HDDs VS SSDs

Speed vs Capacity

You choose OP.

/thread

>>62259063
Jesus Christ, you people still exist?

>>62259063
>degrade
Protip: even HDD degrades over time. And your existence while waiting for read/write operations.
Their lifetime is on par if not superior to rotating disks.

>>62259063

>HDD=poorfag
>Hybrid drive=indesicive wage slave
>SSD=Chad CEO tier

File: 007goldeneye_DKmode_Trevelyan.png (217KB, 565x443px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 565x443px

SSD so you can post memes faster. I don't need one but I'll get one when the 500 gbs drop in price a year from now.

>>62259063
>Also are hybrid drives good or just a meme
I don't even know if they make those anymore. No don't bother with them they were basically just a hard drive with a shitty SSD attached.

Get an SSD but you should still use a HDD for stuff you want to store long term that you do not need to access frequently.

File: spongebob retard orb.png (263KB, 579x411px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 579x411px

how is this even a question

SSD
-reduced operating noise
-reduced heat
-reduced electricity (no motors)
-shock/impact resistant
-faster r/w i/o
-lighter weight
-no defrag

HDD
-long term storage without electron degrading in the cells
-repairable (replace mobo or spindle is possible or even moving platters)
-cheaper
-reliable software
-power loss protection
-doesnt require trim

>>62259439
>SSD
>no defrag
.... defrag? in the current year?
>long term storage without electron degrading in the cells
if you believe that you can use HDD for cold storage without regularly powering them on, you're wrong
>repairable (replace mobo or spindle is possible or even moving platters)
you're not realistically ever going to do that. it's expensive as hell and you'd just use a backup. because you have a backup, right?
>reliable software
doesn't make sense.
>power loss protection
doesn't make sense. This, paired with the "electron" thing, makes my retard detector tingle.

>>62259439
It's technically possible for a sufficiently equipped data recovery organization to repair or recover data from a fucked up drive but I don't think the average person could. If you open a HDD outside of a cleanroom you immediately expose the platters to contaminants. I'm not sure if the platters can even be safely handled without rendering the drive unusable. I think the magnetized zones on a modern drive's platters are so small you could put them out of alignment and render the drive unreadable if you even remove them.

>>62259063
>they degrade over time
Why the fuck does this 2008 meme keep floating around?

>>62259635
>>power loss protection
>doesn't make sense
Go ahead and pull the cord on your computer when writing AND accessing something to/from a ssd and hdd at the same time and see which one has corrupted shit.

>>62260115
>what's CoW

>>62259063
The correct option is having both.
HDD for animu, manga, vidya, movies, etc; where you need to privilege amount over speed.
SSD is for OS mainly, making boot routines very fast. And for use specially for Windows 10, which loves to clog HDDs with useless read/write operations in the background, even when you are doing nothing.

Do they still have the issue with Windows writing temp files to them that burn out the r/w limit in like 6 months?

File: IMG_20170730_181859.jpg (3MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3024x4032px

This plus my 40tb nas

>>62259063
SSDs last longer than HDDs. The only issue is pricing. As soon as prices become equal HDDs are finished and bankrupt.

unless SSD's at 3tb and 4TB get under 400USD then i think ALL ssd is finance friendly enough to be bough for main stream storage.

that said if you have the money for be over charged paying 3 times the price for the same storage on the large scale it doesn't make secne for the arverage joe / jane.

that said I think my collection is small enough that a small chunk could go SSD.

unlesss your young now and just building a PC going from a HDD to SSD is not worth it unless you just need it for boot times.

1TB drives outside the US are not cheap enough yet and sell slowly and many people have out grown 1TB drives.
the 2TB are far too expenise vs the HDD conter part.

I still even after all this time don't reconmend a SSD over a HDD for long term storage unless you have the money and storage.

you need to stop and think: can i replace this if it breaks fast and effencly if not then its not a good idea.

For those that upgrade every time a new part comes out its best to not bother your wasting your money.

theres my two cents.

>>62262416
That's like saying that the only reason that people don't use Swiss watches is the pricing, and when that comes down, those $5 dollar quartz watches at Walmart are finished. I don't see it happening.

