is it true that SSD are less reliable than HDD?

Beside speed, I also concern about the lifetime of the storage I will be using. I heard rumours that SSD are not reliable and they tend to fail and once it fail, it can be very frustating to backup your precious data inside.

I can say a regular HDD can last at least about 4-5 years, what about SSD? I never had one so I'm looking for more information before trying it myself.

 

Not according to return rates or the guys testing at xtremesystems. I'll tell you from personal experience in 3 years.

 

The earlier SSD's have been bit unreliable but they've improved since and still improving. I suggest buying from a reputable brand like Intel, Samsung and Crucial.

Ive personally had the Crucial M4 since the start of this year and no issues so far. Ive also had the Intel 330 for several months with no issues. I guess only time will tell how long they will last.

-

As a golden rule - HDD or SDD, either way you should always have a backup copy of your data to prevent any data loss.

I create an image of my SSD to my external HDD every few weeks, it only takes like 5mins. Should my SSD fail, i can just pop a spare HDD in and load the image and continue my work like normal.

 

Haha in fact all of the hdd I ever had til now, ie more than 10 years of hdd, are still working perfectly. But yeah, I don't think you can expect as much from ssd sadly, even though one shouldn't think that an ssd is like a yearly fast storage.

 

SSD's should work perfectly fine in 10 years.

Looking at XtremeSystems testing, 60-64GB drives, Intel is about 650-700TB, Samsung 470 about 500TB, and Crucial about 750-800TB

Even with worse case 500TB, that's like writing 136GB PER DAY EVERY DAY for 10 years. Most users, even heavy users, do probably 10% of that if you average out their usage over a year.

 

Yeah its a moot argument. SSDs will follow you in the entire life span of your notebook anyways. They are that good

 

Most SSDs are rated for 20GB of writes per day, for five years (basically, *nothing* compared to these XtremeSystems tests), so you'll have no issues.

Don't think that a SSD is invincible though. Even though SSDs are more shock-resistant to shock than HDDs, keep in mind that it's *always* a good idea to have a backup of your data; I don't care what drive we're talking about.

Just my personal experience, I've had an Intel 320 since June 2011 and an Intel 330 since June/July 2012 and nothing bad has happened to them, despite the fact that I haven't upgraded my 320 to protect against the 8MB bug (which has long been fixed... I'll get to it eventually). I've also a IDE HDD in an old 2005-era OEM desktop that's still running, and a SATA HDD from an OEM 2007-era desktop, and the laptop hard drives I have since 2009 and they all work fine too, but I also baby them. SSDs will probably last longer than them, but so far consumer SSDs haven't been out for 8+ years yet.

Even OCZ drives, arguably the worse brand of SSD you can buy, have roughly the same reliability as Seagate/WD HDDs, and of course other brands (Intel, Plextor, Crucial, Samsung) will have higher reliability than that.

 

I don't think the OP is asking about durability, or endurance of SSD's.

My answer is that SSD's, although around for a very long time (in one form or another) are still relatively young tech that is still going through teething pains.

I have HDD's that are almost a decade and a half old that still 'work' (smile). I wouldn't put so much trust in today's current SSD's (serious).

Am I worried about that though? No; because my backups are to mechanical HDD's.

And; I have multiple systems (both desktops and notebooks) to choose from if one specific system goes down (and I need to buy a new SSD to get it going again).


What the endurance testing doesn't account for is if the data will be accessible after any length of time without being powered up in between - this is the 'scary' part which I don't trust SSD's for...

Also (people seem to keep forgetting this...) SSD's are rated to be readable for only up to 1 year later... that is hardly a comforting cushion of time (you do realize how fast time is flying by, right...).


Bottom line:
I have fixed many HDD issues and have recovered the data (or sent the drive to someone who can). I haven't heard of one SSD whose data was recovered after it catastrophically failed.

 

But, then again, by the OP's question and by other responses; The speed is so good, damm the torpedoes?

To mirror tiller:

I do also have a mirror back up, ready to drop in, and frequent back ups of of any mission critical data. To the OP, no mater what drive, "back up" before you loose it! I lost count on all the "I lost all my family pictures" and such over the years on standard spinners.

So, I would not let the early reports of SSD drive failures bother you too much. As long as you practice "back up", you can freely enjoy the SSD speeds.

 

Since I started using ssds I've had 3 hdds fail and not one ssd fail.

...tapatalk...

 

m3n00b, you were probably holding them wrong.

 

And it's not only data inside the HDD I was worrying about, but also when they are less durable. Say that an SSD can only last around 3 years, is that mean I have to replace it with another SSD that I may have to replace again within the next 3 years?

