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

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."

Comments

Poor statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Poor statistics

[BancBoy]

One of the few benefits of a spinning platter is that they can briefly generate their own juice when the power goes out.

As many of us do, when the power goes out...

Re:Poor statistics

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Poor statistics

[icebike]

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.

Hmm, my drives send me emails when they start having problems. (And having gotten one of these emails a few years after setting up the drive initially, I was shocked to find it the email arrived in plenty of time. I pleasantly surprised to find the drive and all data still intact, and had time to swap a replacement into the raid).

Why don't you find out how this is handled by people who actually have hundreds of drives to deal with.
If you let them fail before servicing them you are doing it wrong.

Look into: man 8 smartd

Re:SSD failure rates

[gander666]

Bullcrap. They can be replaced. Look up http://macsales.com/ they sell several sizes for the airs and the pro retinas.

Re:Do the math

[camperdave]

> 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.

Re:Do the math

[gman003]

Actually, you'd be surprised. The Samsung 840 EVO, a low-cost consumer drive (the high-end is the 840 Pro) that gets down to $0.70/GB, can hit 90K IOPS read on every model, and 90K IOPS write on 500GB models and up.

Sure, older or ultra-cheap drives won't hit that (my new Chronos doesn't get there), but rounding to the nearest order of magnitude will get you 100K IOPS even on medium-end consumer drives.

Stay away from OCZ and SandForce

[JDG1980]

OCZ's failure rates are higher than the rest of the industry's by an order of magnitude. Also, earlier SandForce drives have reliability problems because the firmware was written by paranoid loons who were deathly afraid of reverse-engineering and the drive goes into irrecoverable 'panic mode' when any abnormality of any kind is sensed. I think that newer SandForces (post-LSI acquisition), especially Intel's, are less likely to do this, but the original failures still taint the brand with the stigma of flakiness.

If you stick with Samsung, Intel, and SanDisk, you should be fine. Stay away from OCZ at all costs, and be skeptical of any SandForce drive not made by Intel.

Ancient data.

[Reeses]

All this discussion on this and no one has commented that TFA is from 2011??

This article isn't reliable information. It's from when SSDs were relatively new and definitely doesn't apply to the in-the-field results people are seeing in 2013.