Searching \ for '[OT] Hard drvie advice needed' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=hard+drvie+advice
Search entire site for: 'Hard drvie advice needed'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Hard drvie advice needed'
2011\06\02@100227 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
Hi All,

I have a sneaky feeling that my hard drive will be an ex hard drive soon, so I am going to pre-empt disaster and but a new one now.
My current one is a 5400 rpm SATA 2.5" 160GB drive by Toshiba:
http://bit.ly/iJMH2q <http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?q=mk1637gsx&cid=4594867623312224930&os=tech-specs>

The one I am considering (or something like it) is a 7200rpm 250GB one:
http://bit.ly/jH5n6c

I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with raw speed and reliability. It will be on 24/7 like this one has been for the last 2 years and used constantly.
So, any advice? Who make the best drives nowadays?
I will (probably) be buying in the next hour or so (would like it tomorrow if possible) so some quick thoughts would be great.
TIA

2011\06\02@101723 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:02 +0100, Oli Glaser wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have a sneaky feeling that my hard drive will be an ex hard drive
> soon, so I am going to pre-empt disaster and but a new one now.
> My current one is a 5400 rpm SATA 2.5" 160GB drive by Toshiba:
> http://bit.ly/iJMH2q
> <www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?q=mk1637gsx&cid=4594867623312224930&os=tech-specs>
>
> The one I am considering (or something like it) is a 7200rpm 250GB one:
> http://bit.ly/jH5n6c
>
> I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with
> raw speed and reliability. It will be on 24/7 like this one has been for
> the last 2 years and used constantly.
> So, any advice? Who make the best drives nowadays?
> I will (probably) be buying in the next hour or so (would like it
> tomorrow if possible) so some quick thoughts
>  would be great.

If cost truely doesn't matter, get an Intel SSD, they will BLOW any
platter based drive out of the water, and reliability is very good so
far.

Otherwise, for platter based drives:

For reliability:

Every manu has thousands of customers who claim their drives are the
worst, and thousands they are the best.

Fact is, what's "the best" changes ever so slightly with every new model
and rev introduced.
Personally, I don't even really look at manu anymore, I just assume they
will all fail some day, and plan accordingly.

For performance:

There are tons of sites that benchmark these things, have a look at
tomshardware.com and anandtech.com, they both regularly do benchmarking
suites on a variety of drives.

2011\06\02@101804 by PICdude

flavicon
face
Between my computers (almost all laptops), and friends' laptops, I go  through a lot of hard drives.  My priority is reliability.  I won't  touch Seagate anymore.  Lots of failures!  Toshiba has been good, as  well as WD and Hitachi.  Watch out for some of the drives re-branded  by laptop manufacturers, as those can be Seagate or some other lesser  brand.  For performance, newegg lists seek times, latency, etc for the  ones they carry.

Cheers,
-Neil.



Quoting Oli Glaser <spam_OUToli.glaserTakeThisOuTspamtalktalk.net>:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\06\02@102816 by RussellMc

face picon face
Is that for a laptop?

You can get various faster than most drives for more $ but for most purposes
a 7200 RPM is fine.
Bigger cache is better.

You can now get SATA 3 drives but odds are your system is more than well
enough served by SATA 2.

Some drives ARE more reliable than others BUT Google won't tell you who. The
least eliable may have been those who went to the wall recently. Maybe not.

I buy WD or Seagate but am leaning towards WD mainly because of Seagate's
immoral (albeit understandable) approach when faced with massive failures
caused by a firmware bug.

As far as mere mortals can tell WD & Seagate are about as good.
I run 8 x USB2 external "bricks" on this PC (mix of 1, 1.5 and 2 TB) and all
seem about equally well behaved.
I have not done power tests or looked into this in detail.

1 Watt 24/365 costs GBP 1 - 2 depending on your supplier. About GBP1 here.

Google mass drive analysis said that a drive reporting S.M.A.R.T. diagnostic
errors usually failed within 30 days BUT that about half of drives that
failed did so with no prior warning.