>>62259063
SSD so I don't need to worry my HDD gets vibrated and get died when using my thinkpad on train.

>>62262471
no it isn't. some people actually appreciate watchmaking as a craft and don't want battery watches. no-one appreciates HDDs as anything other than cheaper storage.

>>62262525
Agreed, but what I'm saying is that I don't think SSD will ever beat the price of hybrid/HDD.

File: 1503015561614.jpg (88KB, 444x471px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 444x471px

>>62259063

>>62262597
lol no. That's not how that works. Data is stored in SSDs in pages contained in blocks stored in lookup tables. Since files cannot share a page the SSD has to find an available page in the look up table. This increases overall average read/write time but is negated by the speed of the read/writes. HDDs also use this same process and that is why, after a while, you have to defrag your hard drive.

File: blocks_your_path.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

Nobody gonna answer?
>>62260582

>>62259093
This.

Degradation in SSDs really isn't a thing anymore. Yea maybe in 10 years they'll start to go, but by that time you'll probably have replaced em. Use ssds for where you need speed (i.e. OS partition) and hdds where you need capacity.

>>62262663
How new are you?

I just cannot go back to using a computer which has OS installed on a hard disk. It's fucking ridiculous once you've tasted the speed of a SSD.

File: CXycUd4UoAAno3v.png (227KB, 444x471px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 444x471px

>>62259063

SSD for OS and all programs, HDD 7200RPM for files and media and such.

>>62260582
>>62262934
It was never a problem? If you mean page file, it's exactly the same as swap partition, it's just a file...

File: Steve Snake.jpg (18KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 280x280px

>>62259063
>Oh look, it's yet another "HDD VS SSD" threa--
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/75506444

/thread

>>62259063
>I'm tempted to get an SSD

I kind of wish I was you. I doubt I will get to experience anything else as close to a paradigm shift in my lifetime as when I moved my system and frequently used programs to an SSD.

>apparently they degrade over time

As opposed to HDDs that last forever, right?

>>62263648
t. Idiot.

HDD if you dont care about speed but want safety

>>62263648
If you don't power them on for ages (i.e. more than 1 year) their "inherent magnetic properties" (...) typically degrade. Data hoarders using HDDs for cold storage have to power them on at least once a year. You can't save data and store away like DVDs/BDs/CDs. HDDs are good for spinning data in RAIDs, that's it.

>>62259063

I have an 250 gB ssd that i use for my OS since 2012 ans it still work perfectly nice. I also have a 1 raid for local storage and a 3 tb nas.
I will never come back.

2TB SSD as the only drive. Locally encrypted backups into the cloud. Occasional backups to a 2TB external hard drive with rsync script.
I'm tired of hard drives with their buzzing, click-clacking and whirring. Even the most expensive ones that I've had eventually started making more noise than the rest of my computer combined

>>62263530
I have HDDs that lasted for 11 and are still going.

I'd hope an SSD can at least match that.

Any good Thunderbolt 3 portable HDDs?

only one I saw that's good is the LaCie rugged

>>62259063
The current advice all over the tech world is very clear and consistent...no grey areas: get an SSD for your boot drive + daily programs and mechs for storage.

>>62265518
>RAID
Obsolete. ZFS mirrors are what's cool now.

>rotational velocidensity

>>62267092
>ZFS
>cool now
>cool
>now
how's being stuck in 2007

>>62267160
SSDs have unironical vertical/3D velocidensity

>>62266059
Average life span of hdds is 5-10 years.
SSDs are worth their price

>>62268333
>>62268470
Idiots.

>>62268355
I never had an HDD last me less than 10 years yet, except that one Seagate with Firmware defect.

HDDs have many cons but lifespan is not one of them.

>>62265518

I thought that DVDs (Or really any optical media) had a shelf-life of 10 years or so? Even properly stored and what not. I burned some data to DVDs years ago, stored them in a proper container, which was climate controlled (Temp, humidity, etc) and they are 9 years old and struggle to be read. I gotta pull the data off them before it's too late... And they are not scratched, or worn.... They worked great years ago.

