Well, what about a falsely "functioning" SSD in a system with an SLA of 99.999%. Backups may not be the answer. Ok, it may be RAID1+0 but, what about data corr

Well, what about a falsely "functioning" SSD in a system with an SLA of 99.999%. Backups may not be the answer. Ok, it may be RAID1+0 but, what about data corruptions? If primary fails, and secondary is "ok" what will be the state of your data? You don't roll back an image when everything is green. The point is that in critical systems according to the SLA or the critical aspect of the mission (flight recorder, medical instruments...) silent failures, silent data corruption may not be ok. However for 99% of the business that is making money out of SSD right now in the world (advertisement, marketing) this is not really a concern. They don't aim at an absolute reliability. Most industry just aim at good enough. Some small islands of IT aims at doing a legally accurate book-keeping. Like banking, accounting, legal electronic archiving for instance... This topic is covered in Signal Processing in the first chapter of the cost of False Positive and False Negative. Security and risk management norms force to enumerate and evaluate the costs and predicting the outcomes of failures in terms of costs. Here, the paper is saying SSD works pretty much fine all the time. But for failure, there is a lot we don't know. How do you evaluate the cost of a risk you cannot compute? And how does another solution that maybe slower rates in risk management with a better failure model that can be better predicted? The scarriest part in the study is the implication that their could be propagation of failures by coupling in certain environment and that some failure could be snowballing. SSD are affected by heat/memory usage, CPU load is affected by failures, heat rises, SSD are more likely to fail .... They are implying that failures can propagate or spread or happen like a contamination. 1 SSD failing alone is already a problem, even small chances of coupling in failures is making the potentiality for a massive failure. Would you take that risk with a SLA of 99.999%?