4 ms·

I was really hoping this would actually contain some failure rates. Compared to this blog post, the wikipedia page for SSDs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid

by cbg0 8y ago

I was really hoping this would actually contain some failure rates. Compared to this blog post, the wikipedia page for SSDs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive) is more informative overall, and also doesn't advertise any cloud backup products.

ericcholis 8y ago
Surprising, since their HDD articles are quite detailed: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html
- kencausey 8y ago
  I suspect that they have not installed enough SSDs at this point to be able to provide statistically relevant data.
  - rodbauer 8y ago
    Roderick from Backblaze. That is true. We do not currently use SSDs for data storage. We do use them in some specialized areas where they make sense, as we described in a previous blog post that is linked in today's post.
hamiltont 8y ago
Agreed, this was sad to see. Their HDD articles have enough valuable knowledge+expertise to be an effective advertisement for BackBlaze - reading those posts made me revisit using B2 for my own needs. This article was clickbait. You expect their typical blog post quality, and instead get "An SSD should last as long as its manufacturer expects it to last". Hope they step it up for the next post (or are not afraid to stay quiet until they have some interesting data to write about)
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > ...reading those posts made me revisit using B2 for my own needs. I can echo that, since reading those articles, I have been using B2 more, and gifting years of BackBlaze to beloved lusers. I think it just takes time to generate good data like this though, and it seems that SSDs from the last ~3 years have considerably lower rates of unforeseen failure than hard disks, which makes measuring failures more difficult.
rodbauer 8y ago
Roderick here from Backblaze. This post is not based on our experiences with SSDs in our data centers and is a general article about SSD reliability. At some point in the future we could have enough experience and enough data on SSDs to write about how they perform in our own applications. We blog on a variety of topics that are aimed at different audiences with different levels of experience. The Drive Stats series is just one of those series, which we will be continuing.
- time0ut 8y ago
  I admit I felt some disappointment when I reached the end and there was no stats table. That said, I don't regret reading it. It was a well written post. Thank you for writing it.
- djmips 8y ago
  It just doesn't answer the question 'How Reliable Are SSDs'

by cbg0 8y ago

ericcholis 8y ago

Surprising, since their HDD articles are quite detailed: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html

kencausey 8y ago
I suspect that they have not installed enough SSDs at this point to be able to provide statistically relevant data.
- rodbauer 8y ago
  Roderick from Backblaze. That is true. We do not currently use SSDs for data storage. We do use them in some specialized areas where they make sense, as we described in a previous blog post that is linked in today's post.

hamiltont 8y ago

Agreed, this was sad to see. Their HDD articles have enough valuable knowledge+expertise to be an effective advertisement for BackBlaze - reading those posts made me revisit using B2 for my own needs. This article was clickbait. You expect their typical blog post quality, and instead get "An SSD should last as long as its manufacturer expects it to last". Hope they step it up for the next post (or are not afraid to stay quiet until they have some interesting data to write about)

microcolonel 8y ago
> ...reading those posts made me revisit using B2 for my own needs. I can echo that, since reading those articles, I have been using B2 more, and gifting years of BackBlaze to beloved lusers. I think it just takes time to generate good data like this though, and it seems that SSDs from the last ~3 years have considerably lower rates of unforeseen failure than hard disks, which makes measuring failures more difficult.

rodbauer 8y ago

Roderick here from Backblaze. This post is not based on our experiences with SSDs in our data centers and is a general article about SSD reliability. At some point in the future we could have enough experience and enough data on SSDs to write about how they perform in our own applications. We blog on a variety of topics that are aimed at different audiences with different levels of experience. The Drive Stats series is just one of those series, which we will be continuing.

time0ut 8y ago
I admit I felt some disappointment when I reached the end and there was no stats table. That said, I don't regret reading it. It was a well written post. Thank you for writing it.
djmips 8y ago
It just doesn't answer the question 'How Reliable Are SSDs'