I'd run a mile from a drive with inbuilt encryption key that can be
permanently disabled by deleting the key. Each to their own.

All hard drives fail. Most somewhere between 10 years and half a day after
installation.

April 26th post:

"There is a large hall in a castle.
On one side of the hall there is a massive roaring open fire from
which sparks sometimes leap or drift.
On the other large of the hall there is a vast sheet of fine tissue paper.
Scribes inscribe (as they do) crucial information on the tissue paper.
One day a spark ..."



   R




On 3 June 2011 02:02, Oli Glaser <.....oli.glaserKILLspamspam@spam@talktalk.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\06\02@104024 by mcd

flavicon
face
Oli Glaser wrote:

> I have a sneaky feeling that my hard drive will be an ex hard drive

If it's a Thinkpad, be sure to check for compatibility.  I suspect (but
don't know) that the Travelstar will be OK.  But many drives will lead to
an annoying power-up message on a Thinkpad.  Still works, but it is
irritating.

It feels like drive don't last that long anymore, and you can't find out
about their reliability until they are out of production, so I tend to
think of them as sort of expendables.  I keep a relatively recent image
backup so I don't get burned too badly, and just bite the bullet when they
go south.

--McD

2011\06\02@105604 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 02/06/2011 15:27, RussellMc wrote:
> Is that for a laptop?

Yes.

> You can get various faster than most drives for more $ but for most purposes
> a 7200 RPM is fine.
> Bigger cache is better.

Since my old one is 5400 and 8MB cache I thought a 7200 and 16MB would be reasonable upgrade.
I briefly considered the SDD option Herbert suggested, but on extra reflection I'm thinking that since this laptop is getting on a bit and I'm likely to replace the whole thing shortly, spending the extra wouldn't be justified. When I get a new one it there is a good possibility I will get one with an SDD drive.

> You can now get SATA 3 drives but odds are your system is more than well
> enough served by SATA 2.
>
>

WIndows Vista - I thought that I didn't want to risk any compatibility issues (not knowing much about hard drives in general)
I was a bit confused as to which was SATA 3 anyway - it says in the specs Serial ATA-300?
I'm guessing this means 300MB/s - what is the difference between SATA 2 and 3, and can the difference be fully taken advantage of on an older machine?

> I'd run a mile from a drive with inbuilt encryption key that can be
> permanently disabled by deleting the key. Each to their own.

I noticed that feature - I won't be using it.. :-)

2011\06\02@105859 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 02/06/2011 15:18, Herbert Graf wrote:
> If cost truely doesn't matter, get an Intel SSD, they will BLOW any
> platter based drive out of the water, and reliability is very good so
> far.

Thanks for the advice, I briefly considered one and decided to play it "safe".
Looks like a good choice for my next laptop though.

2011\06\02@110736 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
Okay, being impatient (and wanting to copy my data across this as soon as possible) I went with the Hitachi. It said if I ordered within the next hour I would get it tomorrow. :-)
If you hear no more on the subject all went well..
Thanks to everyone who replied.

2011\06\02@115655 by Gary Crowell

picon face
Love the SSD on my work PC.  Will be getting one on my home system ASAP.

Gary

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Oli Glaser <oli.glaserspamKILLspamtalktalk.net> wrote:

> On 02/06/2011 15:18, Herbert Graf wrote:
> > If cost truely doesn't matter, get an Intel SSD, they will BLOW any
> > platter based drive out of the water, and reliability is very good so
> > far.
>
> Thanks for the advice, I briefly considered one and decided to play it
> "safe".
> Looks like a good choice for my next laptop though.
>
>

2011\06\02@122139 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
>
> The one I am considering (or something like it) is a 7200rpm 250GB one:
> http://bit.ly/jH5n6c
>
> I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with
> raw speed and reliability.
So go for a solid state drive ... You should get one around that capacity.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\06\02@125529 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 02/06/2011 17:21, .....alan.b.pearceKILLspamspam.....stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> >  The one I am considering (or something like it) is a 7200rpm 250GB one:
>> >  http://bit.ly/jH5n6c
>> >  
>> >  I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with
>> >  raw speed and reliability.
> So go for a solid state drive ... You should get one around that capacity..

