What's the point of SSDs if their failure rate is as bad as HDDs?
Did manufacturers figure out a maximized profit scheme where they can get away with selling a high rate of defective units and still end up with a higher return than if they increased production cost to reduce failure rate?
Other urls found in this thread:
guru3d.com
twitter.com
ssd are prioritized for "dying after i would have replaced a hdd, runs faster until then"
lambos need to go to the engine shop every 10-20k miles while a corolla will roll for 300k on oil changes, same shit
failure rates COULD be economized more, but no one without clinically diagnosed autism would take a $600 256gb ssd that will fail in 10 years over a $300 256gb that will fail in 6 years purchased now + a $300 ($250 in now-dollars) 2tb ssd that will fail in 6 years purchased in 2023
good ssds nowadays can last like 60 years is that not fucking enough for you?
>What's the point of SSDs if their failure rate is as bad as HDDs?
Their speed?
>What's the point of SSDs if their failure rate is as bad as HDDs?
It isn't?
physically more robust
>What's the point of SSDs if their failure rate is as bad as HDDs?
That they are fucking fast?
> What's the point of SSDs
pic related
now let this stupid thread die
A HDD has no failure rate as such. It could die in a day or 10 years. I like the idea of having a more concrete failure rate like with an SSD.
That being said, I tend to use an SSD for boot and games and important data goes to three HDDs in RAID.
SSDs produce less heat
SSDs consume less electricity
SSDs require less space (especially M.2)
SSDs don't break when dropped
[citation needed]
nice, thanks.
Always assumed SSDs are more fragile
>consume less electricity
a couple watts is not worth mentioning even in datacenters
Because it is faster?
>comes to an end
doesnt mean it doesnt starts losing space before that. they simply try to make SSDs die slower not lose space slower.
stop fucking falling for this bait and stop shilling this shit desu.
1 - failure rates are better than hdds
2 - they are faster
3 - they are more energy efficient
4 - they are more rugged than hdds
5 - they are smaller and lighter than hdds
yes, it is
its worth mentioning for data centers and its worth mentioning for mobile
Why are people still falling for this shit?
>even in datacenters
Datacenters will save half a watt on a part if they can.
Power consumption is far more important in that application.
They last longer than most HDDs, they are faster, they are smaller and more power efficient, they have no moving parts and make no noise, and they won't break if you drop your laptop while it's on.
not when you are talking 6+ figures to upgrade
you are fucking stupid, OP. dumbass piece of shit
Not for upgrades, but when building new, or replacing old parts, it makes sense.
its not even worth mentioning for mobile. laptops would not see a difference in battery life. the thing worth mentioning is since there are no moving parts you dont have to worry about head failures when moving the device
"6 figures to upgrade" is a meme driven by (((legacy))) integrators, it's inevitably "$100k to upgrade, $90k to replace with like"
its still 6 figures...
you dont just 'upgrade', you purchase a new SAN. people arent buying a pallet of fucking 850 evo's on amazon
Since we are talking about SSDs I wonder if anyone knows these.
Seagate Pulsar.2 200GB ST200FM0002
HGST S842E400M2
I am looking for something for my free NAS system as a zil and l2arc drive, but used server stuff is hard to get by here and I can hardly find anything relaible on the quality of those.
Speed. It really does make a difference. Use an SSD as your boot drive and HDDs for everything else. SSDs last about 3-5 years while most 2.5 inch HDDs can last 10, but I've had mixed results with the 3.5 inch HDDs which last 4-8 years on average for me.
youre just plain wrong. ssds consume quite a bit less power than hdds, extending battery life while also running cooler
no, you are wrong.
in both my x220 and macbook i saw no noticeable difference in battery life. a normal 2.5 hard drive pulls maybe 1 watt more if you are lucky. there are plenty of ssds that pull more energy than 2.5 laptop drives
>t.too young to remember even the fucking iPod 7g
great anecdote. I also highly doubt you did anything even resembling a scientific test
weight
not all mobile devices are fucking thinkpads and macbooks. HDDs are a small portion of the power consumption in those. they basically use full x86 CPUs, for example.
If you had something like an ARM tablet, a HDD would literally consume half the power of the thing
the point is: "much faster"
faster lighter, cooler smaller
lower power consumption
more robust
>Extreme write tests over a short period of time test whether or not a drive will last for years reliably.
This is bullshit. I'm not saying SSD's will run forever or die in 2 years. But max loading something and taking the result as fact of operation is bullshit.
It's a terrible example because of explosions and shit but nobody goes around running cars even at low RPM for 200,000 miles for testing. The statistics are based on cars with service and maintenance records over a decade.
Just like when people say new cars are shit. They might be. But you can't compare your 15 year old car that was mass produced to mass produced cars that are 3 years old. There's no real evidence to prove anything.
this, short but predicted failure (and that failure is just getting into read only mode) against longer but unpredictable failure (and it can be devastating enough to corrupt all your data).
SSDs don't break faster when you're moving them all the time because they're in a laptop
SSDs are lighter