What Is the Real Life Expectancy of an SSD?

Discussion in 'hardware' started by ZMsiXone, Jul 2, 2019.

  1. ZMsiXone

    ZMsiXone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Posts:
    264
    Location:
    EUROPE/poland/germany
    https://www.itprotoday.com/storage/what-real-life-expectancy-ssd

     
  2. Floyd 57

    Floyd 57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Europe
    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)
     
  3. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    The bottom line in that article says it all,
    Everybody's mileage will vary.
     
  4. Fad

    Fad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    England
    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 ?
     
  5. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    11,763
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
  6. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    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.
     
  7. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    11,763
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
  8. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    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.
     
  9. plat1098

    plat1098 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2018
    Posts:
    127
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    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.
     
  10. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    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.
     
  11. Infected

    Infected Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    967
    Same here, i have two of these also. 80gb each, haven't seen any slow downs.
     
  12. plat1098

    plat1098 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2018
    Posts:
    127
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    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. :)
     
  13. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    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.
     
  14. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,950
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
  15. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,150
    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.
     
  16. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,465
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    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.
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.