400)."

"The bottom line question is: do SSD drives fail? Of course they do, as
do all drives eventually. The important questions we really need to be
asking are 1) do they fail faster than HDDs, and 2) how long can we
reasonably expect them to last?"

Lynn

Grant Taylor February 22nd 19 02:31 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On 2/21/19 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
1) do they fail faster than HDDs,


It depends on the workload.

SSDs are write sensitive. So anything that writes a lot of data will
cause them to fail faster.

Most SSDs are rated in how many times a day they can have the entire
drive capacity written. Some drives are a fraction, some are single
digit multiples. I don't think I've seen any that are two digit multiples.

2) how long can we reasonably expect them to last?"


Again, it depends on the workload.

You should also be aware of the failure mode. Some drives fail such
that they become read only. Others fail and become a brick. The former
allows you to copy data off. The latter … well I hope you had good backups.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Mark Perkins February 22nd 19 02:46 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:19:12 -0600, Lynn McGuire
wrote:

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/

"What’s not to love about solid state drives (SSDs)? They are faster
than conventional hard disk drives (HDDs), more compact, have no moving
parts, are immune to magnetic fields, and can withstand more shocks and
vibration than conventional magnetic platter disks. And, they are
becoming available in larger and larger capacities while their cost
comes down."

"We’re now seeing SSDs with capacities that used to be reserved for HDDs
and at prices that no longer make our eyes water. 500 GB SSDs are now
affordable (under $100), and 1 TB drives are reasonably priced ($100 to
$150). Even 2 TB SSDs fall into a budget range for putting together a
good performance desktop system ($300 to $400)."

"The bottom line question is: do SSD drives fail? Of course they do, as
do all drives eventually. The important questions we really need to be
asking are 1) do they fail faster than HDDs, and 2) how long can we
reasonably expect them to last?"


Good article, but they could have added one more paragraph to deal with
the questions and differences around:
2.5" SATA SSDs
SATA m.2
NVMe/PCIe m.2

Maybe there will be a follow-up article at some point.


Mark Perkins February 22nd 19 04:59 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:31:00 -0700, Grant Taylor
wrote:

On 2/21/19 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
1) do they fail faster than HDDs,


It depends on the workload.

SSDs are write sensitive. So anything that writes a lot of data will
cause them to fail faster.

Most SSDs are rated in how many times a day they can have the entire
drive capacity written. Some drives are a fraction, some are single
digit multiples. I don't think I've seen any that are two digit multiples.


I've never seen an SSD rated that way. I've seen TBW and "years" (the
latter for warranty purposes), but never what you described. Is there a
specific brand that describes 'life' that way? You said 'most', but I
assume it's only one brand.

2) how long can we reasonably expect them to last?"


Again, it depends on the workload.


Well, everyone agrees that writing is more destructive than reading, so
that's why SSD manufacturers provide a TBW rating, total terabytes
written. The actual warranty can be written in such a way as to say that
the drive is warranted until you reach the TBW or the years, whichever
comes first.

You should also be aware of the failure mode. Some drives fail such
that they become read only. Others fail and become a brick. The former
allows you to copy data off. The latter … well I hope you had good backups.


Backups are always a good idea. That didn't go away with SSDs.


Grant Taylor February 22nd 19 05:08 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On 2/21/19 8:59 PM, Mark Perkins wrote:
I've never seen an SSD rated that way. I've seen TBW and "years" (the
latter for warranty purposes), but never what you described. Is there
a specific brand that describes 'life' that way? You said 'most', but
I assume it's only one brand.


Drive Writes Per Day.

Link - Speeds, Feeds and Needs – Understanding SSD Endurance
- https://blog.westerndigital.com/ssd-...s-feeds-needs/

§ The SSD Endurance Equation



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Mark Perkins February 22nd 19 06:50 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:08:48 -0700, Grant Taylor
wrote:

On 2/21/19 8:59 PM, Mark Perkins wrote:
I've never seen an SSD rated that way. I've seen TBW and "years" (the
latter for warranty purposes), but never what you described. Is there
a specific brand that describes 'life' that way? You said 'most', but
I assume it's only one brand.


