Sample: 1
Days running/wear level: Unknown
Yes I am an SSD n00b and didn't know about firmware, but you have to start somewhere.
A quantum mechanics professor answering a simplistic question of an interested student saying "Your question is dumb" is kind of a dick.
If you know nothing about it then you are not qualified to be setting up polls about it.
You should start a thread asking "hey, what is the casue of X".
the only reason to set up a poll is if there is a disagreement and you are curious to see what different people vote on
Also he said thread/poll is dumb not the question. The question (what causes failure) is legitimate.
The thread/poll has 2 dumb things
1. "OCZ is known for their poor reliability" - sounds like flame bait.
2. Made a multi choice question where every single option is wrong because the author is clueless about the subject (according to your own admition).
Pro Tip: If you know nothing about a subject then don't presume to make your questions into a multiple choice question but let people educate you instead.
with the wrong set of choices.
Then you have ignored all of the information from informed users
and insist on clubbing together controller and firmware
, ignoring all of the technical aspects which go along with them,
Well I've owned two different ssd's from different manufacturers both with sf1222 controllers and they've both failed in the same way with the ocz lasting the longest of the two. OCZ only took a week to turn around the drive once they received it. The other guys, adata, took 1 month to complete the rma. The adata is faster however I don't trust them which is why I'll clone this drive once the ocz comes in and put it away for when the adata fails again. My next ssd with either be intel or samsung.
FUD. All that matters to most is that they paid less than the Intel.. got more performance than that drive.. and it actually still works.
Wise choice.
I wish all forumgoers would heed this, or would have heeded this truth since the Intel G1 release (the 1st truly reliable SSD).
My intel 510 SSD took 6 months to die. Waiting for a replacement, but I'm not spending another DIME on SSDs for the next 5 years. To hell with em. Magnetic drives are just more reliable.
What are you basing this assumption on?
Experience with SSDs at work, personally, and with friends. And obviously, 20+ years of being around magnetic drives. They're slower, but I will NEVER trust critical data to an SSD. EVER.
Oh, also, need we remember the Vertex 2s?
Ever since SSD's introduction to the market I've mainly just been waiting due to the cost/available space to drop before jumping on it. Now, it's reliability.
So far I have 3 internal WD magnetic drives that are still functioning perfectly: 9 years old, 6 years old, and 3 years old. For their performances, I can't really complain.
When data centers around the world actually start using SSDs, I'll consider it.
Experience with SSDs at work, personally, and with friends. And obviously, 20+ years of being around magnetic drives. They're slower, but I will NEVER trust critical data to an SSD. EVER.
Oh, also, need we remember the Vertex 2s?
Do we need to remember the IBM Deathstars?
I have had several magnetic drives fail over the years. Didn't Google publish some data that showed HDDs weren't as reliable as people thought?
It depends on the SSD. I can't speak for the Intel 510, but the X25-M and X25-E have a proven track record of being extremely reliable drives. Intel claims ~0.4% annual failure rate for the X25-M based on a sample size of >1 million drives in deployment. That's only 4 out of every 1000 SSDs they sell. You need to look at the aggregate data, personal anecdotes are pretty meaningless for drawing conclusions about reliability, although I can understand that if a person has a brand or product that fails on them it does negatively affect their perception of that brand or product and make them less likely to buy it in the future. That's just human nature I guess.My intel 510 SSD took 6 months to die. Waiting for a replacement, but I'm not spending another DIME on SSDs for the next 5 years. To hell with em. Magnetic drives are just more reliable.
We simply get significantly higher I/O [with SSDs] at a lower cost than we'd be able to get with standard drives. We've had many customers needing more I/O than what 4x 15k RPM SAS drives in RAID 10 provide, and an upgrade involves moving to a larger server chassis to support more than four drives, a larger RAID card, etc. Other configurations have needed 16+ 15k RPM drives to get the necessary I/O. Going with a single SSD (or a couple SSDs in RAID) greatly simplifies the configurations and makes them much cheaper overall.
That is then compounded by the fact that you generally use one SSD to replace 4+ standard drives on average. You're then looking at a 20%+ AFR with hard drives and 1.6% with an SSD.