I'm flattered by the speed SSD is offering, but if it's less durable or reliable than any regular HDD then I may have to think twice before upgrading, considering that they already cost more.

by the word "fail" do you mean when your HDD has lost all your precious data and furthermore needs to be formatted in order to be usable again, or "fail" that it is completely broken and repairing it may cost more than just buying a new one?

 

I meant they started locking up my system and had to rma them. Seatools is great.

...tapatalk...

 

"Saying they only last three years"? Are you talking about the warranty? One of the drives I'm looking at has a three year warranty, another drive I have is for 5 years. Many spinners are only 2 years.

How long is your expensive laptop warranteed? Back-up is cheap....

 

no not warranty, just asking if a regular lifetime of the SSD can be at least more than 3 years, hopefully no warranty needed.

 

Did you even read the first page of this thread? They have been tested to run so you would have to write 138GB PER DAY for TEN YEARS *AT MINIMUM* So your average user at 10-15GB per day, it will really never wear out. An issue with earlier SSD's was the controller dying, but seems to not be such an issue these days.

I have an Intel X25-M 80GB that I've had for 3 years and only has about 3TB written to it, and it's been used extensively.

 

They last a hell lot more than 3 years or 5 years.
Unless you put it in a server where you use it 24/7. Then we are talking different terms.

 

okay that's very informative, I think I'll upgrade now. thanks

 

When I want to see write figures as mentioned above, for an intel SSD it the following correct? Open toolbox (3.1.2 is current for mine) - SMART details - E1 host writes (I see ~ 900 GIG after 2 years of use)
TIA

Toolbox link http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=18455

 

I have 1.57TB of writes on my 320 after a year and a half, and 1.28TB on my 330 after a little over half a year.

 

And I have 4,82TB in about a year on my Corsair Force III. This number seems significantly higher than posts above me but don't ask me how I got that many writes because I got no clue . What do you guys do to get write numbers like that..? Sorry if it's getting a little of topic by the way.

~Aeny

 

Aeny, my daily usage of the Asus G73 is fairly limited, I also install all my programs on a second drive (my system has 2), never defrag, indexing is off, Also I am running the same image from the Dealer I bought from 2 years ago. (no windows reloads or secure erases) AND the page file is not on the SSD - moved to HDD.
BUT next time I buy a computer to replace my D610 I will be installing everything on the SSD and enable indexing. As usual I have learned this from the experts at NBR who are too numerous to mention !

 

In a laptop an ssd is more reliable for me because of no moving parts as I can move around without worrying of damaging a disk platter like in an hdd aside from using less power. While for nas and backup it's hdd but due to price reasons.


Sent from my EndeavorU using Tapatalk 2

 

The only problems i have had with ssd`s , i have only had three, a corsair 60gb , crucial 128gb and samsung 256gb , both the corsair and the crucial gives me bsods when comming out of sleep mode, when the samsung is fine, this does not happen on every notebook but it has happened on a couple, and i mean bsod virtually every time and i did clean installs a dozen times.

John.

John.

 

Why did you write John twice?

And yes I've had trouble with Corsair BSOD's too -.-

 

My Intel 80GB I noted has been used primarily as an OS drive in about four different systems over the last few years and it has been secure erased 4 or 5 times as well. Still going strong.

 

A few years back, I wouldn't have touched any SSD with a 10-foot pole. There were too many horror stories of catastrophic failure or nightmares with firmware. The extra speed wasn't worth the headaches.

The technology is much more mature now, though. Nothing is guaranteed, but current SSDs on the market should be very reliable throughout the life of the system you put it in. A regular HDD (or a Momentus XT hybrid drive) is only the best choice if you need more storage space than the SSDs offer.

 

Pff. Anyone remember when the first /double plattered/ hdds turned up? Oh, these were going to fail more often, and they'd run half as fast, cause cancer and probably blow up and send the plates flying through the office-walls by the end of the life-span because of the new construction problems. Dual reading heads! What a laughable and unnecessary thing!

And if they would - eventually - become mainstream -- well they would only ever be useful for /highly specific/ and professional users who would never care about cost or reliability. Clearly!

Besides - I was told - who needs more than 100Mb storage anyway? No, go back to your Genesis and the "relatively young" eprom tech, boy!

..seriously, though -- ignore the bull. Even the worst Intel SSD will outlast any hdd in a laptop.

 

Haha...this all the way!

...tapatalk...

 

SSD's are better than HDD's, period. I would only use or buy an HDD if I needed a lot of space. Just two years ago I knew nothing about SSD's. Now that I've used one, I will never go back.