Drive Writes Per Day.

Link - Speeds, Feeds and Needs – Understanding SSD Endurance
- https://blog.westerndigital.com/ssd-...s-feeds-needs/

§ The SSD Endurance Equation


Ugh! So it's a [WD] blog where the guy cautions *against* using 'drive
writes per day' because it's *not* a good metric for measuring drive
endurance, due to the fact that it doesn't give apples to apples
comparisons across drive capacities. He then goes on to say that TBW is
a better metric, with which I (and virtually everyone else) agree.

The question remains: is there an SSD manufacturer that uses 'drive
writes per day' in their marketing materials to help customers figure
out the endurance properties of their product? So far, no.


Grant Taylor February 22nd 19 08:42 PM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
On 2/21/19 10:50 PM, Mark Perkins wrote:
Ugh! So it's a [WD] blog where the guy cautions *against* using 'drive
writes per day' because it's *not* a good metric for measuring drive
endurance, due to the fact that it doesn't give apples to apples
comparisons across drive capacities. He then goes on to say that TBW is
a better metric, with which I (and virtually everyone else) agree.


That's just the first thing I came across in a quick search while tired
brain dead.

The question remains: is there an SSD manufacturer that uses 'drive
writes per day' in their marketing materials to help customers figure
out the endurance properties of their product? So far, no.


I don't know about drive manufactures. But I do know that writes per
day is the unit of measure that all of my colleagues and all of the
vendors that we've been talking to for enterprise drives over the last
18 months. Vendors such as:

· Cisco
· HP
· Dell
· Supermicro
· Other white box vendors

As I write that list I wonder if maybe it's server manufacturers /
vendors / OEMs that use drive writes per day and not actual drive
manufacturers.

I'm not saying that drive writes per day is proper, just that I've seen
it used a LOT more than total bytes written.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[email protected] March 29th 19 03:23 PM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
My 1st Transcend 370s 64gb lasted fr 11-15 to 3-17, 2nd unit ( warranty claim ) lasted fr 4-17 to 3-19, even with a big heatsink below its aluminium base plate.
Every installation of Windows ( on different parts of storage area ) lasted fr 3 days to 4 mth maximum.

[email protected] March 30th 19 08:15 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
My Apacer AS340 120 gb is lousy too : bought in 3-17, longest usable time for Win 8 installed ( @ front of storage*area ) was just 6 mth. I had to install Win 8 on different parts of * to try find a more durable location : some parts lasted just 5 days, now I use a location 82 gb from front ( = left side of Win 8 Disc Management chart ), I had to repair this partition 20x since 15-6-18 but it's still usable.
6 data files stored turned bad, & I had to re-enter data, wasted ~4 hr.
I put silver paste on its base plate & a ( AMD, Barton ) hsink ( with a fan ) below plate : hsink will warm up a bit if no fan cools hsink, this fact proves that heat can be extracted from a plastic plate too.

[email protected] March 8th 20 10:01 AM

"How Reliable are SSDs?"
 
Since Oct'19 I notice my Apacer SSD has fewer troubles ( unbootable unless repaired by either DVD or another SSD's Windows ), after I added cooling to mboard components : (i) fit a 3mm thick hsink onto cpu socket's resistors (ii) fit a 7mm long hsink to bottom of north bridge (iii) fit a AM2 hsink ( 2ndary ) onto north bridge's primary hsink ( silicone @ contact area ) (iv) reduce voltage to (AM3) cpu by 0.175 v ( cpu was too hot for this voltage without this 3mm hsink fitted ), north bridge by 0.175 v too, Adata DDR3 ram ( with hsink added ) to 1.36 v ( @ CL11, no tighter @ this voltage ). I presume south bridge too became cooler ( ; gets less heat fr cpu & n-bridge & ram ).
Now the same space holding Win 8 ( used to last 6 mth max, since 4-18 ) has lasted 8 mth already !


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com