I ended up going for the one I linked to, for reasons I mentioned in my other mail.
For future reference, is it possible to get a SSD of 250GB for a laptop though? The biggest I saw was 64GB, although I didn't look too hard. I guess it would be pretty expensive if you can, as 64GB is at least £100.

I'm thinking it might be a good time to start thinking of a new laptop too anyway, so I was considering one with USB 3.0 and an SSD drive installed.
The capacity wouldn't really matter too much I suppose, as long as I can get an operating system and all my software on there (I think just about possible) other stuff can live on the network as it does usually anyway.
Looking at this one, I'm using about 140 out of 160GB, but I reckon quite a bit of that is unessential stuff that could go elsewhere.


2011\06\02@131434 by Herbert Graf

picon face

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:55 +0100, Oli Glaser wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 17:21, EraseMEalan.b.pearcespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTstfc.ac.uk wrote:
> >> >  The one I am considering (or something like it) is a 7200rpm 250GB one:
> >> >  http://bit.ly/jH5n6c
> >> >  
> >> >  I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with
> >> >  raw speed and reliability.
> > So go for a solid state drive ... You should get one around that capacity.
>
> I ended up going for the one I linked to, for reasons I mentioned in my
> other mail.
> For future reference, is it possible to get a SSD of 250GB for a laptop
> though? The biggest I saw was 64GB, although I didn't look too hard. I
> guess it would be pretty expensive if you can, as 64GB is at least £100.

Quite a few options, for example:
www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227730
$529CDN

So, not cheap, but you did say cost wasn't much of an issue.

TTYL

2011\06\02@141136 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Oli Glaser wrote:

> I don't care too much about cost or capacity - my main concern is with
> raw speed and reliability. It will be on 24/7 like this one has been for
> the last 2 years and used constantly.
> So, any advice? Who make the best drives nowadays?

IME this goes all over the place, more with individual models than with
specific manufacturers.
At work we've had bad experiences with Seagate and they switched to WD;
at home, I have a few Seagate and Maxtor drives running forever now (>5
years continuously.

Gerhar

2011\06\02@143640 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Oli Glaser <oli.glaserspamspam_OUTtalktalk.net> wrote:

> For future reference, is it possible to get a SSD of 250GB for a laptop
> though? The biggest I saw was 64GB, although I didn't look too hard. I
> guess it would be pretty expensive if you can, as 64GB is at least £100..
>

MacBook Air is with SSD and is 128G by default and can get upgrade as far as
I know. It is fast like a thunder and saves the battery although still is a
quite expensive technology. I have decided to wait for few years until these
becomes more common and cheap and also will have some more experience on
reliability. For example I am worried about the limited time of overwriting
one cell on an SSD - what about the temp files? What about the file system
areas? Are they going to be the limitation of the life time?

Tama

2011\06\02@151506 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face

On 02/06/2011 18:16, Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Now that looks impressive, wouldn't mind things like 14 second boot up
speeds. The reviewers seem very happy from what I read.
The cost is high, but looks worth it for the performance.
I try not to be overly concerned with cost where important things are
concerned (e.g. work related equipment) The way I see it, if the speed
can help me get my work done quicker, it will pay for itself very
quickly - even 10 minute per day productivity increase is going to be
worth a lot quite quickly. I'm always noticing how long I spend waiting
for things to load.

