SSD Annual Failure Rates Around 1.5%, HDDs About 5%

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SSD Annual Failure Rates Around 1.5%, HDDs About 5%

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 12, 2013 @02:03PM from the breaking-news dept.

Lucas123 writes "On the news that Linus Torvalds's SSD went belly up while he was coding the 3.12 kernel, Computerworld took a closer look at SSDs and their failure rates. While Torvalds didn't specify the SSD manufacturer in his blog, he did write in a 2008 blog that he'd purchased an 80GB Intel SSD — likely the X25, which has become something of an industry standard for SSD reliability. While they may have no mechanical parts, making them preferable for mobile use, there are many factors that go into an SSD being reliable. For example, a NAND die, the SSD controller, capacitors, or other passive components can — and do — slowly wear out or fail entirely. As an investigation into SSD reliability performed by Tom's Hardware noted: 'We know that SSDs still fail.... All it takes is 10 minutes of flipping through customer reviews on Newegg's listings.' Yet, according to IHS, client SSD annual failure rates under warranty tend to be around 1.5%, while HDDs are near 5%. So SSDs not only outperform, but on average outlast spinning disks."

10 of 512 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Poor statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 14:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

"client SSD annual failure rates under warranty tend to be around 1.5%, while HDDs are near 5%"
So they are less likely to fail early in their life.
NOT:
"So an SSDs not only outperforms, but on average outlast spinning disk."
This is completely unsubstantiated by the evidence provided.
1. Re:Poor statistics by girlintraining · 2013-09-12 17:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have found that in damned near every case, not all but most, will give you PLENTY of warning before it goes completely tits up whereas the SSD?
  
  Yeah, sure, okay. If you're sitting next to your computer, then yeah, maybe you notice. How about the hundreds of millions of drives that are sitting in a rack somewhere, and will only see a human being twice: Once when it gets installed in the rack, and then only when it stops working for whatever reason and a tech is sent out to replace it.
  The "it made a funny noise first" line item is a joke either way. This is like saying "Well, I prefer diesel engines because they make more noise when they die." Hookay. Yeah.
  
  I may be just a little country shop guy but when my gamer customers have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to SSDs, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
  
  I may just be a Ferrari repair shop owner, but when my car owners have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to ceramic brakes and high end engine components, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
  Now do you see how utterly ridiculous that sounds? High performance almost always means less robust. That graphics card you just plunked over $200 on? It's operating temperature is so high from the current being pumped through it that it's literally cooking itself at the molecular level from the moment you plug it in -- it's called electromigration, and in three to five depending on how often you use it, it's going to shit itself. But that's okay... because in two years, you'll be spending even more on a new one.
  
  Ironic that they talk about how supposedly high HDD failure rates are when I cleaned out a how drawer of them before moving into the new place, we are talking drives going back to Quantum Fireballs in the 200Mb size, yes Mb not Gb, and they all fired up. granted some of them were noisy as hell but I could still get files off of them while not a single one of my gamer customers have their first SSD, they are all dead.
  
  Yeah, and? How many gamers are still using their 200Mb Quantum Fireballs in an actual computer? I know it's a common geek past time to see what kind of antiquidated hardware you can pull out with your friends... that old parallel port Zip drive, or floppies the size of your head... and yeah, it's fun to talk about to show you had IT chops before the person you're talking to was even a glint in daddy's eye... but that's the only value they have.
  Nobody's coming up to me and asking for an AT command initialization string for their modem -- AT&F&C1&D2S95=55 in case you were wondering -- because it's not a technology very many use anymore. Yeah, I can dig out an old 2400 baud modem and get it working... but that doesn't mean 2400 baud modems are superior to cable modems that "have a higher failure rate".. and so, you know... I don't know if I trust such 'new' technology.
  Now, get off my lawn.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
2. Re:Poor statistics by istartedi · 2013-09-12 20:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And while scanning the SMART data is a nice start... you aren't going to get an e-mail when a branch office's first floor is under five feet of water
  Ummm... in that case I think you'd get a phone call from a human.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Hard drives warranty by danbob999 · 2013-09-12 14:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

