Tests show modern SSDs can handle a thousand years of use

[GoodEnough]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/05/ssd-2-petabytes-of-data/

 

[Six]

uhm....yeah, that's what they said about CFL bulbs. From experience, I ain't worry about rewrites. It's one insignificant software glitch that will render the SSD inoperable and all data unrecoverable.

 

[Blanky]

I researched this a while back and came upon a matrix that showed the failure rates of SSD vs mechanical and they were significantly better.

Mechanical just suck ass. Even data centers are now moving their systems onto SSD. Mechanical still serve a purpose for large amounts of data on the cheap, but I look forward to their death. They are a seriously ancient technology.

 

[Howard]

Who said CFLs would last a thousand years?

 

[rh71]

Don't really care as long as I'm running backups. Gonna wait till ssd prices fall in line. Not going to spend a good chuck of change on less than a TB.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What I'd be curious to know is how consumer drives would fair out in a semi enterprise environment. Ex: a large array of disks with 10+ VMs on them with continuous IO. Nightly backups between raid arrays and just generally lot of data moving around all the time 24/7.

That's what's keeping me from using SSDs for mass data storage, I don't want to have to worry about wearing them out and them being purely consumables that I'm always having to change every couple years. Though I guess if you end up getting 5 years average out of them, that's still fairly good. You probably want to upgrade to whatever is available at that time anyway and slowly swap the drives with bigger ones then grow the array.

The thought of building multi TB raid arrays with SSDs makes me all happy inside. If the prices would start matching spindle drives I'd probably consider it.

And perhaps, in the future, something like this:
http://www.ncix.com/detail/supermicro-sc417e16-r1400ub-4u-rm-72bay-60-55979.htm
/fap.

 

[brianmanahan]

Don't really care as long as I'm running backups. Gonna wait till ssd prices fall in line. Not going to spend a good chuck of change on less than a TB.

seriously? its the best freaking system upgrade in the last 15 years, in day to day performance

you can get a 120GB for the OS and main programs for like 80$... i paid over 200$ for one a couple years ago and it has been worth every penny

 

[MrPickins]

Don't really care as long as I'm running backups. Gonna wait till ssd prices fall in line. Not going to spend a good chuck of change on less than a TB.

Your loss...

seriously? its the best freaking system upgrade in the last 15 years, in day to day performance

you can get a 120GB for the OS and main programs for like 80$... i paid over 200$ for one a couple years ago and it has been worth every penny

This.

 

[Bateluer]

Don't really care as long as I'm running backups. Gonna wait till ssd prices fall in line. Not going to spend a good chuck of change on less than a TB.

Having experienced an SSD in my main machine for 2 years now, its not an option any more. SSD for the boot drive is mandatory in any build I do.

Hopefully, my next major rebuild will see me move entirely to SSDs.

 

[rommelrommel]

480gb is getting affordable as a main drive, I would still have a multi tb hard drive too but next time I upgrade my ssd from the current 120 it will be big enough for everything but my backups and torrents.

 

[DesiPower]

ibtm

 

[AdamantC]

I use a SSD (Samsung 830 128GB) for my boot drive as well. The thing formatted and installed Windows 7 in something like 30 minutes. Windows boots in about 15 seconds. However I use a 1TB WD Caviar Black for my games.

Can't wait for 1TB SSDs to drop below $200.

 

[DesiPower]

I use a SSD (Samsung 830 128GB) for my boot drive as well. The thing formatted and installed Windows 7 in something like 30 minutes. Windows boots in about 15 seconds. However I use a 1TB WD Caviar Black for my games.

Can't wait for 1TB SSDs to drop below $200.

Game load time will not get any better, stick with the HDD and the vintage SSD

/ibtm_2

 

[Carson Dyle]

Don't really care as long as I'm running backups. Gonna wait till ssd prices fall in line. Not going to spend a good chuck of change on less than a TB.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Having your operating system, applications and your most used data and files on SSD gives a huge performance boost. On my desktop system a 128GB drive is at least twice as large as I need for that, and a 128 can be had for very cheap.

 

[Sonikku]

Super fast hard drive and old republic still takes forever to load anything.