So I don't see what the issue is. I have a 2TB drive I cold-store now, I power it on every 6-8 months and do back-up to it.

>degrade over time
absolute non-issue. by the time an SSD bites the dust due to write cycles its capacity is outdated and an HDD would have long failed mechanically.

>>62259111
ssds have too many problems and fail.

>>62259439
>-reduced operating noise
that is laughable.

>>62263894
I was referring to shit like temp and cache files, superfetch, search index, etc. This was before windows had options to detect you were using an ssd and account for it but even today, if you're only using an ssd won't Internet cache and shit create excessive writes that kill it? or are the write life cycles so high now it doesn't matter?
https://www.google.com/amp/lifehacker.com/5802838/how-to-maximize-the-life-of-your-ssd/amp

>>62269784

HDDs have worse failure rates than SSDs, the only one who is inclined to believe otherwise are absolute poorshits who can't even afford a $70 PC part to make their life infinitely better.

>>62269805

On my secondary machine I have two 3 TB Hitachi drives that sound like someone's tapdancing on top of the PC case whenever they do any read operations, and even worse when they write. I got them with the exact same mentality you're exhibiting: noise doesn't matter. But man, do they piss me off. Fortunately they're just back up drives and all actual work is done on SSDs which are dead quiet.

>>62259063
MTBF on SSD is like 10x higher, all you need to know (the 10x transfer rates is just icing on the cake) but that's why they cost a lot more.

(I do worry even with TRIM and etc, they might not be great for databases/cache files with TONS of writes...)

>>62259439
>no defrag

Dude, that not depends on the disk type, depends on the file system.

I bought SSD in 2012 still works as new.
99% healthy

>>62271666
90% of people are using Windows, and by extension NTFS, which needs weekly defragmenting at least.

>>62259063
SSD, honestly the best thing you can do if you want fast load speed. SSDs do degrade but to have problems with it you really have to be reading and, in particular, writing huge amounts of data per day.

>>62259063
>they degrade over time.

Maybe the old as fuck ones, they don't unless you piss on them or something, otherwise by that logic HDDs degrade too.
HDDs are several times slower than SSDs because they have literal mechanical parts which slow down memory fetching since the system is very basic shit of mechanical nature.
It's a fucking rock that brushes its teeth in a way.
The pro is that they're cheap to make, so you can easily get a shitload of memory.

SSDs don't have those mechanical parts, so they end up being faster, but of course you know how much they cost.

>>62268333
Magnetic potential of a molecule has to do with the state of an electron around a nucleus, and its spin value. Over time, those states can decay.

>>62259063
SSDs last longer than HDDs. The degradation takes decades.

HDDs will spontaneously break.
SSDs will get slower very marginally, and can be monitored. After 50 years your drive will only be readable, but it won't fail and cause you to lose your data.

>>62274048
defragging ssds only wear them down, nothing else

>>62271666
>>62274048
The point isn't whether or not the filesystem develops fragmentation, it's the effect it has on seek times. For old-fashioned hard drives it matters, because the head has to seek to different parts of the drive to get different bits on the same file. For SSDs it really doesn't matter, since reading from different areas of the drive aren't really any slower than a contiguous read.

>>62275078
ssds can fail at any time just like anything else. the main difference being if the controller in an ssd dies the data is lost forever where in an hdd you can swap it.

also, not every ssd goes into read-only mode, and all of them that do once you reboot the machine the data is lost, so that is in no way something to rely on

>>62275214
HDDs dying is rarely the controller, more often it's the disc itself.

But that aside, if the data is important enough that you don't want to lose it, don't rely on how readable the drive is expected to be if it fails. Make regular backups.

>>62269784
even bottom barrel chink shit ssds are better than hdds at this point in terms of performance and life, the few stories I have seen of ssds catching fire were all due to people using molex to sata injection mold versions,

>>62259766
the only real test I can find is 2 years ago and it found consumer drivers retained for 60 days and enterprise for 13

>>62262531
There is real competition in nand manufacturing, along with one patent holder getting so pissed off at their partner dragging their ass that they opened the patent up to every manufacturer to use, and it apparently is better than samsung, I think we will start to see that soon.

as stacking tech gets better, we will see ssds get cheaper and with hdds dragging their ass on heat assistance, ssds could out do hdds in capacity soon for similar prices.

