my Hard drives are getting old and wonder if I should upgrade

I have had these hard drives for the last 2 years and 8 months and they are slowly getting worse according to speedfan smart check but they are not in danger yet but I was wondering if I should upgrade now with this sale or wait longer. I expect them to last a good year longer but wanted too get your guy's opinions. Here are the iamges of the smart test.

HDDStatus - Tool to check hard disk status, health and reliability

HDDStatus - Tool to check hard disk status, health and reliability


These are the prices of some hybrid drives and wasn't sure if they were good deals. They seem decent but not amazing prices. Also what is the major difference from first gen hybrid and second gen hybrid? I know second gen has 8GB instead of 4GB of flash but is it noticeable?

first gen
Newegg.com - Seagate Momentus XT ST95005620AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache 2.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ Solid State Hybrid Drive -Bare Drive

second gen but what is the difference? is one retail? Also I knwo these 750GB will have faster write/reads then the 500GB due to size difference but besides that is there really any difference?

Newegg.com - Seagate Momentus XT ST750LX003 750GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache 2.5" SATA 6.0Gb/s Solid State Hybrid Drive -Bare Drive
Newegg.com - Seagate Momentus XT STBD750100 750GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache 2.5" SATA 6.0Gb/s Solid State Hybrid Drive

 

bump any advice?

 

If my copy-and-paste googling served me right then you have a Seagate 320GB 7200rpm HDD (ST9320423AS). I don't know what to make of those HDDstatus reports. If you subjectively feel performance has been worsening than I don't see why you shouldn't upgrade.

For a current HDD comparison (synthetic benchmarks) check out: Charts, benchmarks 2012 Mobile HDD Charts, [32] Overall Performance. As you can see, the Seagate Momentus XT reigns supreme.

The biggest improvement will be if you went for an SSD, it'll blow your socks off. So much faster than any HDD including the hybrid Seagates though much pricier, depends on your priorities, performance vs capacity.

 

i am curious on whats the difference from the first gen hybrid and second gen hybrid. second gen has 8GB instead of 4GB. If i remember 4GB is dedicated to boot and the other 4GB is dedicated to programs. I am avoiding SSDs for now because I want the larger space. 90 or 150 bucks for a 500GB or 750GB hybrid is better for me right now. I don't want to limit myself to only 256GB of space inside my computer since my budget is quite tight

 

you might want to consider a SSD + HDD solution. it works better then hybrid drives.

 

cost....dont have the money right now ovbiously i would want an SSD and hybrid but not enough money

 

I don't think he meant a full sized HDD and SSD. You can get a 32 GB SSD and put Windows and a few other frequently used programs on it, like the game you are currently and some music etc. On the HDD you can put everything else. You can get a 32 GB SSD and a 500 GB HDD for under 150 bucks.

 

eh might as well just get a hybrid drive..i rather not fittle with a crappy 60GB drive to fit windowws and worry about it failing since it has so little space and wear levels

 

I have 2 of those 500Gb momentus XT drives, one for storage in my G74 and one in my wife's dv6.

SSD = best performance upgrade for the money, but limited space per dollar.

Hybrids = noticeable performance difference over a standard mechanical drive + solid Gb/$$ ratio.

I'm actually at Fedex picking up my G74 as I type this, or I'd post some numbers for you.

Sidenote though, I paid $119USD at a local bestbuy for retail drives. That was before the Thailand floods that drove prices up though.

 

Smaller space does not necessarily make it crappy. As you know, SSDs have no mechanical parts so their "wear" depends on how often you write to them. That being said, don't try to not access that drive to increase its longevity. They can be used several years before they fail.

They cost about 70 cents a GB. If you do the math, that is about 50 bucks for a 64 gig drive. Some price it a bit higher. That does not make them crappy. That being said, it is really your choice.

 

^agreed

What's your budget and what are your projected space requirements?

 

making a SSD run at 90% capacity causes uneven wear and reduced life. Also 60GB does not have very much life due to its limited size. a 256GB drive will last much longer

Also I know about SSD/Hybrids/mechanical and pros and cons....its basic knowledge.....

Also the whole no mechanical parts doesn't mean anything. They fail far more often then a mechanical drive Especially 60GB drives and sandforce ones


as cheap as possible.....My space requirements are not super high so to I store all my games on my external. but 60GB barely squeezes OS and a few programs. my 320 is short stroked to have a 60GB OS drive and i have 7GB left so i would run a 60GB drive in no time with my usage. Also that is a 100% band-aid and I dont want that.

There is an aglity 3 on 1saleaday for 75 bucks plus 10 dollar mail in rebate but I dont like OCZ since everyone has issues with sandforce and it is has a know history of issues. Also i ahte OCZ for their bait and switch with the vortex 2/agility 2.

 

I'm gonna want stats on that, i mean sure due to how wear leveling works a 64GB drive won't last as long as a 256GB given the same load on the drive as well as the same amount of used space. The question remains though, is that difference even meaningful.

 

256/60=4.2 times the amount of wear potential....give the controller doesn't die first. OS almost always wears and does more writing than any other sort of data. if you look at most people and particularly me. OS and programs wear the most and would be the exact same for both drivers. Only other data would be added to the SSD would be a select few games and more frequently accessed data but would be far less then OS wear. So maybe the 4.2 might go to a 3 times the amount of wear but that is pushing it. Games and read files dont really add much wear. I am personally more worried about controller life span then the SSD but a 60GB SSD is way to small and playing with fire in my eyes. Since I would have 90% capacity at almost all times. I heard/read somewhere(on this forum) you dont really want to pass 80% filled mark

I wouldn't mind the 75 bucks for a 120GB agility 3 but i despise OCZ for the bait and switch plus i have heard so amny horror stories about sandforce I wont touch it unless someone can convince me otherwise

 

I don't get it. There is no difference between the NAND flash part of a hybrid and the SSD. The NAND flash part will die JUST as fast (or faster considering the size) than the SSD.

