Are SSDs fixed now? I heard a couple years ago they had a limited life span compared to HDDs

Are SSDs fixed now? I heard a couple years ago they had a limited life span compared to HDDs.

Other urls found in this thread:

overclock.net/t/1507897/samsung-840-evo-read-speed-drops-on-old-written-data-in-the-drive/3190
techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
techpowerup.com/234699/samsung-850-pro-ssd-reaches-end-of-life-with-9100-tb-written
ebuyer.com/753152-850-evo-sata-iii-2-5inch-ssd-4tb-mz-75e4t0b-eu
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

been 4 years now with mine

They're much more reliable than they used to be.

SSDs have great lifespans now as long as you don't get some chinkshit, good ones are also covered by warranty for ~10 years.

They still wear down with writes. But its gotten to the point that this is seldom relevant for non-server uses anymore.

They've always had life spans greater than HDDs, you've been lied to. Only the first generation in 2009-2010 was degrading really fast, especially with no OS support. In 2012, there was plenty of stress tests showing that they are more reliable. I still have my m4 256GB from 2012 running at full iops/speed on my other PC, and it has been raped by torrents (worst case scenario for write amplification), swap files and even gentoo

>year 3017
>people have colonized the Kuiper Belt
>Mars terraforming began 30 years ago
>flying cars are everywhere
>everyone is a half-cyborg now
>Sup Forums is still asking is SSDs are reliable and if they should buy one

They were never an issue except to poorfag underaged anons who still hasn't figured out that they don't live forever.

>They've always had life spans greater than HDDs

Yeah, no.

Just don't.

put os on ssd
put everything else on hdd

what about VMs

yes

yes what

will an OS that constantly reads and writes like windows vista/7/10 wear it down faster than a linux?

should swap and torrenting be mapped to a regular hard drive instead?

reads don't affect the ssd lifetime

don't ever put swap on ssd or any flash storage (sd cards, flashdrives, compact flash and other shit)

They're fine for everyday use and some would say they're more reliable than hdds (no moving parts, smaller). The only problem that still remains is the data retention over long periods of time (AKA if you don't power your machine for a couple of weeks you might lose your data).

>The only problem that still remains is the data retention over long periods of time (AKA if you don't power your machine for a couple of weeks you might lose your data).
NVM != battery-backed RAM

They have a lifespan of 100-150 terabytes. So even if you'd write 20gb per day it'll take years before it adds up to that value, and the drive will work for some time after that. It's only an issue for server users and perhaps some video editers.

Shitty drives that use outdated technology might not last as long, check the manufacturers page for expected lifetime. But even those should be somewhat decent these days.

Just don't fstrim -v / them every five minutes and they'll be right

Missclick, did not mean to quote.

>should swap and torrenting be mapped to a regular hard drive instead?
After 5 years of using an ssd with higher than usual load, I see no practical reason for the swap to be relocated. Endurance tests don't show the need for this either, don't listen to this faggot Torrents, that's an open question. I've used that m4 SSD for occasional torrenting for half a year, never had any issue with it degrading faster than usual, but I imagine this is the worst case for an SSD an I don't know what to think about it.

yeah that

well one modern SSDs talk about "total drive writes per day" when discussing lifespan, your swapfile won't hit that. Two you should have enough RAM that you barely if ever use the swap at all, it's only supposed to be there for emergencies, so that you can back out instead of having the OOM killer do it for you.

SSDs have a limited read and write life. But HDDs die after five years because of mechanical failures if they are mainstream stuff.

If you care about longevity, put your important backups on an archive drive.
So yeah, SSDs are the shit.

...

i've had an ssd for five years now and it's perfectly fine still. claims 98% health and that it'll last another 20 years.

the "SSDs have limited lifespan" meem seems to be a fucking joke considering that i've had two year old HDDs die on me more often than these.

>But HDDs die after five years

I am still using a HDD from 2001 in a project computer. I still have a buttload of 500GB 2.5" drives from old laptops and external hard drives. I still have a 750GB WD blue from over 5 years. Just a while back ago, I sold a HDD from 2005 that was 320GB in some old computer. Essentially I've had a shitload of old HDDs that have been in daily use and not a SINGLE ONE has failed me. Ever.

