Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Analyzing Long-Term SSD Failure Rates

Posted by Soulskill on from the we'll-always-find-new-ways-to-break-new-technology dept.

wintertargeter writes "It looks like Tom's Hardware has posted the first long-term study of SSD failure rates. The chart on the last page is interesting — based on numbers, it seems SSDs aren't more reliable than hard drives. "

2 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by adamjcoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't read TFA but the chart doesn't tell me that "SSDs aren't more reliable than hard drives".. the SSDs were generally 6% or under (assuming the linear progression) whereas regular HDD approached 14%+ after five years. And "Long-term" in the title? The SSD data in the chart only goes for 1 year. Not exactly long term when the chart goes from 1-5 years of use. The actual data for the SSDs is only 20% of the time span.

  2. Re:Uh, yes they are by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did the poster even look at the chart he linked to?

    Did you? Apparently not.

    Ignore the dashed lines-- those curves are not data, they are "projection." The chart has no data on SSD failures late in the lifetime. So, when you say "...SSD failures only exceed HD failures very early on in their lifetimes," that is equivalent to saying "SSD failures only exceed HD failures in the region of the graph for which there is data."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com