SSDs are fast, but do they last?

[JMH]

If you use a PC for professional purposes, you need a solid-state drive. Period. The difference in performance is profound, as just about any SSD owner will attest. The difference isn’t just faster startup and shutdown times, either. There’s a noticeable bump in speed and responsiveness for just about every common computing task.

SSDs are fast, but do they last? | ZDNet

 

[pparks1]

Not a bad read. The headline makes it sound like these drives are dangerous. The story however explains that the failure rates are pretty much inline with current mechanical hard drive failures. Thus, they aren't more dangerous and for the extra money you spend you get far better speeds.

I've got 2 systems with SSD's and both are running fine. Both are Intel SSD's.

 

[Kipper]

I just built a system and put a Raptor 150 in it for the OS. That didn't last through the updates to Windows. LOL

Having ran SSDs for the OS for the past two years I will never go back to a spinner, not even a quick raptor.

I have only had problems with 2 SSDs one an early vertex that was sent back on RMA and replaced by OCZ within a week and that early generation drive is still going strong.

The other was with a SATA III drive from OWC with the SF controller and it locked itself up in safe mode so it went back to OWC and I picked up an M4 Crucial which is really nice.

 

[Dave76]

I find it difficult to use a non-SSD computer, everything is just too slow.

Won't be going back to a HDD based system.

Considering the 'do they last' question, there is an on-going SSD endurance test:
SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

They are writing as fast as they can to see when they will fail.
Out of the 5 still testing, 4 have passed the manufacturer rated number of writes, most of them are rated below 200TB.

My first SSD is averaging 1TB writes per year, though I did reduce the amount of writes by moving some things to the HDD.
Even if you write 5TB a year it's rated around 40 years.
With some SSDs going to 5 year warranties, they are a safe investment.

As mentioned in the link, the failure rate isn't any worse than HDDs.

 

[pparks1]

While I like my SSD, I'm still not in the camp yet that "won't use a computer without one". I have multiple computers that I use regularly without SSD's and I don't find them painful to use.

I'm pretty certain that my SSD will last far longer than I am ever going to want to use it. When I buy a computer component, I need 2-3 years and I will most likely move to something else. I'm pretty sure I'll replace my 80GB Intel with something faster, and bigger in less than 3 years time.

 

[sygnus21]

Thanks for the article Jan.

I think its kind of too early to do any real comparisons between the fail rates of SSD's vs spinners considering the relative short time SSD's have been around, and the fact that they are just now beginning to see mainstream use. For me the book is still open. However I've had no issues during the 8 months I've had my SSD drive.

Something else I'd like to point out - from some of the stuff I've read and heard some of the failures can be attributed to user error (excessive benchmarking). All we have to do is look at this thread (http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/18229-show-us-your-ssd-performance.html) and you'll see some users obsessed with wringing every ounce of performance out of their SSD..... to the point of continuous benchmarking. This can obviously lead to degradation and failure.

While we all want to know what our PC is capable of ( I do) but constant testing is bound to cause degradation or failure.

My two cents.

 

[Tarka Dal]

Looks like an advert to me. They expected everyone to go out and buy one for their computer. Only problem is the stats don't rack up. So, their not worth it.

 

[sygnus21]

Looks like an advert to me. They expected everyone to go out and buy one for their computer. Only problem is the stats don't rack up. So, their not worth it.

Where'd you read that???

If you want to argue pricing is a little steep, OK. However performance wise.... they're very much worth it.

And trust me pricing was an issue for me as well until they started dropping. I'll also tell you that nothing you do to your PC will give you the performance boost an SSD drive will.

My two cents.

 

[TBoyd]

Thanks for that link. - An interesting read.

I have yet to go with an SSD - primarily due to longevity concerns. This sheds some light on the matter.

 

[Dave76]

Looks like an advert to me. They expected everyone to go out and buy one for their computer. Only problem is the stats don't rack up. So, their not worth it.

Where'd you read that???

If you want to argue pricing is a little steep, OK. However performance wise.... they're very much worth it.

And trust me pricing was an issue for me as well until they started dropping. I'll also tell you that nothing you do to your PC will give you the performance boost an SSD drive will.

My two cents.

+1, couldn't agree more, you can argue the price point but, definitely not the performance or longevity.

At my estimated maximum writing of maybe 2TB per year, the rated life from the manufacturer which is very conservative, is 90+ years.

Thanks for that link. - An interesting read.

I have yet to go with an SSD - primarily due to longevity concerns. This sheds some light on the matter.

Check the link in my previous post.

There are other endurance tests that reported 1PB (1,000 TB) of writes, the reason for stopping was not clear as it was a translation.
It appears to be that after writing to the drive for a year, they just gave up.

The ability of SSDs to perform writes has been grossly under estimated.

 

[MRValiant]

The cost factor is still to high for me.

 

[pparks1]

Something else I'd like to point out - from some of the stuff I've read and heard some of the failures can be attributed to user error (excessive benchmarking).

Absolutely. I usually run a benchmark when I first buy the device to ensure it's on par with where it should be. But I don't frequently update drivers and I don't retest and retest and retest. As long as I don't notice a major problem, I assume its working just fine.

The cost factor is still to high for me.

They are certainly getting better. Coworker of mine recently got a 60GB OCZ Vertex 2 for about $80. That's not too bad of a cost for the performance boost.

 

[smarteyeball]

SSDs probably fail roughly as as often as conventional hard drives do, but for different reasons.

That should be the standard rebuttal to all the 'Doesn't last, not safe" excuses people employ to justify not buying a SSD.

[H]ard drives tend to fail more gracefully. SSDs often die more abruptly

This is the real crux of the fear. We can all accept components like HDD's die, but we simply aren't used to the suddenness of SSD death.

Relatively new, expensive, unproven technology on a mass scale plus a few horror stories have given SSD's an almost mythical and largely undeserved reputation of a temperamental thoroughbred.

If data is that important to begin with, users should be backing up regardless of storage being used anyway.


A dead HDD is just as useless as a dead SSD.

 

[Lebon14]

I currently have no problems with OCZ Vertex 2 90GB but... read"write speeds are sloooooooow.

 

[Dave76]

Have you been writing a lot to it?

It will start 'Lifetime Throttling'.

Or it might need to run garbage collection, let your system sit at login for at least two hours at least once a week, this has worked for others.

 

[sygnus21]

That's a good point Dave - sitting at logon.

 

[Dave76]

It's a known procedure for OCZ SSDs, and the other SF controller SSDs.

Not sure about all the other controllers, it's not needed for Intel SSDs.
It's recommended to run the Intel SSD toolbox at least once a week, mine is set on a schedule.

 

[smarteyeball]

It's a known procedure for OCZ SSDs, and the other SF controller SSDs.

I leave mine logged off overnight roughly once a week for my OCZ. Between GC and TRIM, I haven't noticed any perceptible performance degradation.

Not sure about all the other controllers

My laptop has a C300 with a Marvell controller and the recommendation for logging-off is the same when it comes to GC.

 

[Lebon14]

Have you been writing a lot to it?

It will start 'Lifetime Throttling'.

Or it might need to run garbage collection, let your system sit at login for at least two hours at least once a week, this has worked for others.

Wait... what? Really?! I never knew about that!
I don't really write to it much myself, but Windows does haha. Well, ok, I can let it sit ther everyday if I want to... I leave my PC open most of the time, so, let it sit at logon is just an other place to let it sit haha.

 

[sygnus21]

I leave mine logged off overnight roughly once a week for my OCZ. Between GC and TRIM, I haven't noticed any perceptible performance degradation.

This is pretty much standard practice for me since I rarely shut down my system anyway.