9 ms·

I assume 7 days is worst-case scenario, corporate-level drive quality (which is lower than consumer-grade) plus high temperature? Is it becoming necessary to s

I assume 7 days is worst-case scenario, corporate-level drive quality (which is lower than consumer-grade) plus high temperature? Is it becoming necessary to switch to a filesystem that ensures data integrity with redundancy and regular checksums?

dogma1138 11y ago
most corporate level SSD's are actually better than entry level consumer ones.
- lectrick 11y ago
  Not according to the article :O I presume it is assumed that corporate policy has better data integrity best practices than your average Joe Homeowner.
  - baruch 11y ago
    The requirements for an enterprise SSD is lower than that of the consumer SSD under the assumption that such SSDs are hardly ever left unpowered for an extended period of time. The SSD is in fact better because it better uses its internal resources to optimize for things other than retention without power.
  - creshal 11y ago
    According to the slides, Enterprise SSDs are tested to much stricter standards (one order of magnitude better error rate).
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Read the presentation this was the load testing for the Enterprise test, it's pretty much a torture test with 100% load time. With this I'm actually surprised that the SSD's lasted as much as they did, for about 6 years now I've been using SSD's and the longest one of them survived so far is less than 18 months, and at much lower loads than what they've tested in. Since late 2008 I've been always running 2 SSD's for my main system drive in raid 0 with no much load on them other than games, some work stuff and the OS. At any point in which the drive has no more spare blocks to relocate failed blocks too i toss it away and replace it (if read errors come close to critical i do the same). For the first couple of years the SSD's only lasted for about a year(my first Intel pair lasted something like 5 months, but those were shitty controllers), this time with the Samsung 840 EVO's i have a feeling that they might actually last the whole 2 year span of my desktop.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
They appear to be talking about a device that has already reached the end of its usable life, and is then powered off and stored at a temperature so high as to be hazardous to humans. I have never heard of anyone relying on used-up SSDs as an archival medium (used-up SSDs rarely work at all in my experience; even the simplest recovery test will surely fail), and I have never heard of anyone storing archived data devices of any kind at 55C. That's just silly. It's worse than a worst-case scenario, in that it requires multiple fundamental flaws in the archival system design to be relevant. It's basically analogous to saying that information written to paper will be lost!* (*when the paper is stored in fire). Filesystems are not magic data restoration fairies. Checksums just tell you when your data is gone; they don't bring it back. Always mirror or erasure-encode, and store mirrored pairs in separate locations.

dogma1138 11y ago

most corporate level SSD's are actually better than entry level consumer ones.

lectrick 11y ago
Not according to the article :O I presume it is assumed that corporate policy has better data integrity best practices than your average Joe Homeowner.
- baruch 11y ago
  The requirements for an enterprise SSD is lower than that of the consumer SSD under the assumption that such SSDs are hardly ever left unpowered for an extended period of time. The SSD is in fact better because it better uses its internal resources to optimize for things other than retention without power.
- creshal 11y ago
  According to the slides, Enterprise SSDs are tested to much stricter standards (one order of magnitude better error rate).
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Read the presentation this was the load testing for the Enterprise test, it's pretty much a torture test with 100% load time. With this I'm actually surprised that the SSD's lasted as much as they did, for about 6 years now I've been using SSD's and the longest one of them survived so far is less than 18 months, and at much lower loads than what they've tested in. Since late 2008 I've been always running 2 SSD's for my main system drive in raid 0 with no much load on them other than games, some work stuff and the OS. At any point in which the drive has no more spare blocks to relocate failed blocks too i toss it away and replace it (if read errors come close to critical i do the same). For the first couple of years the SSD's only lasted for about a year(my first Intel pair lasted something like 5 months, but those were shitty controllers), this time with the Samsung 840 EVO's i have a feeling that they might actually last the whole 2 year span of my desktop.

fredkbloggs 11y ago

They appear to be talking about a device that has already reached the end of its usable life, and is then powered off and stored at a temperature so high as to be hazardous to humans. I have never heard of anyone relying on used-up SSDs as an archival medium (used-up SSDs rarely work at all in my experience; even the simplest recovery test will surely fail), and I have never heard of anyone storing archived data devices of any kind at 55C. That's just silly. It's worse than a worst-case scenario, in that it requires multiple fundamental flaws in the archival system design to be relevant. It's basically analogous to saying that information written to paper will be lost!* (*when the paper is stored in fire). Filesystems are not magic data restoration fairies. Checksums just tell you when your data is gone; they don't bring it back. Always mirror or erasure-encode, and store mirrored pairs in separate locations.