I'm seriously tempted to grab one now looking at that, but I think it's
probably sensible to look for a laptop with one built in if I'm planning
on upgrading. My knowledge is a bit out of date with these things, but I
just had a quick look and there are a few available that look nice.
Wouldn't mind another Vaio if possible, more expensive but they are very
solid IME (this is my third and I've never had any major issues with any
of them)


2011\06\02@154448 by Herbert Graf

picon face

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 19:36 +0100, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Oli Glaser <KILLspamoli.glaserKILLspamspamtalktalk.net> wrote:
>
> > For future reference, is it possible to get a SSD of 250GB for a laptop
> > though? The biggest I saw was 64GB, although I didn't look too hard. I
> > guess it would be pretty expensive if you can, as 64GB is at least £100.
> >
>
> MacBook Air is with SSD and is 128G by default and can get upgrade as far as
> I know. It is fast like a thunder and saves the battery although still is a
> quite expensive technology. I have decided to wait for few years until these
> becomes more common and cheap and also will have some more experience on
> reliability. For example I am worried about the limited time of overwriting
> one cell on an SSD - what about the temp files? What about the file system
> areas? Are they going to be the limitation of the life time?

All SSDs use very aggressive means to level wear. All are heavily
overprovisioned as well.

I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was Anandtech, where they
did the math and determined for the average heavy user an SSD will last
about 10 years before running out of "writes", and that is based of
heavy usage, and the cells only living the advertised number of writes.
In the real world, few users use drives that heavily, and one can be
pretty certain that the spec they've advertised is conservative.

The best part is even WHEN the cells can't be written too anymore you
can still read them, meaning you can assume that in 10 years your drive
will turn into a read only drive. All your data is still there.
Considering how fast hard drive capacity has risen, I doubt very much if
you'll care about a ~500GB drive that can't be written to any more.

Frankly, IMHO, it's a non issue for all but the most intesive tasks
(i.e. server farms).

TTYL

2011\06\02@155354 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 02/06/2011 19:36, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> It is fast like a thunder and saves the battery although still is a
> quite expensive technology. I have decided to wait for few years until these
> becomes more common and cheap and also will have some more experience on
> reliability. For example I am worried about the limited time of overwriting
> one cell on an SSD - what about the temp files? What about the file system
> areas? Are they going to be the limitation of the life time?

Does in fact a GOOD SSD save power? Possibly not compared to some laptop HDDs.

SSD wins on Random access and especially Reads.
But does it win on sequential writes for single user rather than a Server?

Win7 and Linux both do a lot of writing. Win7 does a lot of writing even when you are doing nothing.

Enterprise SSD maybe good. But lots of consumer netbooks have had SSDs that are slower than HDD. EEEPC 900 etc?

Is it not the case that 250Gbyte GOOD SSD is hugely more expensive than a run of the mill Laptop 250Gbyte HHD and use more power?
The HDD might fail next week or last 10 years. How long will the SSD last?

There seems to be a lot of conflicting info. Also the highest capacity HDDs seem to be a lot less reliable than 2 steps back in capacity.

2011\06\02@163411 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 02/06/2011 20:53, Michael Watterson wrote:
> Enterprise SSD maybe good. But lots of consumer netbooks have had SSDs
> that are slower than HDD. EEEPC 900 etc?

Interesting - what do you base this on?
The EEEPC was one of the first and according to the Wiki still seems to perform better than your average HDD. Plus the fact it is a portable device with a slower processor and (probably) supporting circuitry would make it hard to compare to a fast PC that could take full advantage of any advancements in HDD technology.
I imagine current technology has improved quite lot since these were made.
Are you saying in some cases buying a laptop with an SSD would result in you getting inferior performance to a HDD?

2011\06\02@165514 by Picbits Sales

flavicon
face
Whichever one you go for, watch out from where you buy them .....

