3 ms·

I've had a 256GB Crucial SSD running for a year without issue. I wrote about it at http://littlebitofcode.com/2011/03/02/a-year-with-a-ssd http://littlebitofco

by jcnnghm 15y ago

I've had a 256GB Crucial SSD running for a year without issue. I wrote about it at http://littlebitofcode.com/2011/03/02/a-year-with-a-ssd http://littlebitofcode.com/2011/03/02/a-year-with-a-ssd. I'm not concerned by failure rates because I have an excellent backup strategy. I've had dozens of spinning disks fail unexpectedly, they can and will fail as spectacularely and unexpectedly as an SSD could.

rkalla 15y ago
After 1 year Crystal Reports is giving you a 67% health rating? That seems... not great. I don't know how full the drive is, but I imagine you'll be look at a failed drive by 1.5year mark. For $630 I'm having a hard time getting excited about it. Totally agree that SSDs will fail as big and randomly as spindle disks, but for 10x the price (or whatever factor it is) is it wrong to expect better reliability? If you need the speed and have the money, more power to you, especially if you have a good backup strategy and losing a disk is no biggie... I just don't think many people realize HOW unstable these things are. That is all I'm pointing at.
- jcnnghm 15y ago
  The warranty is five years. I won't lose any data, and in two years I'll get a new drive from the manufacturer. I don't expect any reliability, hard drives aren't reliable, this is nothing new. The Crystal Disk Reports is based on the flash wear patterns, so if it's at 67% it is likely to last 2 more years not six more months. The way I calculated, the drive saved me enough time in the first year to pay for itself.
  - WettowelReactor 15y ago
    It cannot be stressed enough that hard drives (of any type) are not reliable. If your storage strategy is predicated on the assumed failure rates of your hard drives then your in for a nasty shock down the road. And as stated proper warranties eliminate most of the short term risk associated with failures.

by jcnnghm 15y ago

rkalla 15y ago

After 1 year Crystal Reports is giving you a 67% health rating? That seems... not great. I don't know how full the drive is, but I imagine you'll be look at a failed drive by 1.5year mark. For $630 I'm having a hard time getting excited about it. Totally agree that SSDs will fail as big and randomly as spindle disks, but for 10x the price (or whatever factor it is) is it wrong to expect better reliability? If you need the speed and have the money, more power to you, especially if you have a good backup strategy and losing a disk is no biggie... I just don't think many people realize HOW unstable these things are. That is all I'm pointing at.

jcnnghm 15y ago
The warranty is five years. I won't lose any data, and in two years I'll get a new drive from the manufacturer. I don't expect any reliability, hard drives aren't reliable, this is nothing new. The Crystal Disk Reports is based on the flash wear patterns, so if it's at 67% it is likely to last 2 more years not six more months. The way I calculated, the drive saved me enough time in the first year to pay for itself.
- WettowelReactor 15y ago
  It cannot be stressed enough that hard drives (of any type) are not reliable. If your storage strategy is predicated on the assumed failure rates of your hard drives then your in for a nasty shock down the road. And as stated proper warranties eliminate most of the short term risk associated with failures.