 

[rockyct]

I guess the main downside of SSDs is that if they fail, they are completely dead (as far as I know). At least when hard drives fail, you typically can pay for a data recovery. However, if the average SSD hypothetically lasts 10 years in the real world, the odds of a drive failure are pretty low though.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That's good news. I know I always try to build my rigs to future-proof 1,000 years out.

 

[BUTCH1]

seriously? its the best freaking system upgrade in the last 15 years, in day to day performance

you can get a 120GB for the OS and main programs for like 80$... i paid over 200$ for one a couple years ago and it has been worth every penny

Yup, even my ancient E8400/3.6Ghz is still a useable system due to upgrading to an SSD, pressing the power button and having a running desktop in 15 seconds vs 80-95 with a 7200rpm platter-based drive is nice, then your programs leap off the drive and load so much faster it's crazy.

 

[ElFenix]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/05/ssd-2-petabytes-of-data/

well that's good because chrome has decided to write a couple terabytes to my drive to better report my browsing habits to google over the last week.

 

[brainhulk]

What about 1000 years of pain?

 

[lozina]

From the earliest SSDs I always said I'd be happier buying a new SSD every couple of years than suffer through the use of intolerable mechanical drives any longer.

Having said that, even my first SSDs are still running fine today.

I guess this is it, from my newegg invoice:

1 x ($204.99) SSD 120G|CORSAIR CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT $204.99

bought in 2010. I feel like i got something else even earlier though hmm... guess not

 

[dullard]

My first SSD failed. It ran almost 4 years. But it decided to put the bootmgr on a bad sector during one of its file reshuffling cleanups. After a few weeks, I was able to get it up an running again. But then, it was only 64 GB and had nothing but Windows on it (and two really slow booting programs).

I replaced it with a new SSD that is significantly faster, 4 times larger, and cost under $100. Heck you can often find 256 GB SSD going for $70 to $90. That is enough space for Windows and most programs that most people will install today. Then I put all the data on a regular 3 TB drive (also cost me under $100). Size and speed, that is the way to go.

 

[halik]

My first SSD failed. It ran almost 4 years. But it decided to put the bootmgr on a bad sector during one of its file reshuffling cleanups. After a few weeks, I was able to get it up an running again. But then, it was only 64 GB and had nothing but Windows on it (and two really slow booting programs).

I replaced it with a new SSD that is significantly faster, 4 times larger, and cost under $100. Heck you can often find 256 GB SSD going for $70 to $90. That is enough space for Windows and most programs that most people will install today. Then I put all the data on a regular 3 TB drive (also cost me under $100). Size and speed, that is the way to go.

I've had the same experience with the first-gen (ish, circa maybe 2009?) SSDs. The ones in my apple laptops haven't had that problem though, going on multiple years.

Still though, hardware failure on SSD means your data is completely gone... so backup is an absolute necessity.

 

[PliotronX]

My first SSD failed. It ran almost 4 years. But it decided to put the bootmgr on a bad sector during one of its file reshuffling cleanups. After a few weeks, I was able to get it up an running again. But then, it was only 64 GB and had nothing but Windows on it (and two really slow booting programs).

I replaced it with a new SSD that is significantly faster, 4 times larger, and cost under $100. Heck you can often find 256 GB SSD going for $70 to $90. That is enough space for Windows and most programs that most people will install today. Then I put all the data on a regular 3 TB drive (also cost me under $100). Size and speed, that is the way to go.

Agreed, and on the topic of the article, seems a bit preposterous. I did not know that SSD's have been around before Jesus. He must have had some tiny models. I would not trust an SSD that old, reason being most SSD failures are so catastrophic that only a specialized lab could retrieve anything. I guess the data could be retrievable in thousands of years, but as a normal operating device, hell to the no. Besides, in thousands of years we will probably have Johnny Mnemonic brain implants that dwarf the world's largest datacenters today.

 

[compuwiz1]

I get a laugh every time I remember the time I bought a 750 Mb drive for over a grand back in the day. Cost of storage is just ridiculously low these days! The young 'uns shouldn't be bitching. lol