SSD

[Pasta]

Are there any other cons of SSD other than pricing? Is it good and durable i I do a lot of huge data transfer? Can I count on it not to break before traditional hard disks?

[Lord Flashheart]

This may be helpful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WACyyFF_ci0

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Look at the nano type for your needs. SLC the best, but costs the most. TBH go for TLC, if you doing gaming, school work, or office work, and whatever. but if you plan to write huge amount of data, I'm talking about always HUGE! rendering things like Hollywood productions movies that size upwards 10TB or even bigger, moving TB's of files, and etc daily, then SLC best option, but if that not what you're doing, but doing office work, and gaming daily then look towards TLC.

SLC last much longer, but the price is way too much, you can much bigger storage, and pay much less by going with TLC, I would skip out on the QLC unless just going to use it for storage, and not going to write a ton, they are cheaper, but draw back QLC life are shorter, but TLC the best option for overall really, and can recommend hands if just gaming, streaming, and office things, or whatever.

Anyways, depending what you meant exactly by "I do a lot of huge data transfer" because people seem to misform themselves when they say that stuff, and really end up not meaning it at all, because they think it's a whole lot, but really isn't and end up overpaying something, and this is the most common things people do as well.

TLC normally comes with upwards of 5 years warranty, and SLC normally comes with upwards of 10 years warranty, don't let the warranty fool you, because depend what you do, the warranty may not even matter for the amount of writes you do, because for gaming, and office use, you can have TLC SSD last upwards 20+ years, while SLC is more of a long term, like 60+ years, but again this is more of the case what you're going to be doing really is the bottom line. SLC 1TB looking at upwards $300, TLC 1TB looking at upwards of $80 - $130 USD, it's that big of a price point really.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Electronics = anything can die at anytime

[UserNotFound]

I use one QLC drive for my games, a 2TB Samsung 860 QVO as well as a 4TB Samsung 860 EVO and 2x 1TB 850 EVO. I do have a 6TB WD Black which I use to store games that I play less often, and games that I'd uninstall when I get tired of them. Now, I was told that since I use my SSD's as static drives, meaning I install games which I intend to keep, and not regularly install and uninstall games in them (unlike my 6TB WD HDD), my friend told me that I use my SSD's only for installing games which I intend to keep, and NOT write and overwrite constantly, my SSD's should last a very long time.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

All drives can wear out a bit faster due to constantly adding and then deleting data, rinse and repeat. But yes that is of course going to be true for any SSD type because it uses flash chips with basically a set in stone life span. However it's always possible for ANY drive to fail prematurely at basically any time, regardless of how much you write/delete data to it. HDD for example do not like being power cycled many times per day, but for an SSD this isn't of any issue.

Overall even cheap ssds have a possibility to have such a high life based around their TBW (terra-bytes written) that you'd most likely see most ssds outlast most hdds, simply because you'd have to be wiping and rewriting to an ssd 24/7 for years-on-end, for the full size of said ssd in order to wear out the flash chips.

Also if new to ssds, Google "how to ensure TRIM is enabled"

[Autumn_]

Publicado originalmente por MacLeish:

Are there any other cons of SSD other than pricing? Is it good and durable i I do a lot of huge data transfer? Can I count on it not to break before traditional hard disks?

Not really that I can think of.
They do get quite hot (controller part), and if the DRAM cache is filled it will slow down.
They are extremely durable, but, what do you consider 'huge amounts of tranfer'?
No, there's always a chance it could die, just like with hard drives. Though the chance would be very small. The only issue with storage you'd have with NAND is if you're leaving it unplugged for years at a time, then you may get some information loss, which is why HDDs are better for long term storage.

[Viking2121]

I have a PNY 120GB SSD that has 95% life left according to Crystal disk Info, I paid nearly $200 for the thing years ago, I still use it to this day in my back up PC which that PC is used daily, It is a cheap SSD as it is, over 25TB writes and 13,213 power on hours, its slowly shrinking in size as it ages. Says I have 110GB total size, so Its not bad. Its only an OS drive, so after a few more years I may replace it, but its still got plenty of years left on it.

[Autumn_]

Publicado originalmente por =AEST=Viking:

I have a PNY 120GB SSD that has 95% life left according to Crystal disk Info, I paid nearly $200 for the thing years ago, I still use it to this day in my back up PC which that PC is used daily, It is a cheap SSD as it is, over 25TB writes and 13,213 power on hours, its slowly shrinking in size as it ages. Says I have 110GB total size, so Its not bad. Its only an OS drive, so after a few more years I may replace it, but its still got plenty of years left on it.

Because Drives store data in GiB, not GB.
111GB = 120GiB. With some loss from partitioning, 110GB is fine and normal.

But yeah; SanDisk Ultra II - 77TB, and almost 14,000 hours power on time (Meaning 3 years if it was on for 12 hours a day.)
And, it says 100% health still, which is pretty impressive, and strange, consdering my 860 EVO is 98%, and has a fraction of the writes (7TB.)

