Is it worth buying a SSD?

Is it worth buying a SSD?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(acceleration)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's been worth buying for awhile now. Get an MLC one if you can find one. An HDD can last you around 5 yrs avg depending on the brand. A tlc ssd can last long as that and a mlc can last 10 yrs now.

>comparing 2ms shock endurance to 0.5ms shock endurance
That's fucking disgusting, I hope marketers are strung up first

Yes

you're a mongoloid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(acceleration)

an SSD will never break and allow you to read when it reaches EOL

a HDD has a variety of things that can cause issues and you can lose data

also the actual r/w speed isnt the issue, its the IO

if you ever used a download manager like DTA and set it to multiple threads you will tank even a WD Black

meanwhile the cheapest SSD at any size tier will not

>Is it worth buying a SSD?
If you want speed, yes. Even the oldest tech SSDs are way faster than any HDD.
My boot disk is an old ex-laptop 60Gig. It rips.

No, NVMe.

>an SSD will never break and allow you to read when it reaches EOL

>a HDD has a variety of things that can cause issues and you can lose data

Used to believe this. Running through multiple SSDs you get an idea of what can go wrong.
They can stop reading past a certain sector, lose sectors, outright die, or shred writes when they go read only.
If you're in the SSD game for anything other than speed, use a next gen filesystem.

>nextgen

im using windows 10 user, the latest gen

no

Windows 10 is still using NTFS which is about a decade behind the times in terms of filesystems.

Hell, even ReFS has most of its integrity features disabled by default because they can't properly vet them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs

Check 'em out.

>this autism

you leave out the fact that the SSD can do that as many times as it wants at the same time

the HDD can only do 1 thing at a time

im not using an autism file system and OS

i only have 120gb anyways cause 99% of what i do is either cached in RAM via tabs or streamed

Yes. I thought it was a meme but once I got one the speed difference was very noticeable. Windows boots up in seconds and offline games have almost no loading time either.

Used to work for a small PC repair shop.
1/2 of the customers who came in had some sort of failed storage device which could have been avoided if they knew better or microsoft put some spit and polish into the underworkings of windows.
It's more of a problem than you'd think.

Currently running on two failing SSDs in a laptop. Each lost about 10K sectors and I just kept them because I'm not willing to shell out 80~ bucks for new ones as long as these ones work through technicality.

it seem to me that you are the autist that can't recognize a joke

That's still an ssd...

I use it for all the OSes I got because of the insane as fuck boot speeds, but other than that not really.

one of the best hardware decisions I ever made.

yes but brand matters; avoid OCZ like bubonic ass herpes

Still posting threads asking this.

Hell tie up 4pcie lanes and go with M.2 at about 2gb's.

I think it's bullshit that SSDs are still so expensive.
It's just price gouging.

There's no way a piece of PCB with some memory chips is more expensive to manufacture than a magnetic mechanical drive in a cast metal housing AND with a controller PCB.

Anyone with knowledge on manufacturing know why its more expensive?

What if...

What a genius

>trusting Sup Forums
>for anything

OCZ is owned by Toshiba now

They sell some of the best quality/$ MLC NAND on the market, much better track record than Samdung when it comes to firmware hiccups

mah boi posting zfs, came here just to post it

use zfs if possible (bsd user, well developed package in your distro's repo) or use btrfs if your distro's zfs isn't that well supported yet; do not use zfs-fuse because that shit is cancer.

Having both is the best deal.

...

A person I know still uses ancient 160 and 320GB drives, both at least 10 years old and more likely close to 12, in a system that has been shut down/restarted with power save features of the drives (spindown, idle-off) enabled.

Granted this person is getting a comfy upgrade in the form of a 320GB SSD and a modern 1TB HDD from me for christmas. But I digress.

To attack your points (because why not?)
>An SSD will never break down
Mechanically, yes as compared to a hard drive, but you act as if memory chips cannot fail via their pins/traces or solder points from heating/cooling stress.
>You can read when reaches EOL
Most let you read the device ONE TIME, and you cannot be certain if errors haven't occurred in the data because catastrophic flash chip failure at end-of-write tolerance is unpredictable.
>HDD has a variety of things
An SSD has similar amounts of things that can corrupt data - and data corruption in an SSD eats up write cycles, versus often just wasting time in an HDD.

With that said, SSDs are fine and I wish the market was mature enough to offer 1TB capacities at similar prices to hard drives.

it's the same here in 2017, most of our work is reinstalling windows because it's fucked itself in some way or another through no fault of the user
(I'd blame our users for Windows's failures if I thought I could, a few have both Norton and McAfee installed)

ZFS Mirrored HDD master race incoming.

use XFS SSD for your normal machines to get that I/O and just aggregate all of your data on a centralized NAS with mechanical disks for that long term storage


thanks me later

OH SHIT !

...

>2023-6
>still falling for the SSD meme