My SSD broke down after only 5 months.

>>62275437
I work at a blue and yellow retail chain, and I kept telling a customer about how the SSD in the laptop he was going to buy would improve his QoL. He came back 3 days later saying he typed up a lot of his PhD work up on the computer and the SSD completely fried. It was an issue with the voltage into the drive, but it really sucked. He was in tears. I really felt like shit about it, and I still do.

>>62275856
>3 days of work.
probably nothing.

File: frog blu ray.png (35KB, 581x197px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 581x197px

>>62269673
>I thought that DVDs (Or really any optical media) had a shelf-life of 10 years or so?
No. A correctly stored DVD/BD will last longer. The only real things that can hamper those are humidity, temperature and light. As long as you keep them in a dry, cool and dark place, they're fine.

>and struggle to be read
I've experienced the opposite. I can even read CDs burned more than 20 years ago. I double checked some of those recently with dvdisaster, not a single faulty sector. And those were cheap-quality batches. DVD has improved erasure codes and BD improved on DVDs. BDs are replacing tapes in amateurish companies like facebook. DVDs/BDs will outlive you if handled correctly. In short, besides anecdotal evidence, data suggests you're factually wrong.

>I don't see what the issue is
Hard drives are not made for cold storage, that's the issue.
>https://superuser.com/questions/374609/what-medium-should-be-used-for-long-term-high-volume-data-storage-archival/873260#873260
>Thus, you cannot just store data on a hard disk, store it in a closet and think that it will retain data without any electrical connection: you need to plug your HDD to an electrical source at least once per year or per couples of years.
Also the mechanical parts _need_ to be powered on sometimes.

>I power it on every 6-8 months
then you're fine, provided you handle them correctly. It's still an extra-step that may add unnecessary stress.

>>62275856
>writes PhD
>doesn't keep a constant backup for 3 (three) days of his shitty .docx/.odt and/or accompanying PDFs
Are you fucking kidding me. What a retard

>>62276299
>>62276143

The worst part is that he bought a subscription to 1TB of OneDrive space, which can be set to automatically back up everything you do to the cloud, but he just hadn't set it up yet.

>>62259635
>>reliable software
>doesn't make sense.
Most consumer SSDs have horrible firmware reliability compared to hard drives. Try using something other than NTFS with continuous TRIM enabled, or enable Opal.

>>62261853
why such a big box for such a small part?

>>62275856
When I said my SSD broke after 5 months, I was actually just trolling to see if anyone would post a similar situation. I don't even have an SSD.

>>62276498
I've been using XFS on SSDs literally for years, never had an issue. Did have a problem with HFS+ on one, but that was a MacOS-on-non-Apple-SSD problem rather than an SSD problem.

>>62259105
This, looking back the "SSD is a meme" meme is going to end up being one of the biggest wastes of time for people who think they're "tech inclined". Basically one step above "the raspberry pi is a linux processor" you are going full neo-luddite repeating shit you heard 10 years ago while you hold onto your C2D and its 80 gig hard drive.

This information was relevant in 2006. By the time SSDs got to you as a consumer product in 2008 they were already superior to hard drives except for price per gb.

my sandisk ssd plus just killed itself.
it's not the nand degrading, it just won't turn on.
so power delivery is fried.

File: 49d.jpg (116KB, 680x954px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 680x954px

>>62276572
You have GOT to try f2fs with systemd boot.
5 second boot times and fast gets faster for random I/O.

>>62276498
I've used a good dozen SSDs and over 5 dozen HDDs.
They are both awful.
Use checksums and an advanced filesystem and you can cry less later when it turns out your hardware is melting.

>>62276572
XFS implies neither of the features I mentioned by default, but it's good to hear it Works For You™ with certain nonspecific drives.