5 years should be mandatory by law. If you can't support your drive for 5 years, you shouldn't be allowed to manufacture hard drives at all.
I don't understand this new trend in making new hard drives with only 1-2 years warranty. The same goes for SSD.
1. Re:Hard drives warranty by Burz · 2013-09-12 14:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In the 2000s consumers became almost the exact opposite re: warranties as they were in the late 80s/ early 90s when a good warranty seemed to matter as much as any other criteria. I've been trying to buck that trend, but until the last couple years it was almost impossible. When I shop for electronics that have no moving parts and are *not* portable, the warranty has be be at least 3 years and this even includes some moving-parts items like hard drives. My two most recent HDD purchases (and some that I helped friends and clients with) had 5 year warranties.
  The thing about insisting on a 'long' warranty is that the price then becomes an aid in finding equipment that is actually more reliable. Among stable brands, the cheaper models in the longer warranty class will tend to be more reliable; A higher confidence level from the manufacturer is often reflected in the lower price. Likewise, the junkier models will get higher price tags in order to be able to cover the higher failure rate. Nowhere is this more obvious than with computers that have options to purchase mfg extended warranties.
  Of course, even if the prices are the same, getting equipment with a higher failure rate is still a raw deal because of the cost of downtime, possible data loss, shipping, etc.
Re:Do the math by Desler · 2013-09-12 14:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

9ms average access times on a 7200RPM spinning drive == ~100 IOPS.
High-end SSD: 100K IOPS.
The SSD that most consumers are using are neither high end nor have such IOPS ratings.
Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anyone who isnt using a SSD by now for at least their boot drive is stuck in the past.
It's the single best upgrade you can make anymore.
Either way stop the fucking articles about it.
Leave them with their warm feelings for spinning rust full of multi gigs of stuff they never touch.
They'll wise up eventually. Or not.
Either way it won't hurt you any. Enjoy your speedy pc and laugh at the rusties if you must.
Re:Do the math by camperdave · 2013-09-12 14:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

> as a developer, I have no use for SSD in my desktop system.
Do you compile code?
SSDs are for booting. RAM disks are for compiling, and hdd is for long term storage.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:But the disc can store much more by Rockoon · 2013-09-12 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thats a silly thing to do. Lets examine this, shall we?

A 5% chance to lose 2TB vs a 1.5% chance to lose 250GB.

You argue that since it requires 8 of these 250GB SSD's to equal the capacity of the 2TB HDD that we should multiply 1.5% by 8, so a 12% chance... a 12% chance of what, tho? In actuality, there isnt a 12% chance of anything...

The chance of losing at least 1 of those 8 SSD's (that is specifically 1 or more) over the period is (1 - (1 - 0.015)) = 0.114, but the chance of losing all of those 8 drives over the period is 0.015^8 = 0.0000000000000025628906. In other words, losing all 2TB in the SSD scenario is effectively never going to happen while it remains 5% for the HDD scenario.

The actual breakdown of all possibilities of drive failings (0 drives, 1 drive, 2 drives, etc..) rounded to thousands of a percent is:

0 drives: 88.611%
1 drives: 10.795%
2 drives: 0.575%
3 drives: 0.000%
4 drives: 0.000%
5 drives: 0.000%
6 drives: 0.000%
7 drives: 0.000%
8 drives: 0.000%

So we see that you would be twice as likely to lose some data than in the HDD scenario, but invariably it will only be 250GB of data instead of 2TB of data (only 1 in 173 of these 8 drive experiments will witness more than 1 drive fail, and the majority of those will be exactly 2 drives failed)

So no, you do not need to multiply the failure rate of the SSD's by the number of SSD's that you would need to equal the HDD. What you need to do is define the problem better because as it stands SSD's look a hell of a lot better when you suppose that you need a pile of them.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:SSD failure rates by hobarrera · 2013-09-12 16:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is a MacBook Air a netbook? An i5, 8gigs rams, SSD, I can plug it into my monitor when I get home. It's also as powerfull as medium-grade desktop. What's is missing?
I hate to bring it to you, but an MBA is exactly like any other ultrabook out there.