SSD Reliability...is it better than HDD? (Answers!?)

[manu2b]

With lower SSD price comes their lower endurance. Most cheaper SSD series that are available now ( or will be soon ) are based on TLC NAND. Good example can be Samsung 840 and 840 Pro ... 840 = TLC, 840 Pro = MLC. Pro cost more but it has higher performance and longer warranty.

It doesn't change fact that even "slow" SSD are great if you look at performance and much higher resistance to drop than regular hdd. It can be seen especially in mobile devices.

I actually had nice deal and I got Crucial M4 256GB for ~$120 today

Grrr... I got one for €120 last tuesday and I thought I was lucky!

 

[EarthDog]

I dont know about that, yeah for mobile devices and phones they're great but they're really pricey for the little gain you get. It makes me worried that they don't tell you that they're getting screwy like noises from an HDD can (mechanics ftw, electronics ftl)

I believe the majority would agree that an SSD is one of the most noticeable upgrades one can make for overall performance/feel of a pc. Your HDD is by far the slowest part of your pc.

The prices for some drives are less than $1 /tb these days.

@ moving an os OFF an SSD...Seriously, unless one has a space issue, what are you thinking?!!!!

 

[Anonaru]

I believe the majority would agree that an SSD is one of the most noticeable upgrades one can make for overall performance/feel of a pc. Your HDD is by far the slowest part of your pc.

The prices for some drives are less than $1 /tb these days.

@ moving an os OFF an SSD...Seriously, unless one has a space issue, what are you thinking?!!!!

$1/tb, damn you need to get me one of those!

Haha, I''m messin' but we hear you-- I can see where people are coming from when they feel like the expensive SSD storage space is "wasted" by an OS, but I also support the massivly improved responsiveness an OS offers while resting on one

 

[EarthDog]

My take is if you know what the benefits of an SSD are, putting an OS on an SSD simply cannot be defined as 'wasted', LOL!

 

[manu2b]

^+10!

 

[Anonaru]

My take is if you know what the benefits of an SSD are, putting an OS on an SSD simply cannot be defined as 'wasted', LOL!

This, my friend, is why I use dem " " "'s, they're awesome like that
As my sig states, this guy here, while agreeable, is a SSD junkie. I can feel people's pain on the "That's an expensive loss of storage" and "What if it farts out on me!?"

But realistically, the speed + the lowering prices + just how easy it is to back up data now'days, I suppose all of that is for naught

 

[BlackJack10]

I find older HDD's a lot more reliable than newer ones. Still rockin an IDE Caviar Black. As a matter of fact, my old 8Mb drive has only been dead for about a month now. They were tough little buggers.

 

[Boulard83]

My take is if you know what the benefits of an SSD are, putting an OS on an SSD simply cannot be defined as 'wasted', LOL!

This, my friend, is why I use dem " " "'s, they're awesome like that
As my sig states, this guy here, while agreeable, is a SSD junkie. I can feel people's pain on the "That's an expensive loss of storage" and "What if it farts out on me!?"

But realistically, the speed + the lowering prices + just how easy it is to back up data now'days, I suppose all of that is for naught

I'm on my 5th SSD and as you can see i have alot of "cheap SSD" and they all work like new and i never ever had trouble with them.

Intel X25-M 80gb, paid 225$, still working as a new one, now on the server.
Agility 2 240gb, paid 399$, still working as a new one on the GF laptop.
Agility 4 256gb, paid 150$, newegg shellshocker, OS drive on main rig.
Agility 4 256gb, paid 110$, black friday, games drive on main rig.
Agility 4 128gb, paid 80$, brand new ... will go in the HTPC tomorow.

** i just noticed i have over a TB of SSD storage at home loll **

Damn SSD was costly at first ! I ran the 240gb for quite a long time as my main drive in my rig, he now sit in the GF laptop.

I also installed ton's of SSD in friends and familly computers and to date i never had to RMA any of the ~25 SSD i buyed online.

Those who say SSD's are not reliable are terribly wrong IMO. Both HDD and SSD can fail ...

 

[manu2b]

I had quite anfew as well:
- Cordair F90
- Vertex 3 max IOPS 128GB
- Agility 4 128GB
- M4 256GB

Never had any issue with any of them...

 

[Ivy]

Both technologys got different vulnerabilitys.
HDD: Vulnerable to physical and temperature impact.
SSD: Vulnerable to power impact and overwrites. In the beginning high risk of firmware issues (since middle of 2012 firmware is mostly foolproof so that issue kinda disappeared)

Now, mainly those people without any SSD issues surely had a awesome rig with very stable power and was lucky with firmware in some way and/or updated it over and over in order to avoid being catched up by a controller crackdown (mainly based on to much firmware stress).

