SSD lifespan

SSD's are not a long-term solution, they're as consumable as ink cartridges.

It's a 64GB OCZ onyx btw, on the latest firmware, owned it since 2011 or 2012.

>>57174777
Even though you got 7s I think that's not quite true, given that this has lasted me 4 years of heavy usage as my main OS disk.

why isn't that showing power-on hours? and lba_written (or host_writtes_mb) is missing as well

>>57174877
I wondered that.

OP, run this:

sudo smartctl -a /dev/sd* | grep -i hours

Obviously making /dev/sd* your drive.

>>57174978
I think I need to install smartmontools or whatever it is because that didn't work, brb installing

>>57174978

  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0000   ---   ---   ---    Old_age   Offline      -       17861

Shit, that sounds like a lot.

>>57175021
Not too much really, though that should have also listed the errors and when they occurred.

If it didn't list anything you're good.

Here's mine for reference.

  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   059   059   000    Old_age   Always       -       18292
DDd+hh:mm:SS.sss where DD=days, hh=hours, mm=minutes,
Error 3 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 10552 hours (439 days + 16 hours)
Error 2 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 9767 hours (406 days + 23 hours)
Error 1 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 9767 hours (406 days + 23 hours)

But mine is a regular HD, so these don't matter too much compared to a SSD.

>>57175021

>17861
>a lot

Meanwhile I'm buying "new pull" HDDs that come with 48000 hours and they still last for another 8 years. SSDs are truly a meme.

>>57175097
>SSDs are truly a meme
Those asspulls probably don't have latency in the nanoseconds like SSDs do.

>>57175097
SSD's are fine for what they are. As I said, they're essentially consumable.

I got a cheap one to be a / partition in this old laptop because it's probably the best way to give it a bit of a speed boost without getting too over the top and spending so much you might as well buy a new machine.

But my ultrabay is this 18k hour conventional HDD and this is where my /home partition is, so all the important things are on something more reliable.

>>57175161

>latency in the nanoseconds like SSDs do

See how it is a meme? You just had to lie to make it six orders of magnitude faster than what it actually is, the mere fact that you have to resort to that instead of saying the truth speaks volumes about how much of a meme they are. Just get GNU/Linux with 128GB or RAM and cache your stuff to it, it's not as if you turned off your computer every week anyway.

>>57175181
Are you one of these people why buys a cheap android phone, complains that it sucks. Buys a more expensive IPhone and sais that it runs great? Cheap SSD's are trash, big surprise!

>>57174978
>>57175021
How about you give the whole number dump, i.e without that grep. Your gui utility is reporting things like flying height and spin high current which ssd SMART shouldn't even have

>>57174777
Much like HDD failure rates have plummeted over time SSDs will as the processes mature

typical HDDs are 3% fail with premium ones 1%
ive never heard of a SSD failing other than discount brands being DoA/slow down over time

>>57175432
OCZ is trash, big surprise.

Meanwhile the 3tb Seagate fiasco should prove all hdds are replaceable consumerist garbage.

>>57175181
If hdds were so great, ssds wouldn't be a thing

>>57175510

That's why all servers and supercomputers in the world use SSDs right? Wow SSDs are definitely a thing!

>>57175531
Server penetration is about 50% and growing.
Get with the timez grampa

I have two Intel 730 SSDs
They have "enterprise-grade" data controllers taken from their enterprise SSDs made for servers and supercomputers, basically made for RAID, and are supposed to be super reliable
How reliable can I expect these to be? There's a 5 year warranty, should I expect them to die immediately after in 3 years?
Online people are only saying good things about the reliability but apparently they switch into read-only mode when they get too used
Any thought on Intel SSD reliability in general

>>57175531
Servers are switching to SSDs with only cost slowing that down
Like read a book nigga, HDDs are dead, good deals

>>57174777
>>57174752
You will die before your SSD die...

>>57175531
I think the choice of storage solution for servers and especially supercomputers is amount of storage per device more than anything.

>>57175676
You think wrong. Much faster raid recovery time is one of the leading factors why SSDs are taking over the market. Recovery of a typical 10TB HDD drive takes a day minimum, on a highly utilized server that could easily be pushed to a week or more

>>57175676
Where's the 26TB 3.5" SSD?

>>57175181
>>But my ultrabay is this 18k hour conventional HDD and this is where my /home partition is, so all the important things are on something more reliable.

