Are SSD's reliable? Thinking of getting me a big SSD for

>>57585088

SSDs are a placebo with no noticeable performance benefit

>>57585100
Explains why my laptop booted up in seconds after swapping its hard drive for an SSD.

>>57585100
/thread

Modern SSDs will outlast HDDs.

>no moving parts
>less heat
>less power
>functionally infinite write

Sure, they have a chance to fail but it's less than and HDDs chance.

>>57585122
Becasue fresh OS installation

>>57585127
>infinite write
That's my main concern. I've heard of SSD's going into read-only mode after a certain number of writes, and I don't want that to happen to me.

>>57585100
lol, obvious troll is obvious....

>>57585143
No, I cloned the HDD's data onto the SSD.

>>57585147
Better than HDD head crash. You get a paper weight instead of at least having access to your data. It's pretty unlikely to happen anyway.

Reliability isn't a concern anymore with SSDs.

>>57585127
SSD will fail in a week powered down.

>>57585168
>I only read clickbait headlines and take them as 100% fact

Show me your sources and I'll show you why you're wrong.

>>57585143
I wouldn't call something I installed more than a year ago a fresh installation, but you do you

>>57585168
I have a precision moble workstation with 2 solid state drives, both with different OS. System is about 2 years old...and I've booted back and forth (greater than a week) just about every time I've used it.

Your argument is invalid.

>>57585100
This may may needs to die. It's on par with install gentoo.

>>57585088
yes they do fail faster

at 90% capacity chances of it failing is 50%

>>57585168
Where away from home for 2 weeks, ssd still works without problems

>>57585212
Nice sources.

>>57585088
Yes, SSD's are reliable. They are also more durable than a traditional spinning disk. A lot of people who have fried SSD's were doing things they shouldn't have been doing (user error). Also, in the event of a failure many times you can still access your data, you just can't write. Many times when a spinning disk fails... it completely eats shit and all the data is lost or corrupted.

SSD's are the single most performance enhancing upgrade to a system you can make these days.

I have 7 solid state drives... I still have an 80gb intel SSD that I bought back when it was top of the line. All of them work fine and I've never had a failure.

>>57585100
Kill yourself.


Yes OP. It's worth it.
I've done the same thing.

>>57585240
>SSD's are the single most performance enhancing upgrade to a system you can make these days.
This needs to be in the sticky or something... The biggest performance letdown in the past 10 years is the HDD - a huge bottleneck.

SSDs provide great seek times and will be the best upgrade for any PC.

File: 1446886546653.jpg (24KB, 237x412px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 237x412px

>>57585088
You've come at the perfect time. They're commodity right now. How can I tell? Prices are dropping and performance differences between brand's budget models are becoming harder to notice. This is the tell-tale signs.
Plus, it's not about the reliability of SSDs that you should think about. It's also about knowing when it's going to fail. SSDs are easier to predict when they're going to fail. HDDs OTOH will start to fail randomly and without notice. Or just die on the spot.
So just get an SSD and enjoy life.

>>57585088
I remember reading a study that showed SSDs are more reliable than HDDs, but have shorter life spans. Most hardrive have a read/write limit, with SSDs much less likely to fail before that limit, and much more likely to fail after the limit, compared to HDDs

Get an SSD OP! 60% of the time It works - EVERYTIME.

>>57585122
Having your start up process reduced a few seconds doesn't sound worth it.

If you filter all the troll posts, this thread is pretty boring.

>>57585147
>I've heard of SSD's going into read-only mode after a certain number of writes
Google SSD torture test, you'll find a nice article where they managed to make an SSD do just that. To make it happen, they had dedicated machines constantly writing as much to the SSD as was physically possible, 24/7. If this sounds unrealistic to you, that's because it is. It's a test that had no basis in reality beyond "let's see how long it takes to kill them." Turns out that the answers is eighteen months. A year and a half at full tilt. Those SSDs saw more data in that timeframe than I have in a quarter century of using computers.

They're fast as hell in terms of OS startup time, program startup time, and disk intensive operations like searching for files. First one I got was a cheapy and it died within a year and I never got one again. I guess you have to pick one of the best for it not to fail fast. I miss the speed but I'll wait until they are more widely used. I'd rather have a slower PC than a potentially dead hard drive.

>>57585088
Get a MLC SSD big enough that you can usually keep in half empty, and it's going to serve you for the next 50 years, which is waaaay more than HDDs can achieve.