Thats my view about current and past situation. At current time (middle of 2013) almost any SSD is nearly foolproof (and performance more or less normalized... so rather boring), although the NAND is still vulnerable for overwrites and there is simply a limit on how much writes it can take.

SSDs was improving in reliability, while HDD rather decreased in realiability because of several issues:
1. Space for bits is getting smaller and smaller but technology is barely changing and improvements mostly done by overhauling the drive-head, but there is still a limit somewhere and without a special overhaul (not implemented yet) we are basically almost at the limit nowadays.

2. Price is being pushed down and that doesnt help into increasing quality matters, a HDD is nowadays mostly here in order to get cheap space, not to get a super reliable or fast piece. Enterprise HDDs could be different but thats not necessarely the case because many Enterprise HDDs are almost equally build such as a Consumer drive with only a few minor (sometimes firmware only) improvements or changes. So its somewhat a issue that they dont try hard enough into truly providing a real difference and effort into a even higher quality one. Although in theory i think real improvements at a price are totaly reaslistic but rarely properly executed.

In overall i would say at current time both technologys are more or less same failure rate but with different vulnerabilitys. The use is different too. a SSD is mainly used for OS and prehaps games, but rarely as a media drive because still way to less space. As a OS drive a SSD is nowadays almost unavoidable (even on mid range systems) because the system will react snappier and generally more smooth, giving a clear advantage into the overall experience. Even as a buisness machine, not just as a hardcore "gaming" or whatever system.

 

[Culbrelai]

I heard SSD's were bad at so called "random writes" What are examples of programs that do random writes?

Also, I've spent $3,000 as of just recently (total) on my system, and I don't have an SSD, and I'm completely happy with it, because none of my other computers have had an SSD. It's really unneccesary unless your impatient, better upgrades can be had first.

 

[Mpegger]

I heard SSD's were bad at so called "random writes" What are examples of programs that do random writes?

I think databases would fill this gap, though SSD's would still be better then mechanical drives.

Also, I've spent $3,000 as of just recently (total) on my system, and I don't have an SSD, and I'm completely happy with it, because none of my other computers have had an SSD. It's really unneccesary unless your impatient, better upgrades can be had first.

IMO, and I'm sure for many others on this forum, there is no better upgrade then a good SSD. Moving from a mechanical drive to a SSD, will be a night and day difference in system speed, as the wait for a mechanical drive to seek, read and transfer the data will not compare to a SSD. This is not about being impatient, but when an application can take over 2 minutes to load on a mechanical drive, and a SSD can bring that load time down to well under a minute, there just is no better upgrade for a system. It's not as if you have to convert a system to purely SSD drives, but by simply using it as a boot drive and keeping your most used applications installed on the SSD, it does almost become necessary, as you would be hard pressed to go back to a mechanical drive after that.

 

[EarthDog]

@ Cull - SSD's are not bad at 'random writes'. They are exponentially better than HDDs. Read some reviews...look and compare.


I absolutely agree that, for the most part, an SSD is one of the most tangible upgrades one can make to a PC. I would have, in a heartbeat, bought an SSD over a dual CPU rig. Unless you hammer both of those CPUs (which I don't recall you mentioning anything, but then again, I don't pay much attention either, LOL), an SSD would have EASILY been my choice over dual CPUs. But to each their own.

A 'better' upgrade really depends solely on the specific use of the computer. Clearly, if its a gaming machine, an SSD wont help FPS, but helps tremendously in level load times. So if you want more FPS, an SSD is a bad choice. If you want to boot faster, have a snappier desktop with everything loading in nearly an instant, game level loads much quicker than HDD, installations of applications are MUCH faster, smoking fast file transfers, than an SSD is for you.

@ Ivy - SSD's fail less than HDD's.

 

[Ivy]

My own experience is, 1 SSD ultimately failed (M4) and unable to be "repaired" because controller was busted. Although manufacturer gave me a new drive, but it took them over 3 weeks (to much waiting time). However, the 2 OCZ Vertex 3 MI SSDs i was able to "recover" and nowadays they work properly. I surely was happy when those firmware issues finally been solved but it was a messy time when they locked up and such, not funny at all. But the most wise action: OCZ was telling that the use of theyr own firmware will not void warranty, those words finally made me try to fix them and succeeded.

