Big question here for you /g/ Really, witch is more reliable,

SSD

It's over for HDDs. Apart from cost they have no advantages anymore.

>>56382109
SSDs are better for basically everything except for archiving.

Why do you even care, Anon? If a drive fails you have redundancy and backups, right? ... Right?!

>>56382109
It very much depends on which exact HDD / SSD combination you take. Tendency towards SSD, I guess.

Besides you'll probably not have enough drives to arrive at values that model the statistical averages.

Just have redundancy if your data matters, mkay?

>>56382146
>>56382167
i bought a 500gb SSD for my laptop and I am using only it. There aren't any sensitive information from witch i don't have a cloud back up. for now it is working like a jewel. But I really appreciate reliability and durability. simple as that.

>>56382182
sounds like the most sensible thing to do i guess

HDDs are more reliable, primarily because HDD failure is catastrophic and SSD failure is insidious.

>>56382255
do you have an idea of how much insidious it is? As compared to a battery for instance?

>>56382199
Okay, good enough.

In my opinion laptops shouldn't even come with HDD options anymore. In comparison to SSDs even a tiny one is a better option than a 1-2TB HDD. SSDs are just infinitely more suited to the task.

I personally still do my big storage on HDDs but it's only because of cost, I'd use SSDs if that amount of storage wouldn't break my budget.

>>56382231
The only thing to do, really.

Even companies are basically forced to, regardless if they can buy muh best enterprise drives or not.

Yea, some WD Re (http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-800044.pdf) or a good SSD should have a long life on average, but will YOURS not fail before you wanted to replace it anyhow...?

That's a question that has no very reassuring answer. Even if failure rates of <1% per year held true in reality under your conditions (which is anyone's guess until the drive is basically obsolete anyhow), that chance isn't actually extremely low in the end.

>>56382335
Unless you buy a 3TB seagate. Not even God could save your data...

>>56382109
Reliable?
SSDs.
Durable?
HDDs.

Thinking about buying a few 1TB SSDs. HDDs really are done for. I'd only consider HDDs now for hotswap plug-in, store precious files, and storing them away forever.

Which HDDs are good for this btw? Blues, reds, greens?

>>56382361
I think one of the the 2TB Seagate models was terrible:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/

The 3TB seem more or less normal, at least in that setup.

File: more midget.jpg (45KB, 492x474px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 492x474px

>>56382394
The blacks!

>>56382109
hard disks are good for movies, family videos and backups
solid state drives are good as system drives.and pagefile

>>56382277
Nonono, Put it this way:

HDDs are still physical media. When something goes wrong, when they fail, it's a physical part that will either scratch some of the cylinders, or some magnets will shake loose and the whole thing becomes unreadable. We have microcomputers inside of HDDs that's job is to detect this and report it.

SSDs are silicon, and any errors are actual nanometer-scale imperfections or transistors just burning out. They aren't as mature a technology yet, so the error correction/detection just isn't there, so you don't get nice warnings, you may just eventually get degraded performance, storage, or flat-out wrong bits.

>>56382394
Probably the Ae if you're looking at WD drives.

File: 1422690616870.jpg (173KB, 737x1091px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 737x1091px

>>56382335

not to mention what if you drop your laptop in a puddle or your house burns down or someone steals it, a flood happens etc......

if it's not backed up, you will someday get fucked for sure

File: 1024px-FAMAS-F1_vs_G2.svg.png (95KB, 1024x713px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x713px

>>56382383
>Reliable?
>SSDs.
>Durable?
>HDDs.

nope x10

>>56382456
Oh, I only knew the number for 2014
>43.08%

What the fuck is going on with the Barracuda Greens? 129.88% failure rate (I think these are over 5 years if I remmber?). How do they even sleep at night... On a bed made of money from poor people one would assume.

>>56382471

OHHHH, now i get it, feel a little dumb... So i am to expect decrease in speed and corrupt data over extended periods of time?

>>56382529
>129.88% failure rate
How is it possible that more disks fails than disks are manufactured?

>>56382578
Stored disks?

No good for my porn addiction.

>>56382578
That is in Rackspace's operation anyhow.

They had x slots occupied with this type of drive, and already had to replace x times ~1.3 drives in those slots.

>>56382456
It was the 3TB seagate barracuda that they were putting in external enclosures with usb3 connectivity.

I know because I RMA'd two of them and one just failed again the other week. I have one good one left and just decided to stop using it because I know it will fail soon.

>>56382578
I didn't read the article, I'm literally going off of what I remember from reading their stats 2 years ago, so grain of salt and shit. Look into it yourself if you want.

If their stats are for "% of drives that fail within 5 years" one possible answer is that all the drives failed within 4 years. I imagine it's something like that except less extreme.

are high capacity 2.5" external hdds shit? lot's of mixed reviews on amazon, but
>amazon reviews

i know an internal 3.5 + case is a solid choice but that really hurts the portability

>>56382618
Well maybe they at least learned not to put Seagate drives in their fucking servers.

You'd basically need to raid 1 the entire setup. Raid 6 with 2 hot spares and by the time you got there the hot spares probably would have failed too.

when in doubt, SSD