From the «suspicious» department:
Feed: Slashdot
Title: Five Years of Data Show That SSDs Are More Reliable Than HDDs Over the
Long Haul
Author: msmash
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:21:00 -0400
Link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/09/14/1711204/five-years-of-data-show-that-ssds-are-more-reliable-than-hdds-over-the-long-haul?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

Backup and cloud storage company Backblaze has published data comparing the
long-term reliability of solid-state storage drives and traditional spinning
hard drives in its data center. Based on data collected since the company began
using SSDs as boot drives in late 2018, Backblaze cloud storage evangelist Andy
Klein published a report yesterday showing that the company's SSDs are failing
at a much lower rate than its HDDs as the drives age. ArsTechnica: Backblaze has
published drive failure statistics (and related commentary) for years now; the
hard drive-focused reports observe the behavior of tens of thousands of data
storage and boot drives across most major manufacturers. The reports are
comprehensive enough that we can draw at least some conclusions about which
companies make the most (and least) reliable drives. The sample size for this
SSD data is much smaller, both in the number and variety of drives tested --
they're mostly 2.5-inch drives from Crucial, Seagate, and Dell, with little
representation of Western Digital/SanDisk and no data from Samsung drives at
all. This makes the data less useful for comparing relative reliability between
companies, but it can still be useful for comparing the overall reliability of
hard drives to the reliability of SSDs doing the same work. Backblaze uses SSDs
as boot drives for its servers rather than data storage, and its data compares
these drives to HDDs that were also being used as boot drives. The company says
these drives handle the storage of logs, temporary files, SMART stats, and other
data in addition to booting -- they're not writing terabytes of data every day,
but they're not just sitting there doing nothing once the server has booted,
either. Over their first four years of service, SSDs fail at a lower rate than
HDDs overall, but the curve looks basically the same -- few failures in year
one, a jump in year two, a small decline in year three, and another increase in
year four. But once you hit year five, HDD failure rates begin going upward
quickly -- jumping from a 1.83 percent failure rate in year four to 3.55 percent
in year five. Backblaze's SSDs, on the other hand, continued to fail at roughly
the same 1 percent rate as they did the year before.

[image 2][2][image 4][4]

Read more of this story[5] at Slashdot.

Links:
[1]: http://twitter.com/home?status=Five+Years+of+Data+Show+That+SSDs+Are+More+Reliable+Than+HDDs+Over+the+Long+Haul%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F3QRsIRi (link)
[2]: https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (image)
[3]: http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F22%2F09%2F14%2F1711204%2Ffive-years-of-data-show-that-ssds-are-more-reliable-than-hdds-over-the-long-haul%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook (link)
[4]: https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (image)
[5]: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/09/14/1711204/five-years-of-data-show-that-ssds-are-more-reliable-than-hdds-over-the-long-haul?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed (link)

--
Usenet: antisocial media