My recent experiences trying to buy a Samsung 2.0TB drive :

Ebuyer - seem to buy grey imports and only come with a 1 year warranty on many/most of them.
Amazon - sell genuine UK Samsung drives with a 3 year warranty but stick them in an "envelope" with zero protection for postage.
Scan - sell a mix of both grey import (1 year warranty) and genuine uk (3 year warranty) - offer their own 3 years on the ones that are grey imports.

All the Seagate drives I've had over the past 5 years have failed with bad sectors / seek errors. I've vowed never to touch another Seagate drive again. My Samsungs have been pretty reliable.

Dom

{Original Message removed}

2011\06\02@171420 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Michael Watterson <RemoveMEmikeTakeThisOuTspamradioway.org> wrote:

> Does in fact a GOOD SSD save power? Possibly not compared to some laptop
> HDDs.
>

I had never had SSD internal drive, so I have no experience whatsoever, it
was just a thought that a HDD operates a BLDC constantly, while an SSD does
not. An idle should be therefore much less for the SSD (in my thoughts), and
only consumes a bit more than the idle when writing and maybe when reading.
Also some blogs are saying this theory (actually they have data on it) and
claiming that an SSD consumes less than an equivalent HDD:

itexpertvoice.com/home/switch-from-a-hard-disk-to-an-ssd-with-little-fuss-and-bother/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-ssd-trim,2705-19.html

But anyway, for me all parameters seems to be very good, and one of my
colleague uses SSD on his MacBook and absolutely loves it -- however, as I
have said I am still waiting to see reliability issues  (or just too shy
investing as much money on it) :-)

Tama

2011\06\02@175157 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
On 02/06/11 21:55, Picbits Sales wrote:
> All the Seagate drives I've had over the past 5 years have failed with bad
> sectors / seek errors. I've vowed never to touch another Seagate drive
> again. My Samsungs have been pretty reliable.

I've had pretty good luck with the Barracuda 7200.10 series, but the 7200.11 series are total turkeys. I had one suffer a motor drive chip failure (causing the spindle motor to brake HARD -- the resulting energy dump sent the drive flying across the desk). The other did the usual "SMART corruption" stuff.

Called Seagate and they wouldn't issue an RMA number for either drive. They basically argued with me for 40 minutes and gave me the impression that I had about as much chance of getting these drives RMA'd as a snowball would have in the deepest pits of Hell.

Then I turned to the supplier (CCL Computers). Can't fault them at all. They took both drives back and replaced them with new drives... which I promptly traded for cash at CeX. Said cash was put towards buying a brand new pair of Western Digital RE2 drives for my desktop machine.

I did some freelance work a LONG while back for a company who made DVRs. Engineering couldn't decide whether to use Seagate or WD drives, so the initial production run was a half-and-half mix.

When I left, nearly every one of the Seagate-powered boxes had failed with HDD errors. Almost all of the WD-powered boxes were *still working perfectly*.

The last "decent" Seagate drive was probably the ST277R. Or maybe the ST506..

-- Phil.
spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonespamphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk

2011\06\02@181408 by Brent Brown

picon face
I've had good experience with WD. Not that they don't fail, but the 3 year warranty is peace of mind. Just returned a 1TB drive (nearly 2 years old) to my supplier - it had constant repetitive sounding activity when it shouldn't have had any activity, which I took as a sign of internal problems and possible imminent failure. They've agreed to replace it, no questions asked.

-- Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, St Andrews,
Hamilton 3200, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell: +64 27 433 4069
eMail:  TakeThisOuTbrent.brownEraseMEspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz

2011\06\02@183231 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
On 02/06/11 23:13, Brent Brown wrote:
> I've had good experience with WD. Not that they don't fail, but the 3 year warranty is
> peace of mind. Just returned a 1TB drive (nearly 2 years old) to my supplier - it had
> constant repetitive sounding activity when it shouldn't have had any activity, which I
> took as a sign of internal problems and possible imminent failure. They've agreed to
> replace it, no questions asked.