HDD failure is a meme. Unless you use consumer grade HDDs in a web server you will not experience a fail after X amount of years, if it's going to break it will break not too long from purchasing it.

SSDs are reliable too, though the early ones were notorious. I fell for the meme and got a refurbished OCZ Triton and sure enough it was broken just after a year of use. But that was an old OCZ that was notorious for it, I don't consider all SSDs unreliable after that.

Hard drives last essentially forever unless you use them in applications that really wear them out.

>this is a tech board
>doesn't even know what an SSD is

How fucking embarrassing.

fucking idiot

About 6 years ago this was the case

Enterprise generally pulls hdds after 3 years or the first smart error. Hdds have a finite lifespan also.

no, ssd's are extremely raw technology, no one should even try to use it, because its so unstable that will burn your motherboard, i heard this happened once with one guy, i would suggest waiting for 10 years more

Are SSDs a decent option for long term archival yet? Awhile back I heard something about them having issues with gate leakage current or something that would cause data corruption over time. I think they were considered good for several years. I don't care so much about the limited writes so long as I can read the drive after 10+ years and transfer the information to a new drive.

Better than HDD and their design defects.

*suddenly dies*

same

>isurehopethisisbait.psd

*replaces and restores form back up*

They're still garbage that last 6 months, maybe a year if you're lucky.
HDD is still the master race.

just search youtube for eSATA cable\experiment

I bought my Samsung 830 128GB back in mid 2012 if I remember correctly. Five years later and it's still running like it was brand new.

Guess I got really lucky.

overclock.net/t/1507897/samsung-840-evo-read-speed-drops-on-old-written-data-in-the-drive/3190

kek't

You're full of shit. The absolute earliest I've ever seen a SSD fail is 3 years. The vast majority of the ones I've seen since they started hitting the consumer market are still going strong. I even still have SATA II SSDs in working condition.

If you are scared just buy a Toshiba MLC based drive

VX500, Q300 Pro, HG6 .. etc

techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
Just posting this one from a few years back.
>Worst dies at around 700TB Writes
>Best dies at around 2400TB Writes
Both worst and best had MLC so I assume Intel's SSD died because of shitty controller/firmware. Most of the SSDs lasted around 1000TB So I would not be too concerned about longevity.

I mean at the worst case, Intels old SSD managed around 700TB writes and if you were to spread them out for like 10 years you would still end up with 70TB year with bit over 200GB a day. Meanwhile the best of the bunch Samsung 840 Pro managed 2200TB which spread out for 10 years would give you 220TB a year for over 600GB daily writes. Unless you are using your SSD to accelerate your 16K video footage rendering you are not going to wear down the SSD any time soon.

Also another Kingston HyperX 3K survived to 2100TB which I forgot

>i've had an ssd for five years now and it's perfectly fine still. claims 98% health and that it'll last another 20 years.
I have one that shows 75% after less than a year. I think you're using yours to store porn.

Ancient and long fixed with firmware.
-Owner of three 840 evo drives

SSd Shills in full force I see

>still can't securely wipe free space off SSDs

What is Trim.

Wow, I sure must be lucky my SSD has lasted a year and still going!

Your ASCII expression ≠ the mathematical notation of inequality.

I had my SSD in a drawer for almost a year and haven't lost any data at all.

They have less read/write than HDD but are more reliable until that limit

> inequality
triggered

so will ssd fail if it is not powered after some time?

How about kingdian ssds? They're too cheap to be good right?

Occam's razor says you're a faggot and SSDs are reliable. Every SSD I've bought is still working, and I bought an OCZ Vertex 2 when it came out.

Check the IP count before you kneejerk a samefag accusation.

>not using ramdisk and optane
shiggy

>buy ssd for the pleasure center of my cyborg brain
>store all my porn there for instant access
>fails and lose everything

Piggybacking off this because I don't want to start a new thread

I have a 250GB 840 Evo that I've used since 2013. Nothing special, just OS + games. I keep all my data on a separate HDD.

I would like to have more space though so I'm considering getting a 500GB 850 instead. How much of a cheap jew would I be though if I bought a second 250GB SSD and just put it in RAID 0 with my current one instead? I don't care about the increased risk of data loss because my SSD contains nothing I'd miss anyway.

A 4k porn siterip is like 2 TB alone.