J.Dre

 

I think part of the largest issue is that SSD's are still being perfected. Every day better technology comes out, making old tech obsolete. Look at it this way.

I have 2 old apple ipods and my GF has one of the very first black and white nano's. The nanos essentially are SSD's and the ipod videos I had are HDD. Both ipod video's have failed. The nano works great.

SSD drives are definitely faster and theoretically more reliable. They use less energy and produce less heat. The technology is not perfect yet but it has come a long way in 10 years.

 

This.

No storage medium is immune to failures.

You think HDDs are reliable? Take a look at Newegg end user reviews. Heck, I've had a DOA VelociRaptor (well, in storage a couple years but never used and even anti-static bag never opened) and those are considered enterprise quality drives.

I think everyone will agree that SSDs offer shock resistance, so they are good for portable devices.

I can think of two "problems" with SSDs.

First is their penchant for death by firmware. I think this is becoming less common these days.

Second is that when they fail, all data is gone instantly. Often with failing HDDs you get the possibility of recovering data yourself. With an SSD... poof! I think at a subconscious level this really scares people. That's why you need to back up your data. And again, HDDs aren't immune to data loss, just not as "scary" as a "poof everything gone."

And yes, since I've started using SSDs in 2010 (or was it 2009?) I've encountered more bad HDDs than SSDs. Of course I still use more HDDs than SSDs, so the actual rate may be similar.

Which comes back to "back up your data."

 

I maintain that HDD are more reliable. As a matter of fact, my brand new system on SSD froze yesterday, and suddenly the bios couldn't detect the SSD anymore. I got the laptop 2 weeks ago and barely used it, being in exam period. My Crucial M4 was too young to die.
Also I don't know anybody who had HDD failing the first few years if it was working initially. The same can't be said about SSD, I know a dozen persons who upgraded to SSD and 2 have failed. I'm the third, so that's quite a lot imo..

 

One SSD and a few hard drives are not representative of the entire SSD and HDD industries. Sucks to hear that your M4 died, but considering all the M4's sold and the few that were RMA'ed or otherwise returned, the market says that they're pretty reliable.

If I were to chip in my two cents, none of my HDDs (5 or 6) and none of my SSDs (2) failed, so does that mean that every single HDD/SSD is reliable? Nope. It'd be a hasty generalization to say that they are just based off of only my (or only your) personal experience.

 

I`ve had 3 SSDs from 3 different companies now: Intel, Crucial and Samsung. All of them have worked flawlessly.

 

Here's another thought.

Even if SSDs were not as reliable as HDDs, I would still use SSDs because what they bring to the user experience (everything so snappy) for me far outweighs any reliability concerns.

DISCLAIMER: I am talking about SSDs that are generally considered reliable, and not some [insert random OCZ drive here].

 

Yes, I've also had a few HDDs fail over the years. Since I bought my hp envy in 2009, I've been using the dual X18-M 2nd gen Intel SSDs in Raid0 that came factory installed, no drive problems so far, still quite fast. That's about three years.

So true!

 

Agreed. And even then flaky firmware updates are usually recoverable by some means.

Well there's two modes of failure with an SSD. It's either a controller failure in which you can't access any of your data. This has become much less of an issue, and if you really needed to recover your data your data is still on the SSD and in worse case scenario could have the controller chip replaced. And then there's cell wear where you should be able to read your data just lose the ability to write. This has been shown to not be much of an issue considering most drives have survived hundreds of TB of wear before failure. Most users won't even write 1TB a year.

As far as failures, I have not had many HDD's fail on me. At least few within their warranty period, well except for WD Caviar Green drives but those are an abomination. I just had a Hitachi desktop drive fail on me, otherwise the other HDD's were 5-8 years old when they started to fail. SSD's I had a Kingston and an OCZ fail within a few months of receiving them due to dead controllers. Both were replaced promptly by the manufacturer without question.

Agree 100% There is no excuse for lost data except your own fault. There are so many options available now there's no reason not to. Yes it's an added expense, yes it's a little extra time out of your day/week/month, but if you don't want to lose data, back it up.

I run a Widows Home Server, but that's probably a little expensive and extreme. There's many smart NAS devices that will allow you to backup your data and image your system on a regular basis, and even has web access to your data remotely. And there's always the good ol' external USB hard drive. IMHO, you are best to have at least two backups. Just backup your primary backup once a week and at least your most important files are regularly kept safe.

 

Actually some chipsets encrypt the data with a key on the chipset, if it dies there is 0% chance of recovery.

My best advice would be ssds and hdds both can fail unexpectedly. Use w backup even if its q drive on the network once a day.