5 ms·
On the upside, [the ridiculously expensive HP SSDs] do have fancy detailed stats (like wear levelling) exposed via the controller and ILO, and none have failed
by Lagged2Death 11y ago
On the upside, [the ridiculously expensive HP SSDs] do have fancy detailed stats (like wear levelling) exposed via the controller and ILO, and none have failed yet almost 3 years on (in fact, they’re all showing 99% health). You get what you pay for, luckily.
Call me a huge cynic if you must, but given the other problems observed, I think there's a really simple explanation for perfectly uniform "99% health" after three years of service that doesn't involve "you get what you pay for."
- wtallis 11y agoA SSD can be 85% of the way through its lifespan and still be operating with the same performance and reliability expectations it had when it was almost new, so the drive can reasonably be said to still be healthy. It's only when it has to start retiring bad blocks and expending the spare area that the drive is operating in a degraded mode, and it's not until you hit that point that the drive can start making accurate predictions about how much more use it can take until it dies.
- baruch 11y agoNot quite. An SSD at 85% wearout will take longer to program and erase the blocks and it will require more refreshes (data retention suffers) so there will be considerably more background operations. In fact SSD vendors do quite a bit to make the disk perform its best early on when they absolutely can and then start to break down further down the road after the benchmark is over. After all the users are mostly only testing it for a month or two and they never get to a real wearout condition during the test and then they buy in bulk and run it for a few years but by that time the SSD model is already outdated anyway (about 18 month cycle for SSD models).
- MaulingMonkey 11y ago"There's already been silent failures"?