>How much of a cheap jew would I be though if I bought a second 250GB SSD and just put it in RAID 0 with my current one instead?
Does not work like that. You would have to have both drives empty before you went for Raid 0. Anything other than Raid 1 is meme anyways because the speed increase is insignificant. Just buy another SSD and use it without any memeraids.

There's no excuse to not have an SSD for at least a boot drive.

>Does not work like that. You would have to have both drives empty before you went for Raid 0.

I know that, I was mainly interested in saving money by buying a second 250GB rather than a 500GB one. I wouldn't be doing it for speed and I don't care about dataloss as I said.

I was just wondering if I'm being excessively cheap by wanting to complicate things just to save the $50-100 over buying a 500GB ssd

Higher capacity ones generally have better price to GB ratio, so just get the highest capacity one you can afford and need.

it's more of RAD than RAID if we're using nice SSD's

using mine everyday for 7 years

what lifespan?

>There's no excuse to not have an SSD for at least a boot drive.
Yes, because you have to reboot so often that the time saved is considerable.
As opposed to having all your data and applications on SSD because you never get to use them.
Obvious Windows user.

/thread

You spergs are hopeless.
I bought my SSD like 6 years ago and it still is healthy as fuck.

SSDs are fucking fine.
Get a 256/500gb one for OS and then hdds for storage.
Damn, why do we have to discuss this over and over again?

>people flipping out about write times on drives that have moving parts
>never see this much (((concern))) with platter drives

Y'all are a bunch of faggots.

Welp, I'm the faggot now. Should've read "that have no moving parts"

You're thinking about HDDs. SSDs last far longer and have been more reliable for a good 5 years.

>840 series
Old shit.
techpowerup.com/234699/samsung-850-pro-ssd-reaches-end-of-life-with-9100-tb-written

bump
anyone got any write tests?

> colonized the Kuiper Belt
> still growing crops in dirt, in rows, watered by hand

why do they do this? Heinlein couldn't wait to get his colonists to another planet so they could start a 1920s-style okra farm ploughed by a donkey.

850 Pros have a 10y warranty afaik.

I'm pretty sure it's some sort of planned obsolescence perpetuated by storage companies, I mean how the hell are you supposed to monitor life expectancy in real time? Read cycles? I'm not convinced.

>I mean how the hell are you supposed to monitor life expectancy in real time?
SSD-Z

mechanical things break down, you know
maintenance is the eternal bitch
and entropy is the eternal enemy

It's snake oil. There's no software that monitors the expectancies of CPU, GPU, RAM, Flash Drives, Floppy Disks, CD readers, cooling fans, power supplies etc etc.

RAM has memtest86, hard drives have crystaldiskinfo. I think even gpu-z has a thing to tell you how shit your card is performing compared to the average but I'm not sure.

The biggest failure rates come from external hard disks.

gpu-z has ASIC quality, but that doesn't tell you life expectancy

>nfw I have an 840 Pro

75% in a year? What kind of back of the van garbage did you pick up.

So where is my 4TB 850 Pro niggas?

ebuyer.com/753152-850-evo-sata-iii-2-5inch-ssd-4tb-mz-75e4t0b-eu

My OCZ Vertex450 from 2013 still has 96% health

The I in RAID hasn't stood for "Inexpensive" for a long time now. It's been corrected to "Independent".

It's redundant. The 850 Evo already maxes out the SATA III interface, and the real performance drives are the 960 series. 850 Evo for capacity, 960 Evo/Pro for all the bells and whistles.

SSDs only have a lifespan of 50-500 years, which is a lot lower than the lifespan of a HDD which is 1-10 years.
the 'SSDs have limited lifespan' meme was JUST A MEME. It had no basis in reality.

Someone heard 'limited writes' and wrote a whole bunch of garbage comparing 'limited writes' with HDDs.
HDDs have limited SPINS.

>laptops still 1366x768

Those numbers are applicable to ordinary SSD capacities (~half a terabyte, plus minus). Larger SSDs can tolerate larger write volumes, obviously.

Is GNU/Hurd a thing now?

>cheap laptops

Nah, it's well known that solid state memory has limited writes. The only difference is that writes can be calculated for SSDs while there is no way to determine write endurance of a HDD, only its mechanical endurance.