>HDD with moving parts
>more reliable than an SSD with zero moving parts

L M A O

ENJOY YOUR CLICK OF DEATH

>>57174752
SSDs like a 50-70TB read/write life span,
>>57175630
aye HDDs are stuck at £40 a 1TB, and won't be any cheaper, SSDs could even get down to £20 a 1TB as they don't need all the manufacturing for the motors, the read heads, the huge aluminium body, but i think HDDs will cap out at around 15TB, or even the current 10TB drives could be the last ones.

>>57175922
>M2 SSDs
>literally 2 sq. inches of PCB and chips
And people said HDDs were cheap

File: 1465180608428.jpg (13KB, 269x211px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 269x211px

>>57174787
>Questioning trips
I sincerely hope that's not what you are doing anon

>>57176128
Trips don't lie, they are as consumable as ink cartridges
In fact I've been using the same ink cartridge for 6 years so that makes me feel better already

>>57175393
It's not a lie though you shitstick. The latency is around the 0.031 milliseconds mark. That's 31 nanoseconds.

File: smh.png (102KB, 919x341px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 919x341px

>>57175483
>OCZ is trash, big surprise.
desu I bought one a while back when I was advised against it and it's still kicking strong

>>57175483
>>57176367
I've heard that OCZ has been awesome since toshiba took over, just got one myself to put in my laptop, their M2 drives are also the closest competitor to Samsung 950 pros right now

File: 594bbadb02ce984e30772442d02ca24c.jpg (14KB, 236x240px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x240px

>>57176344
I (don't) hate to disappoint (You) , but .031ms is actually 31 us

People like you make Americans look bad in front of the whole world

>>57175676
I O P S
O
P
S

>>57176472
Well I'm British but thanks for correcting me. Also this is an anonymous board so it doesn't really matter.

>>57176472
It is a latency of mere nanoseconds though, just 31,000 of them

>>57176561
neither do you

>>57176584
Nor you

>>57176472
>have NVMe drive
>8 microsecond latency

>>57176600
Xor you

Why is SSD fear mongering still alive on /g/ of all places?

>>57176688
poorfags spreading misinformation

File: 3.png (82KB, 810x353px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 810x353px

>>57174777
The worst thing about flash storage is even if you don't write to it or even use it, and have data sitting in your closet unpowered, the cells will leak electrons over time and corrupt and destroy data. Magnetic storage doesn't have this problem, which is why tapes are still a viable archival alternative, and why you can pull old IDE drives out of storage and still read data off of them.

So what I don't understand is what do people do with a 1 TB+ consumer SSD full of data? Do they eventually migrate data to magnetic storage, or blindly assume SSD are viable for archival purposes?

>>57176714
Tapes decay after 5 years in perfect storage, and can loose everything if dropped from 3 foot height.

Tapes are meme-tier

>>57176714
Mines been at 100% for 3 years, I normally fill up my main SSD and then flush that to a different SSD, but I filled up that one so I have a third now and put them in raid 5
2TB of storage total, it's all fast individually and it all scales nearly perfectly in raid
They were expensive ass SSDs that have actually gone up in price a lot since I bought them though

>>57176714
What is entropy?
Everything degrades.
And tapes are even worse. Look it up.

>>57176714
Absolutely no one recommended ssds for archival storage, no one ever.

And why do you care what someone does with their 1tb ssd? Who the fuck are you to think their opinion matters? Get fucked, commie

>>57176754
>Tapes decay after 5 years in perfect storage
15+ years for modern tape in optimal conditions.

>>57176688
Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good.

>>57174752
just use HDD's for long term data like any normal person. SSD is good for OS and nothing more

>>57176803
Get fucked you ignorant fool


http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/honors-grants-and-fellowships/1/

>>57176847
>guaranteed to last 3-5 years
Budget consumer SSDs have warranties under 5 years. Meanwhile, SSD data integrity at 25 Celsius power-off temperature from a previous operating temperature of 25 Celsius is only 58 weeks >>57176714

So what the fuck is your point? That essay has no solution to the problem, only listing the limitations of current available archival solutions.

>>57177045
Your dumber than i imagined. There is no current solution.

And again: no one ever suggested using ssds for archival purposes.

The current limit for consumer sdds is about 120 tbw.

>>SSD is literally at 25°C every time I use it and turn it off