SSD vs Spinning Platters

[Mik]

Interesting article. They had to make a lot of assumptions to come up with a result.

[George K]

I've been on a Mac mailing list since 1994 (yes, 1994) and they always have interesting discussions, questions, and problems. There are usually about 5-10 messages per day.

One of the moderators is an attorney named Randy Singer. He is a goldmine of reviews, suggestions, etc.

http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

In the old days when storage was on a hard spinning drive, you had
some idea how long the drive might last and it could replaced with a new
one.
Is there any idea how long does the storage lasts on the new
computers?

I once wrote an article about that...that was never published.

Basically, they last about as long as a rotating disk hard drive. But
the factors that determine that are different between the two.

An individual example of an SSD has the potential to live many times
longer than a RDHD. But they don't on average.

Larger SSD's, which continually have lots of unused space through their
lifetime, have the theoretical potential to live much longer than
smaller SSD's. (When an SSD is roughly 70% full, it's done.)

"The rule of thumb to keep SSDs at top speeds is to never completely
fill them up. To avoid performance issues, you should never use more
than 70% of its total capacity.

https://pureinfotech.com/why-solid-state-drive-ssd-performance-slows-down/

"When you're getting close to the 70% threshold, you should consider
upgrading your computer's SSD with a larger drive."
https://www.slrlounge.com/tips-to-get-the-most-from-your-ssds/

Note that more modern SSD's, that are cheaper, are actually made
cheaper (with less over-provisioning), and won't last as long as
expensive SSD's. Most of those inexpensive Samsung SSD's that users
love have no over-provisioning whatsoever, for example.

As SSD's have evolved (mainly to become cheaper), their P/E
(program/erase) cycle ratings have become progressively lower, not
higher. About 3,000 cycles is now about average. (Early on, 10,000 was
not unusual.)

In the real world SSD's aren't nearly as reliable as one would
intuitively expect them to be. These articles are a bit dated, but I
think that they are still representative (and maybe a bit too optimistic
considering that SSD's have grown to become less reliable, not more):

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds

Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

SSD's No More Reliable Than Hard Drives
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ssds-no-more-reliable-than-hard-drives/

[George K]

I should add that he's a huge proponent of hard drives that have robust cooling and power systems. Heat is the enemy, and with spinning platter drives, especially in bus-powered ones, you're looking for trouble.

[Mik]

They may not be more reliable in the long run, but they sure are a lot faster.

[George K]

@mik said in SSD vs Spinning Platters:

They may not be more reliable in the long run, but they sure are a lot faster.

Indeed. I boot from a SSD and it's certainly snappy. However, all of my backups are done to spinning platter drives in a robust 4-bay enclosure with a yuge fan.

[89th]

@mik said in SSD vs Spinning Platters:

They may not be more reliable in the long run, but they sure are a lot faster.

And quieter. And smaller.

SSDs ftw.

[George K]

@89th said in SSD vs Spinning Platters:

And quieter.

As I said, I back up to spinning-platter drives. I can hear them chunking away, LOL.

[jon-nyc]

Backup to cloud and don’t sweat the MTBF.

[taiwan_girl]

@jon-nyc said in SSD vs Spinning Platters:

Backup to cloud and don’t sweat the MTBF.

Until something like Amazon cloud goes down.

[Klaus]

@jon-nyc said in SSD vs Spinning Platters:

Backup to cloud and don’t sweat the MTBF.

Not an option for most private people if you have a lot of data to back up (say, a few TB of rare pr0n videos).