2 ms·
They do, but it's uncommon. Having been using SSDs since at least 2011 or so, they've had a vastly better track record for me than HDDs have. In fact I have yet
by kitsunesoba 3y ago
They do, but it's uncommon. Having been using SSDs since at least 2011 or so, they've had a vastly better track record for me than HDDs have. In fact I have yet to see a single SSD of mine fail, whereas plenty of my HDDs have corrupted files or died.
This probably varies from person to person though. Someone who's shuffling around tens or hundreds of gigabytes a video per day for example probably burns through them much more quickly than I do, with the most disk intensive thing I do being software development.
- ChuckNorris89 3y agoOpposite experience from me. Never had a HDD fail ( I still have drives from the mid '00's running), but seen many SSDs fail, especially among the fleets at the companies I worked at, less so in my private life as I don't upgrade that often to have a large sample size. And the SSD fails were AFAIK never due to excessive wear from the user side but simply the SSD giving up the ghost out of nowhere probably due to faulty FW or faults in the NAND fabrication of RAM of the cache. SSD have enough points of failure despite no moving parts. HDDs would also fail more gracefully, like you'd usually get SMART warnings, crashes, strange noises before they'd inevitably die, but SSD simply just stop working one day out of the blue.
- kitsunesoba 3y agoI wonder if make and model of SSD factors in. Generally I've only purchased SSDs that have been proven reliable and don't try to cut costs by going for cheaper options with mystery meat controllers or cut rate NAND. As far as failing gracefully, for me HDDs have been a mixed bag. Some have shown warning signs beforehand but I've had a few that just up and died one day with their performance up until that point having been business as usual.