[vadim]

Publicado originalmente por MacLeish:

Are there any other cons of SSD other than pricing?

A lot of. They need more space than HDDs to store the same amount of data (in general), lose performance after many wtites (unlike HDDs), have limited lifespan (unlike HDDs) and need to have sufficient amount of free space to run at full speed (unlike HDDs).
And that is not all.

[nullable]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por MacLeish:

Are there any other cons of SSD other than pricing?

A lot of. They need more space than HDDs to store the same amount of data (in general), lose performance after many wtites (unlike HDDs),

Even at half performance SSDs are still several times faster than HDDs.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

have limited lifespan (unlike HDDs)

HDDs fail mechanically, and have MBT ratings, so.... And SSD lifespan ratings are extremely conservative from what I've seen. At the moment either storage medium will be functional long beyond a user's need for it in most typical consumer computing/gaming scenarios.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

and need to have sufficient amount of free space to run at full speed (unlike HDDs).
And that is not all.

Even at near capacity SSD performance will still be much better than HDD performance in most cases. HDDs may not lose performance per se, but their performance is already so mediocre I really just don't understand the claim.

I mean sure if all the things you're arguing are the most important things to you then those are valid arguments. Otherwise they might not stack up so well to typical consumer concerns.

[pasa]

SSD cells have limited number of rewrites, then start to produce bit errors. This limits lifetime under heavy load.

HDDs have no such limit, but are mechanical, and moving parts are subject to wear and accidents under heavy load.

However what counts as "heavy" varies wildly. You better make an estimate on your actual data flow and match against expectations of the drives.

If I had some disk-heavy workflow, I'd probably use a small SSD for that (as temporary space) and other ssd/hdd for more stable storage. And after it accumulates enough closed-down cells, replace.

[Andrius227]

None. Modern ssd's can easly outlast any mechanical hdd.

[Washell]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

They need more space than HDDs to store the same amount of data (in general)

Page size vs Block size? Because both tend to be 4KB so the loss would be the same. If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

lose performance after many wtites (unlike HDDs)
need to have sufficient amount of free space to run at full speed (unlike HDDs).

Due to disk geometry, HDD's read and write faster on outer sectors then inner sectors. The fuller a drive is, the slower certain data on it it will be. But even discarding that, SSD's at their slowest will leave HDD's at their fastest in the dust in every metric. 4KB read/write, sustained, everything but price per gigabyte.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

have limited lifespan (unlike HDDs)

A not insignificant amount of HDDs will fail within 3 months of their lifespan. Any drive surviving that will be fine for a year or three, after which the failure rates climb rapidly.
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/archive/disk_failures.pdf

SSD's have little to no early failure rates, and late life failure rates don't seem to be significant yet, and mostly tied to writes or a faulty design or bad run of the controller chip. The writes which, for the regular user, will take far longer than 3 years to reach.

You said you had more, well, get typing because your current "cons" are misinformed nonsense.

[vadim]

Publicado originalmente por Washell:

Page size vs Block size? Because both tend to be 4KB so the loss would be the same. If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me.

More because of SSD physical block size is much more than its page size. And you need to erase the whole block to rewrite single page. Block erasing is slow (a couple of milliseconds) and cause NAND wearing. So, SSD writes modified filesystem blocks to a new place. This implies write amplification. On my drives it reached 30% under heavly load. SSD can also fail from the very beginning. I bought such devices. New dfives failure rate is much more for HDDs, though, frome my experience.
After several years of usage without defragmenting SSD can become slower than HDD. I met this with Intel 525 (old drive with Sandforce controller). And so on...

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Publicado originalmente por Washell:

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

They need more space than HDDs to store the same amount of data (in general)

Page size vs Block size? Because both tend to be 4KB so the loss would be the same. If you're referring to something else, please enlighten me.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

lose performance after many wtites (unlike HDDs)
need to have sufficient amount of free space to run at full speed (unlike HDDs).

Due to disk geometry, HDD's read and write faster on outer sectors then inner sectors. The fuller a drive is, the slower certain data on it it will be. But even discarding that, SSD's at their slowest will leave HDD's at their fastest in the dust in every metric. 4KB read/write, sustained, everything but price per gigabyte.

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

have limited lifespan (unlike HDDs)

A not insignificant amount of HDDs will fail within 3 months of their lifespan. Any drive surviving that will be fine for a year or three, after which the failure rates climb rapidly.
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/archive/disk_failures.pdf

SSD's have little to no early failure rates, and late life failure rates don't seem to be significant yet, and mostly tied to writes or a faulty design or bad run of the controller chip. The writes which, for the regular user, will take far longer than 3 years to reach.

You said you had more, well, get typing because your current "cons" are misinformed nonsense.

But on faster ssds such as nvme, if you still use 4K cluster blocks, you generally do not get the fully intended speeds. Larger block size is needed at time of format to achieve that. But in turn, the same amount of data takes up more room because if you have let's say 16K cluster size to have better overall speed, anytime a file does not fill an entire block, the rest is lost as another file must be written to the beginning of a new block.