>>62276670
>You have GOT to try f2fs with systemd boot.
UEFI implementations can natively read only from fat 99% of the times. They can be instructed to read from ext or wifekillerfs or whatever if you prefer, it's still an overhead. You want to load an EFISTUB kernel from a EF00 in fat.

>>62276572
I used XFS on HDD once, never again. It earned its fame as data killer for a reason.
No, Redhat, I won't touch it ever again.

>>62276670
>5 second boot times and fast gets faster for random I/O.
I dunno, I don't find myself getting impatient enough with my 12 second boot times to be worth screwing with anything else.

>>62276847
That's weird, because it's been the most reliable filesystem I've ever used.

>>62276830
It's done correctly.
I have a 128M FAT for EFI but after the kernel kicks to root it picks up on f2fs and I'm at the login screen.
Only other thing that could help is coreboot but I'm a little too pleb for chip clips and a pi.

Can a modified EFI partition with compression support speed it further? lz4 would be a godsend.

>>62268698
>>HDDs have many cons but lifespan is not one of them.
Random failure absolutely is. I've had a couple last 10+ years but most die before then.

>>62259063
How much space do you want and how much can you spend? If you need a main drive and don't have 2 million games, get an SSD. If you have a shitload of media and don't care about responsiveness, get an HDD.

>>62277030
Agreed. I've lost count of the number of hard drives I've seen die on the computers at work, with considerable variation in their ages.

And on the other hand, there's a 15GB drive that I can't even figure out how old it is, still going strong.

>>62277136
>there's a 15GB drive that I can't even figure out how old it is, still going strong.
I have a 2GB from like 1997 that still works.

>>62277149
Hell, there are hard drives from the 80s out there that still work. Not bloody many and growing ever rarer, but there are still some out there.

Also, I just figured out how old that 15GB drive is; manufactured in 2000.

>>62276670
what's a good checksum util?

File: bogmatrix.jpg (14KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 227x222px

>>62277735
ZFS or BTRFS
Layering checksums at the filesystem level is the new hotness.
Layering them manually or by script incurs huge performance issues for large files and even a tiny change will need a resum of the entirety of the file. Otherwise if you want to go the hard route "file.img | sha512sum"

Use an advanced filesystem, even if only for your backup data.
If you run windows: Virtualize your servers and run them on an advanced filesystem at the very least. iSCSI can host your storage and your machines can pull it remotely too.

File: hmm.jpg (17KB, 294x296px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 294x296px

>>62259063
I've still never owned an SSD lol. My motherboard only has SATA II, so an SSD *would* be 2x faster than my HDD, but I don't want to get one until I've got a SATA III board.

A PCIE SATA III card would give me a little extra speed, but still less than SATA III because PCIE 2.0 bottlenecks.

And I'm not buying a new motherboard just to get SATA III. If I do buy a new board, it's gonna be DDR4, which means I have to also buy new memory and shit has started adding up.

These are first world problems big time. Are there any other poor N33TS like me out there

>>62259063
get an ssd dude it doesn't matter
you'll never want a single mechanical harddrive again.
Harddrives still have their place but if you can only have one of either, then ssd is the way to go.

SSHD master race

>>62277886
It's not about the read/write speeds but access speeds. SATA II don't bottleneck those much

>>62277806
> Virtualize your servers and run them on an advanced filesystem
Great chance to fuck everything up if something happens.
People either have replication set up between servers or use something simple like ext.

>>62259063

Solid-state media is superior then HDDs then almost everything expect archival data storage and density.

HDDs are becoming the next tape media. They are going to be used primarily for bulk data storage and archival stuff. Disaster recovery from modern HDDs is almost impossible due to how dense the bloody platters are.The sectors are becoming and more and more magnetically sensitive. They are going beyond the reach of majority of disaster recovery services. You are SOL with any of the shingled hard drives for disaster recovery.

Solid-state media degeneration mostly comes in performance loss. You usually can savage a drive before the cells start to burn in and reading doesn't effect it (what is you do with data recovery).

The majority of the SSD failures are from faulty firmware and power disruption. HDDs had the same issue back 20+ years ago. Newer generation SSD are much more tolerant of power disruption and firmware is fairly mature.