That's really my point from the last email. I can appreciate that hard drives will die. I've seen it happen, I expect it (Rsync rocks, BTW).

Some warranties just aren't worth the paper they're printed on...

-- Phil.
RemoveMEpiclistspamTakeThisOuTphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk

2011\06\03@040023 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> I ended up going for the one I linked to, for reasons I mentioned in my
> other mail.
> For future reference, is it possible to get a SSD of 250GB for a laptop
> though? The biggest I saw was 64GB, although I didn't look too hard. I
> guess it would be pretty expensive if you can, as 64GB is at least £100..

The Dell Latitude that I have as a company laptop is now about 3 years old, and came with a 128GB SSD.

I would have thought they would have progressed to at least 250GB now, but they market may not bear the extra price.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\06\03@044444 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:00 AM, <alan.b.pearceEraseMEspam.....stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> I would have thought they would have progressed to at least 250GB now, but
> they market may not bear the extra price.
>

Honestly, what do we use the disk space for? Videos? 3k pics from each of
our weekend getaways? Thousands of downloaded apps that we will never use in
our live?

The biggest files for a developer I could imagine is a virtual machine with
many different operating systems installed, each one of them with snapshots
of different stage of the debug environment -- but those can be stored in an
external HDD easily.

Tama

2011\06\03@055216 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 03/06/2011 09:44, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>> >  I would have thought they would have progressed to at least 250GB now, but
>> >  they market may not bear the extra price.
>> >
> Honestly, what do we use the disk space for? Videos? 3k pics from each of
> our weekend getaways? Thousands of downloaded apps that we will never use in
> our live?

I get the point, but I managed to fill my 160GB drive with mostly work related software and files. I think (as I mentioned yesterday) I could easily shave some off, but around 100GB is taken up with stuff I would much prefer to stay on here for access time purposes. All my media (along with more work related stuff) is on my 2TB and 1.5TB network drives.
When you add it all up, it's not too hard to fill a drive if you use a lot of bloated dev tools + "accessories" e.g. VS, Win SDK, QT, Intel C++, Office, SQL, FPGA dev tools, PIC + other uC dev tools, PCB/Schematic tools, Second OS, etc etc. I do a "clean" out every 3 months or so of old/unused software, but it still keeps growing slowly over time. Makes sense I guess as software is getting larger in general.
Personally I would prefer at least 128GB on my "main" drive, but each person has their own way of doing things I guess.

2011\06\03@095425 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 20:53 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> Does in fact a GOOD SSD save power? Possibly not compared to some laptop
> HDDs.

Actually it's closer then most would think.

> SSD wins on Random access and especially Reads.
> But does it win on sequential writes for single user rather than a Server?

Yes, always. An SSD of any good design will CREAM EVERY platter based
drive on sequential writes.

> Win7 and Linux both do a lot of writing. Win7 does a lot of writing even
> when you are doing nothing.
>
> Is it not the case that 250Gbyte GOOD SSD is hugely more expensive than
> a run of the mill Laptop 250Gbyte HHD

Yes, for now.

> and use more power?

Not really.

> The HDD might fail next week or last 10 years. How long will the SSD last?

Depends on you. For most heavy users, 10 years before you can't write to
it (you'll still be able to read from it).
Do you really think you'll care about writing to drive that's 10 years
old? I doubt it.

2011\06\04@014155 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Herbert,

How can you be sure that you will still be able to read it after it
can no longer be written? Maybe I'm missing something about how wear
leveling works, but it would seem to me that one could easily end up
with changes which you tried to write but which only partially "took"
due to some cells no longer being writable, and then the data is a
jumbled mess of old and new. Also, it is not clear to me that the
failure mode of flash cells is always such that data is preserved. I
would think that excessive writes might break down the insulating
oxide layer and cause excessive leakage current, causing failed cells
to get stuck at a random state.

