Well mine was bought more than 5 years ago and still has 97% remaining life according to HWInfo and Hard Disk Sentinel, so yeah (256 gb)
My 1st ssd, a sata 2 OCZ Vertex is still in use as a portable USB drive - must be coming on for 9 years old or thereabouts ?
I still haven't got any problems after 5 years with my Toshiba SSD. I think it's also related to how "heavy" it's used when it comes to disk writes and reads.
Not reads, but writes. And this was a problem with first generation SSDs 9 or 10 years ago that were heavily used. There is still a limit today but it is so high, normal users will never reach it. And 99% of the users out there would be considered normal in this area. It is because this write limit is so high that more and more data centers are using SSDs these days. They still primarily use hard drives for their mass storage needs due to costs. But many are incorporating SSDs to cache more frequently requested data for faster - much faster access and response times. As a side note, it is because the number of reads are not a problem that SSDs and page files are ideal for each other. See Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives and scroll down to, "Frequently Asked Questions, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?" While the article is getting old, it applies even more so today since wear problems of early generation SSDs are no longer a problem and each new generation of SSD just keeps getting better and better.
Thanks for the info. And yes, I'm also a big fan of SSD's. I must say I'm very disappointed that they still don't offer 1TB SSD's in desktops, I mean come on, it's 2019. I'm also planning to buy external SSD's for making back ups, so I'm ready to completely abandon HDD's. And I forgot to mention that it's a real bummer that DVR's are becoming cloud based, I had hoped to make TV recordings on SSD's one day.
Who's they? 10 seconds of homework with your browser shows you can get a Dell with 1 or 2TB SSDs and you can customize just about any computer they offer to include large capacity SSDs, including notebooks. Newegg in the US offers dozens of PCs with 1TB or larger SSDs. And of course, regardless where you live, if you build your own, or have a local shop build your own, you have lots of SSD options up to 7.6TB SSDs - if you have deep enough pockets. Depends on your service. Mine is a hybrid service - local drive and cloud. The advantage to cloud based is you can watch it from anywhere - you don't have to be home. I like the hybrid service. Cloud so you can watch from anywhere, but you can download it locally so you can watch it later at home without being connected to the Internet.
In general and in theory, are m.2 SSDs (nvme) inherently less durable than the same capacity of SATA SSDs? My desktop machine can hold both but I prefer the former because it's flush and air flow is somewhat better. It costs about 1/4-1/3 more than its SATA counterpart though.
Not sure what you mean by "durable". M.2 SSDs have more exposed components and contacts. So in terms of vulnerabilities to physical abuse, I supposed you could say they are less durable if you, for example, dropped it and stomped on it with combat boots. But both are designed to be [more or less] permanently installed inside the computer case and one of the primary jobs of computer cases is to physically protect the components inside. So in that sense, durability is moot point. As far "reliability" over time, one is not better than the other. If I were doing a new build and my motherboard supported M.2, I would probably opt for a M.2 SSD over a standard SATA SSD.
Um, no, I meant in terms of remaining drive life and wear over time from writes. My 960 EVO, which holds an old backup image now, went to 98% DRL within just one year, with only low-moderate writes, nothing intensive. Maybe it was in a bad batch, I don't know. Although your mentioning combat boots did remind me as I was wondering whether it is easier or harder to recover data off an nvme versus regular SSD. The nvme isn't as brittle as it looks by far, do you scratch it w/a nail or what? This is asked of anyone who's knowledgeable about these things, no one in particular.
Then as I noted, the reliability (failure rate) over time is essentially the same. Data recovery would be the same. As far as something being brittle or getting scratched, again, you install them inside the computer case. So the point is moot. If you were using this as an external drive, then I would want a standard SATA drive as the components are housed in those cases.
I believe that to extend the life and keep safe the SSD is again useful to disable many system process, as here: https://www.thomas-krenn.com/en/wiki/Optimize_Windows_for_SSDs and many other articles in the Web.
I don't believe that this is necessary. Even if you do absolutely nothing at all to optimise for SSD usage, a SSD should last for many years and probably longer than a hard drive.
I agree with Roger. I think that article is nonsense - and in some cases, it is simply wrong, and even detrimental to the optimal performance of SSD based system. Note it was clearly written for Windows 7. So MAYBE, when W7 first came out in 2009 and if using first generation SSDs, some of those suggestion MIGHT have been beneficial for a few SSDs users. But with later generation SSDs, fully updated W7, W8 and especially with W10, no way would I do any of that. Note it talks about disabling defragging SSDs. When a SSD is physically attached to a computer, even early versions of W7 computers, at the hardware level the system knows it is a SSD and not a hard drive. All operating systems (including W7 and later) know it is a SSD and not a hard drive. Consequently, defragging is automatically disabled for all SSDs. Admittedly, the name of that disk "Tool" in W7 caused confusion. That is exactly why Microsoft changed the name of the defragger in W8 and W10 to "Disk Optimize". Windows will not defrag a SSD even if you tell it too. The author is right that SSDs have superior read speeds but load times can still be improved with the various fetch routines. It is not about putting the files "at the front" of the disk - but the order in which files are loaded - if loaded at all. Keeping the various fetch routines enabled does NOT decrease the life of the SSDs. Even for first generation SSDs, the number of writes needed to setup fetch likely are in the single digits. He talks about moving the PF to a HD. That's just silly and WILL slow down your system. SSDs are ideally suited for Page Files. See Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives and scroll down to, "Frequently Asked Questions, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?" While the article is getting old, it applies even more so today since wear problems of early generation SSDs are no longer a problem and each new generation of SSD just keeps getting better and better. I'm not going to waste any more or your or my time addressing points in that article. Just ignore that article and let Windows manage your SSD. Contrary to what some want to believe, the developers at Microsoft are not stupid, or ignorant when it comes to SSDs. I don't know if I can say the same thing about the marketing weenies and execs there, but the developers know what they are doing! There is no reason you cannot assume any SSD you buy today will outlast a hard drive. It is more likely you will retire the computer long before you come close to the write limits of the SSD. This is one reason more and more Data centers are using SSDs to cache their most commonly accessed data.