There's little reason to get HDDs outside of budget concerns and bulk data storage needs.

>>62260421
This. God damn knoblets, anything above and below that is shitposting.

/thread

>>62276439
dumb move and 3 days of PhD work is nothing.

pc is silent till hard drive spins up, do i get a 1tb ssd or a 500gb m2 joint?

SSD for OS HDD for storage.
You dont want an SSD if you dont know what to do with your computer so you install and uninstall stuff frequently.
Expected lifetime of a mid-range SSD under 24/7 use is something like 3 years,its worth the speed increase in my opinion.

>HDD for storage
poorfags / stupid data hoarders. SSD for OS, SSD for storage

my crucial SSD is at 10% after 4 years

>>62282396
You dont do long-term storage on SSD.You just dont.

>>62282438
why not?

Buy both and install your os on the ssd

File: poweroff.png (58KB, 678x256px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 678x256px

>>62283473
For a start.

Ssd speed hdd storage

Just cop a small SSD and install your OS on it so you boot instantly, if your a gaymer install the games you play the most on the ssd too. If your not a gaymer, what else would you need a SSD for beside booting fast?

File: xO1Ocr2.png (478KB, 455x356px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 455x356px

>>62276558
for protection

>>62259063

>degrade

when a HDD degrades your computer doesnt boot

when an SSD degrades it simply doesnt store anything and goes into read only mode so you can easily transfer everything

also virtually zero I/O lag

forget the speed meme, get the cheapest SSD for the capacity you need on pcpartpicker

if the CS1311 is within a few bucks get it, they currently have the fastest series, the SK is also pretty good but fuck the EVO series

>>62259063
Buy many 80gb hdds
Raid 0
Profit

Capacity + Speed with not that much money

>>62271085
Indeed. Hitachi are very loud, I agree. Even seagate or WD are by no means silent like an SSD. The person you had to reply to is a fucking idiot.
Moving parts = noise

>>62259063


hdd : capacity
SSD: Speed, longevity, response time

>>62285192
Assuming none of your drives fail the extra electricity being used for those shit drives will become more costly than an ssd.

>>62262663
fuck off nerd

Holy FUCKING shit i just ran autopatcher with my new 850 evo on my ryzen build and it was incredibly fucking fast, seriously this shit used to take 5 minutes at least and this fucking thing loaded the update tree in almost less than a minute

Seriously i'm never going to switch back to a spinner, i just hope VeraCrypt won't fuck up the speed too much but maybe i'll fire up RAPID mode or the performance optimization (downloaded an older magician version just for dat) if it does after a while

>>62285145
>fuck the EVO series

Werks on my machine laddo

>>62262663
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

By the time your SSD fails (or you just got unlucky with a lemon just like HDD's can be) then you will have upgraded to the next wizz bang storage by then anyhow, The issue here is memory shortages are holding back large and affordable SSD's (or cartel manipulation perhaps). I was hoping for 2TB SSD's for a couple of hundred by now.

Is "hardware-based AES Disk Encryption" just a honeypot meme designed to lure the sheeple away from reliable third party full disk encryption solutions such as truecrypt and veracrypt?

>>62276225
>>Thus, you cannot just store data on a hard disk, store it in a closet and think that it will retain data without any electrical connection: you need to plug your HDD to an electrical source at least once per year or per couples of years.
I found this out the hard way

Definitely get yourself a cheap 128gb Sandisk for you OS plus Office and other frequently used stuff.

I put my big games on a HDD. GTA5 and Doom load quickly enough once they're initially loaded anyway.

I put ESO on my SSD and it still loads like ass because it's always waiting on the server to connect and create an instance.

WoW on the other hand flies on the SSD, so I figured ESO would be worth carving up some space for it, but I'm sure if I were to move it to the HDD, I wouldn't really notice.

I boot up my PC but soon after the Windows logo the drivers fail or some shit so i dont get a display. To fix this i hit the reset button on my case and this lets me get a display.

My OS is on an SSd, and I have a second SSD for some shit. Are they fucked with near daily """random""" shut offs?

>>62285031
Vinesause Joel