Sean


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Herbert Graf <EraseMEhkgrafspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> The HDD might fail next week or last 10 years. How long will the SSD last?
>
> Depends on you. For most heavy users, 10 years before you can't write to
> it (you'll still be able to read from it).
>
> Do you really think you'll care about writing to drive that's 10 years
> old? I doubt it.
>
>

2011\06\04@072259 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 01:41 -0400, Sean Breheny wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> How can you be sure that you will still be able to read it after it
> can no longer be written? Maybe I'm missing something about how wear
> leveling works, but it would seem to me that one could easily end up
> with changes which you tried to write but which only partially "took"
> due to some cells no longer being writable, and then the data is a
> jumbled mess of old and new. Also, it is not clear to me that the
> failure mode of flash cells is always such that data is preserved. I
> would think that excessive writes might break down the insulating
> oxide layer and cause excessive leakage current, causing failed cells
> to get stuck at a random state.

I don't know the exact mechanism of how "end of writes" happens, but
most of the reviews state that when writes are "done" you end up with a
read only drive.

Again though, think about it for a second: how many 10+ year old drives
do you care at all about accessing anymore? All the data on any drive
more then say 5 years old on any of my computers has long been moved to
bigger storage. The oldest drive in any of my devices is probably 3 or 4
years (except my satellite TV PVR, that one is probably going on 8
years).

As with anything in life, it's up to you to weigh the issues and make
choices appropriately. All my data is on a central server that is
accessed over my home network, or when away over VPN or SSH tunnels. I
always have everything backed up anyways, so if a drive in my server
goes down all my important data is safe.

For me, the price for SSD is still too high, but it's getting there.

TTYL

2011\06\04@143715 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:

> For me, the price for SSD is still too high, but it's getting there.

Ditto.  I'm really surprised there has not been more discussion in
this thread about the hybrid platter/SSD drives.  They really do seem
to provide the best of all worlds - speed, capacity, and price.

I am also surprised at the lack of discussion of the high failure
rates of the early SSD drives.  The personal reports I have heard are
far greater than the media coverage would lead one to believe.  I am
certainly not going to drop for an SSD until there is greater proof of
long-term reliability.

-p

2011\06\04@162138 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 04/06/2011 19:37, Peter Johansson wrote:
> I am also surprised at the lack of discussion of the high failure
> rates of the early SSD drives.  The personal reports I have heard are
> far greater than the media coverage would lead one to believe.  I am
> certainly not going to drop for an SSD until there is greater proof of
> long-term reliability.
They don't just fail "Read only" that only applies if writes are exhusted. The ones with the cheap 9" netbooks do seem to be more power hungry and slower on sequential writes than a 60Gbyte Toshiba 1.8" HDD

But maybe people are lying

2011\06\04@165615 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:21 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 19:37, Peter Johansson wrote:
> > I am also surprised at the lack of discussion of the high failure
> > rates of the early SSD drives.  The personal reports I have heard are
> > far greater than the media coverage would lead one to believe.  I am
> > certainly not going to drop for an SSD until there is greater proof of
> > long-term reliability.
> They don't just fail "Read only" that only applies if writes are
> exhusted.
That's exactly the specific case of "fail" that we're talking about: a
drive that has exhausted it's write count will still be 100% readable.

Obviously, there are tons of other ways that SSDs can fail, but that is
no different then any other mass storage device and isn't applicable.

> The ones with the cheap 9" netbooks do seem to be more power
> hungry and slower on sequential writes than a 60Gbyte Toshiba 1.8" HDD

We're not talking really about those drives either, they are very old
technologically and are obviously designed for price beyond anything
else.

We are talking about high performance SSDs.

Very few SSDs you buy on the shelf are anything but high performance.

TTYL

2011\06\04@172841 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 04/06/2011 21:56, Herbert Graf wrote:
> We are talking about high performance SSDs.
>
> Very few SSDs you buy on the shelf are anything but high performance.
>

likely that's why I can't afford them :-)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...