>>57585088
They're def more reliable than mech drives with plain bearings

>>57585831
Not him but it's not just startup. Unless you're running Linux with swappiness (yes, that's what it's called) set to 0, your OS will always read and write to the disk, constantly. This is a pretty big bottleneck and using an SSD instead of an HDD improves things immensely. You can start using words like "smoothness" and "seamless transitions" and so forth but that gets into Apple marketing territory. It suffices to say that the improvement in perception is well worth the cost.

>>57585088
I've been using 2 samsung SSDs for years (840 pro 128GB and 850 evo 512GB), both are fine

>>57585280
there is an article about them in the wiki
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Storage_devices

>>57585928
Not OP, but this worries me as well, the cheap SSDs seem to good to be truth. Besides I had my old 1TB HDD almost full at all times.

>>57585088
It will never break if it's an Intel SSD.
It's very unlikely to break if it's a Samsung SSD.
It could break if it's anything else.

Mark my words.

>>57585195
What's wrong with Gentoo?

>>57586089
Who reads the wiki?

>>57586116
Kingstone are good too

>>57586284
Aren't their USB thumbdrives shit?

SSDs are a hell of a lot more reliable than hard drives. The internal HDD in my desktop started randomly unmounting itself and only got fixed when rebooting the computer so I had to replace it, while the SSD I use for my OS installation still runs fine.

And the HDD in my 2011 Macbook Pro slowed down to the point where it would literally take minutes to open apps, replaced it with an SSD and it performs better than it did than when I got it.

>>57586116
What's wrong with Crucial? I thought they made a baby with Intel. Her name is IM Flash Technologies.

Yes they are reliable.

>>57585088
yes they are.

i reccommend crucial bx, good starting point

Are the Crucial MX300 good? I have a Samsung 850 Evo in my laptop I gave to my GF but the MX300 has more storage for a lower price.

>>5758508Yes, it's reliable! lock your OS on it, and use a HDD is storage divice.

>>57585831
Booting is a LOT faster.
Opening programs is a LOT faster if they have to load a lot of stuff.
Opening explorers is done instantly.
Loading movies/music/media is done instantly.

Everything that's loaded on RAM receives no benefit whatsoever though.

>>57585918
That gave me a hardon.

>>57585088
Low end do fail and dont are reliable.

Avoid Kingston and PNY SSDs.

Zotac is reliable but not worth the price for what you get, Just like WD Blue SSD.

850 EVO is the best you can get when it comes to SATA.
If reliability is a concern avoid TLC SSDs.

>>57586476
It's good. It trades reliability and lower prices for some performance with it's 3D NAND.

>>57586013
Let's not forget the lack noise and vibration. My HTPC is pretty much dead silent.

If you've ever loaded up a system with a bunch of spinning disks, holy fuck are they loud. Then they all want to spin up at the same time. VROOOOOOOOOOOOOM CLICKITY CLACK CLACK CLACK CLIKKITY....CLACK

Unless we're talking about NAS drives intended for MASS storage or archive purposes, none of my systems will ever have a spinning disk again. I haven't had a spinning disk in my systems for almost 8 years now.

The fuck is wrong with kids these days?

>>57586284
Kingston SSDs are really shity, it all started since the SV300 scam.

>>57585100
fpbp
fucking consumer whores falling for jew tricks

This board is full of fucking tech-inept morons, why do I still even come here? Its like I'm on some tech page on Facebook or some shit.

SSD reliability depends on which company you buy them from. Currently samsung is the best and OCZ is the worst.

Generally assuming the controllers on SSDs are not dogshit (see OCZ) MLC NAND will last you about 3K write cycles and V-NAND about 6K write cycles.

So a 256GB 850 evo will outlive you.

>>57586607
>have hyperx savage
>advertised read speeds of 550MBps
>bench results of 550-560MBps

Not all of their drives are absolute dogshit

Is ok to defrag a SSD?

>>57587316
It literally doesn't do anything. SSDs don't have to spin up and take time to find specific sectors. Your PC will just bully the SSD controller to give them the address of whatever sector your chinese cartoons are on.

>>57587276
You dont rate how fast a SSD is in MB/s but in IOPS.

By that logic all SSDs are the same.

Also their problem are quality/reliability not performance.

>>57585088
>afraid that it will ffail faster than a hard drive
it won't, unless you write multiple TB to it every day.

they are more reliable as in it wont break down as fast and there are no moving parts so you dont have to worry about that wearing down. other than that dont do it

>>57587577
Interestingly a 1TB 850 evo will be fine for more than 15 years even if you somehow managed to write 1TB of data to it a day.