What I meant is that most of the big desktop makers don't offer 1TB SSDs, not even in gaming desktops. However, I just discovered that Lenovo has launched a new high end desktop with a 1TB SSD, this is a first in Holland. But I had expected that big SSDs would have become quite common in 2019, companies like HP, Dell, Asus and Acer mostly still offer a SDD+HDD combo. Over here in Holland the new trend is to scrap HDDs, everything is recorded in the cloud. Of course this has advantages, but I think it's more about cutting costs for ISP's. I can only hope that ISP's will still allow USB recording via external drives.
Except they do. I showed you Dell. You noted Lenovo. You may have to choose the custom build option, and they may only offer them on select models but most of the big desktop makers (and I would NOT count ASUS as a "big" maker) do offer them - "IF" you are willing to pay. And that's the key point. Cost. SSDs still cost a lot more per GB than HDDs. So in order to stay competitive and to keep their prices LOOKING attractive to shoppers who are comparing brands, these computers are going to be "marketed" with less expensive HDDs and/or with less expensive smaller SSDs. We are not going to see widespread large SSD offerings in factory built computers until the prices per GB drop considerably. They have already, but still have a long ways to go. My take is this is just another reason to either build your own, or find a local shop who will custom build a PC for you. That's a global trend, not, by any means exclusive to Holland. I don't see how it cuts costs for ISPs however. Local storage means less network traffic and less network storage requirements. And ISPs make a fortune leasing the boxes to their customers who, over time, pay several times more in rental fees than the cost of the box. If your ISP offers cloud storage and/or cloud DVD service, I see it as another revenue making practice, not cost cutting.
I had 2 Mushkin SSDs. They both died almost immediately after the 2 year warranty ended. I have 2 Intel drives. Both 5 years old and showing 99%. We have a couple of SanDisk drives at work. 9 months old. 1 shows 95% and the other has bad blocks. Just replaced it with a new Samsung. So far Intel wins but lifespan varies greatly. You never know what you're going to get. Really disappointed in the SanDisk. Keep regular disk images.
Wow. The first SSD I ever owned was a Muskin 128GB and it is still running after more than 10 years. I wonder if you had a power hit?
It was a pair of the Callisto drives. They had very poor reviews. After the fact of course. They were fast but didn't last long. I've been using their RAM forever without issues.
Me too. I have an old Mushkin 580W PSU I bought in 2009 still chugging along too. Too bad about the SSDs. Glad I've had better luck.
To clarify, this Lenovo model hasn't been on the market for more than a month, and it's only one who offers a 1TB SSD. None of the others (HP, Dell, Acer) offer this over here in Holland. Hopefully Lenovo will now push others to do the same. It's also priced quite attractive, only about 1000 bucks. https://www.coolblue.nl/product/830399/lenovo-ideacentre-t540-15icb-90l1005gmh.html And this is what bugs me. I had hoped that by now, big SSD's whould have become mainstream. But instead, they still offer mostly SSD+HDD combo's in desktops. Also, I'm not the type that buys custom build machines. The way I see it, is that electronic manufacturers don't have to integrate HDD's any longer into DVR's, so they can offer them cheaper to ISP's. So it's a way to cut costs, but it's true that network traffic and storage also require huge investments. But anyway, I'm not a big fan of cloud based DVR's, I rather record locally.
I understand, but it is the market (consumer buying habits) that drives this. Not the SSD or computer makers. Certainly, computer makers can go all SSD instead of SSD + HD. But that will surely increase the cost of the computer. While that may be just $100 to $200, that is more than enough to cause many potential buyers to go with the competition. It should be pointed out that "custom built" does NOT imply "proprietary". In fact, a custom built computer implies total ATX Form Factor compliance. And that is a very good thing for consumers as it means we have almost unlimited upgrade and expansion capabilities from an unlimited number of brands with the assurance everything will all fit together perfectly, physically and electronically. When you buy a factory built computer - especially from the major makers (Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, Apple, etc.) chances are there will be proprietary components in there that greatly limit upgrade and expansion options - often requiring consumers buy only from Dell, Lenovo, etc. This is bad for consumers. Nah, I don't see that as a valid reason. HDs are cheap - especially when the DVR makers can go to WD or Seagate and promise to buy 1,000,000 HDs every year. And again, ISPs will quickly make up any difference and continue to reap in the money with monthly device rental fees and DVR service fees. This is the same concept cell phone carriers use where they "give away" very expensive cell phones with their service. The cost of the hardware becomes almost chump change.
That's the thing, prices should have dropped by now. So I have to give credit to Lenovo. A 1TB SSD plus a high-end GPU for only 1000 euro is a pretty nice deal. Companies like Dell and HP would probably charge you at least 400 euro more. To clarify, it's a mental thing, I always like to buy stuff from big name brands. To me it stands for quality. Even when they are cheap, it still costs money. I don't see any other reason why they would stop with HDD based DVR's. But anyway, we're going off topic now.