HDD only 1 failed so far, as far as i can remember, and i had HDDs for over ten years already. It was hitting a trash "external HDD" because it seems like those sort of HDDs are used as a junk container in order to scavenge inferior stuff they got in storage (just my own dirty view). Since i avoid those "external HDDs", i dont seem to have any issues anymore. I was now building NAS stuff and was inserting the HDDs myself, and that kinda was a wise geek idea...

Even at failures they tend to react differently:
A HDD isnt usualy going "boom", usualy they may start to cause failures but those failures may not be seen to most consumers unless it already caused critical damage to theyr files and system itself (or even going "boom" already but thats usualy the "last stage" and not something "sudden"). But i do use certain file integrity checks (manually) in order to check them, and that could be useful in order to reveal a inproper working drive on time. Most HDDs tend only to work inaccurate in term they are at full stress and such, its not always easy to detect (thats why many SMART technologys may fail). Possible SMART technologys is generally more use to HDDs because of that experience i made (drive may create failures in the beginning of an "issue").

A SSD however, is less likely to cause "failures" but the risk of a sudden "badaboom" is much higher, so they tend to react differently both technologys, even on that matter.


The true rate of issues generally is higher but the problem is, half of the consumer are not noticing it and then some day they start to shout in fear "oh dear oh dear my data is corrupted or destroyed... im such a unlucky person" and whatever... but reality is, in many terms they didnt investigate issues properly and never had a fully** stable system at all (absolutly any inproper action is part of instability). So the retourn rate is not the peak of the mountain, i feel. Everyone can store data and make some data management, but there is a high difference between doing it in a professional way or simply "do it in some possible way". ** "Full" means something like "99.99" not 100, 100 percent is a dream value unable to exist in reality (even a Google server failed on me and i had in mind they could be fail safe... but fail safe is a relative term such as most other terms).

 

[thinkspeed]

From a plain view of a user's experience I can say that my SSD drives beat HDD in reliability terms, hands-down. There are no mechanical parts so not so much prone to failure unlike hard disks.

 

[storm-chaser]

Agreed. I've had six or 7 SSDs over the last 3-4 years, a couple different brands, OCZ, Mushkin. Not one of the SSD drives has missed a beat. I've lost two hard drives in that time.

 

[thinkspeed]

Just a heads up, I did face a Vertex II issue like the one storm-chaser has in the sig specs file but I believe it was due to external issues like external electromagnetic fields that wipe out devices. Then again it beat any HDD I've had and the performance was simply incredible when it crams down to the productivity part.

How do I know? I've had other devices fail in my home as well.

Malignant neighbors? DNO! Maybe I'm next (hopefully not).

 

[neo668]

I've only started using SSDs in the last 2 - 3 years and none have failed on me yet. OTOH, I've used HDDs for many many years and a few have failed on me in the last 10 years. So can't really compare them. But at least when an HDD fails it usually gives out some tell-tale signs beforehand.

 

[Culbrelai]

I've only started using SSDs in the last 2 - 3 years and none have failed on me yet. OTOH, I've used HDDs for many many years and a few have failed on me in the last 10 years. So can't really compare them. But at least when an HDD fails it usually gives out some tell-tale signs beforehand.

Usually enough time to get your data off before it goes boom, which is what I like about mechanical drives, they tend to degrade over time and let you know they're on their last legs (not always but I would suspect more than SSDs do...)

I absolutely agree that, for the most part, an SSD is one of the most tangible upgrades one can make to a PC. I would have, in a heartbeat, bought an SSD over a dual CPU rig. Unless you hammer both of those CPUs (which I don't recall you mentioning anything, but then again, I don't pay much attention either, LOL), an SSD would have EASILY been my choice over dual CPUs. But to each their own.

A 'better' upgrade really depends solely on the specific use of the computer. Clearly, if its a gaming machine, an SSD wont help FPS, but helps tremendously in level load times. So if you want more FPS, an SSD is a bad choice. If you want to boot faster, have a snappier desktop with everything loading in nearly an instant, game level loads much quicker than HDD, installations of applications are MUCH faster, smoking fast file transfers, than an SSD is for you.

Well, my two CPUs outperform a new 3930k/3970x in multithreaded benchmarks among other things

Personally I don't need it to be any faster, when its acting slow I know something is wrong, if I had an SSD it would never act slow so I would not know what is wrong with it if/when something goes wrong =P

an SSD wont help FPS

Main point.

 

[storm-chaser]

I did have one little issue with the OCZ Vertex II, wherein it wasn't being recognized by the windows 7 setup. I had to connect it as a slave device and use the OCZ toolbox to run a reset/format and then it was detected by the OS setup.