>>57586013
Actually I don't think that's true. I used to have no SSD in my old computer and in the new one I do have SSD - there is really no difference in performance when it comes normal operation of the PC. I originally had my page file on the SSD, but I later moved it to a mechanical HDD and that makes no difference either.

Boot time is fast though, but I reboot every few months at most.

>>57585088
yes they are, it won't fail faster than a hdd. They are faster than standard hdds when reading/writing large amounts of small files.
this fuckhead >>57585100 doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.
The "SSDs are a meme" is actually the meme. SSDs are fine, don't cheap out and check on the models you are planning to buy because sometimes the larger models do have better performance.
>>57585143
Don't know if you are a stupid cunt or a stupid clueless cunt that repeats memes.

>>57585088
Reliable enough for day to day home use, but make sure anything important is also on other media.

Reliable enough for daily use in servers even. But again, it can't be your only copy. You don't see SSDs used in storage servers much, except as a fast caching tier. The business systems that do store critical data on SSD are constantly check-summing and moving data around.

>>57585088
Depends on the brand.

Buy a Samsung Pro or Intel SSD, they will last you longer than your next 10 hard drives put together

>>57585147
You have to write about 5-10 PB to a modern SSD to make it run out of blocks

To put things into perspective: If you want it to last 10 years (which is the warranty on them either way), then to use up all that data would require writing 1-2 TB per day, or 40-80 GB per hour.

Even with write amplification, that's basically absurd. I have a Samsung 850 Pro running as my main cache drive, which means it receives pretty much 24/7 load, for the past 1-2 years. According to the S.M.A.R.T. data I've used up 94 of its 8000 rated P/E cycles, let alone even begun to scratch the surface of its spare block resource.

At this rate it would last me a few hundred more years. You really, REALLY have to be trying to kill a modern SSD, and any HDD you put to those kinds of torture tests would fail significantly before reaching the 5-10 PB milestone.

SSDs are far more reliable, and far faster, than HDDs. The only reason people don't use them everywhere yet is that the storage cost ($/GB) is still worse.

>>57585168
A modern SSD, unpowered, will last about a few years in typical conditions before it starts losing its stored data. It's dependent on temperature.

If you see an SSD failing after a week that's because you have it inside a 150°C accelerated wear torture test or something, and even then 1 week sounds dubious. I would expect a few months at least even in very hot climates and terrible conditions.

>>57585918
To top things off, those were old / previous generation SSDs. If you buy an SSD today it will have 5x as many P/E cycles.

>>57586092
>>57585928
Stay away from cheap SSDs, their performance will often run into shit once you need to start trimming blocks and their reliability is generally extremely subpar.

You wouldn't buy the cheapest of the cheap power supplies, so why would you do it with your storage?

>>57590404
Because I'm a poorfag.

>>57590460
The poor are those who most need to invest in higher-quality products, because they will last you far longer thus saving money in the long run.

Then again, if you managed to think ahead then maybe you wouldn't be poor.

>>57590296
Yes and no. They still have failures, and they don't give you warning when they do. I've had 10s of them fail in our DC. That's a small fraction of the number of spinny drives we've had fail, but it still happens. If your intel SSD doesn't flake out for no good reason, yes: your grandchildren can take it to retro computer night and it will work. If they do flake out though, it will go from fully working to dead in the water in a heartbeat, and all your data is gone. Spinny drives complain a LOT before they are completely unrecoverable. That gives you time to copy your data off.

>>57590489
In order to invest, the capital must be available anon.

>>57590493
Yes, if you buy thousands of drivers and use them in an enterprise scenario you will experience failures. That's just statistics.

Not really relevant for consumers IMO

>>57590493
>Spinny drives complain a LOT before they are completely unrecoverable. That gives you time to copy your data off.
They don't necessarily. Many of them just fail outright, too. Google did a large-scale survey of the usefulness of error metrics (especially S.M.A.R.T. and read errors) in predicting HDD failures, and came to the conclusion that it's basically useless.

Also, once you start getting a drive that will throw you checksum errors it could last another minute or it could last another 3 years. I had a drive complain about pending sectors for years.

>>57585168
Not an argument.

>>57586274
>>57585280

Nobody reads the fucking sticky. I don't know why you faggots even bother making it. Half the users here come here to shill phones and shit on Linux users. Only a few people a month actually read the sticky.