Plus, how much would a 256 GB SSD last the user? a year? Two? Five? Fifty? 1/4.2 is a small number but 50/4.2 is not.

 

Exactly my point, it's not a matter that it will wear 4 times faster or not, it's a matter of how much time is it gonna take for the SSD to actually become unusable. If a 64GB lasts 25 years and a 256GB would last 100 years (those are purely random numbers for the sake of demonstration) then you'd have replaced long before it died. Hence why i say that without context the speed at which a SSD wears is meaningless.

Regarding the controller lifespan, i'll have to look for data on that, but i wouldn't be surprised if the chances of a controller failing are close to those of a HDD failing, aka irrelevant.

 

BTW don't get me wrong - I am not trying to challenge. I could not find numbers on how long a SSD would last so I was curious. Heck I don't even know how long a HDD lasts. The damage I have seen has been random. Some within a few months (most probably incorrect use) and some last for several years so much so that the laptop is replaced before the HDD wears out.

 

This is a rather large chunk of data to digest, but here: SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm.

Someone tested a 64GB M4 among others and 700TB of writes to it, still kicking. Considering normal usage by the average joe is at ~20GB per day, that is 73TB per year. Oh and the drive still shows 100% health: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...25nm-Vs-34nm&p=4975974&viewfull=1#post4975974.

Are people right to worry about SSD writes? Yeah can't hurt.
Do a lot of people worry too much about it? Yup, unless your upgrade cycle is longer than most people.

Still gotta find that data on the controllers.

EDIT: Here we go: http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/29329-ssd-failure-rates-compared-to-hard-drives/, source for that post is in French so i linked to the forum post instead.

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

 

yea the SSD with 25nm only has 3k cycles at best. so as an OS drive with 90% filled that will wear out quickly. 256GB 3k rights is perfect...10k was much nicer but you will stop using the drive well before then when it is a 256GB drive. SSDs are not that reliable their track record is pretty shotty. There has been tons of reviews and tons of topics on how they are still shotty.

 

Well, i just linked a few sources, if you can find data on failure rates from a retailer or a reputable source like anandtech and other similar sites, i'll stand by my previous statements.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, i'm just saying that the data i've found points to the conclusion that if you follow a standard upgrade cycle for your computers, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Whether you go for a SSD or HDD is up to you, but i wouldn't base my choice for the SSD on your earlier concerns other than the price and avoiding SandForce drives of course.

 

ok and hardrives normally last 5-10 years some longer depending on usage so i dont see how from everyone i know barely getting 3-5 years from an SSD is better? (also note these are the people that dont have ones fail in the first 1-6 months, which is extremely common) Ever look at newegg and OCZ SSDs that are agility2/vertex2 I remember a long time ago they had like 2-3 eggs....crappy drives

EDIT: again on paper they should last forever but the damn controllers burn out and break more frequently then not. I have seen so many post on newegg and on this forum about people complaining about failures being very frequent because of the controllers. I know they just recently got better but still not a good track recorded for me to trust them.

 

You are using OCZ as an example and OCZ is just that a prime example of badly made drives, they aren't representative of all SSDs. I'm not saying that 5 years is better than 10. What i'm saying is that manufacturers say that their SSD will last at least 5 years, but the torture tests i linked seem to indicate they will last at least a good 10 years.

Even if a SSD lasts 5 years, what i'm pointing at is that most people will have upgraded to new hardware in 5 years which means new drives SSD or HDD anyways so it doesn't matter that much if you follow a standard hardware upgrade cycle.

Like i said, the choice is yours, i'm just voicing my point of view, whether you agree/disagree and what you do with it is up to you.

 

If controllers are a concern to you, you could instead look at the Crucial M4, Samsung 830, or Plextor M3 drives, none of which use Sandforce controllers (neither does the previous-gen Intel 320, though that's SATAII if that's important to you). Pretty much never hear complains from those drives, and the M4 is dirt cheap now for a SATAIII drive.

Even still, my Intel 330 (Sandforce SF-2281) is still going along strong, but I bought it not too long ago. The 320 is a bit over a year old and still great, even with all the read/writes I do.

 

what controller does this use?

Daily Deals, 1 Sale A Day

 

Sandforce + OCZ = bad combo...

 

Even if OCZ uses another controller (a la Vertex 4), OCZ's a crap company with crap customer support, from what I read. Made me never want to deal with them at all.

Not to mention the unreliability. I think that even mechanical drives are more reliable than OCZ SSDs...

 

Sandforce SF-2281. I'd personally stay away from SF controllers and stick to pricier, but well established Marvell or Samsung controllers.

Your SSD is more likely to outlive the entire lifespan your laptop unless you write an insane amount of data on it every day.

 

who doesn't move an SSD to their next computer? I ahev always dragged my old hardrives to the next computer everyone keeps saying it out lives the computer/laptop but who throws them away like that? I still have every single hardrive i have ever owned.

 

I'm not arguing that at all. It's a response to this statement:

"I'm ok and hardrives normally last 5-10 years some longer depending on usage so i dont see how from everyone i know barely getting 3-5 years from an SSD is better? "

3-5 years outlives the average lifespan of a notebook and SSDs will last longer. 3 years ago we had x-25s which are some of the most reliable drives even without TRIM. 4-5 years ago we didn't really have any on the market.

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G

 

Some people do, some don't. I have my old Intel 320 in the ODD bay for additional storage to supplement my 330.

tijo already posted an excellent reference to the actual life span of SSDs.

 

i gotcha i get where your coming from xonar and yea i looked at that jarhead