What do you think guys is SSD worth to use in everyday life? Is it realy safe and so fast and you realy can suggest to your friends to buy it instead of usual HDDs ?
What about real fault tolerance statistic and waranty 5 years of some vendors?

2 viewmax

_________________
Angel Data Recovery

If they have the money, I suggest them to get a quality SSD.

_________________
Hard Disk Drive (HDD), Solid State Drive (SSD, SATA, NVMe, etc), USB Flash Drive and RAID Data Recovery Specialist in Massachusetts

We use SSD drives in servers under heavy load for several years. Here are my observations:

1) OCZ Vertex 3 = fast but not very reliable
2) Samsung 830 = fast and reliable
3) Intel 330 and 520 = very reliable but writes slow down a little after a while (not really an issue)
4) Mushkin Chronos deluxe = fast, not sure about reliability though, we only use them for several months.
5) Micron SLC RealSSD P300 = reliable, uber-expensive (not worth it)

For home use I would highly recommend an Intel (3xx or 5xx) or Samsung 830 SSD. I would stay away from Samsung 840 series for now as they are too fresh and I've already seen some quirks, but otherwise look very promising.

Just stay away from OCZ, Corsair, Crucial and other "PC enthusiast" brands (and perhaps Kingston too).

_________________
Dmitry

All of my 6 main DR workstations have Samsung 830 SSD's as the primary boot drive (O/S and program data only) . They are in use EVERY day and I have not yet had a problem with them.

_________________
East Anglian Data Recovery Services
http://www.eadr.co.uk

"If it's your only copy - then it's not a backup!"

Stay away from gamerz toys like OCZ, Crucial, Corsair, Kingston, seemingly anything with go-fast words in its name.

Intel and Samsung are best for consumer usage right now for a number of technical reasons.

_________________
On a clear disk you can seek forever.

OCZ Vertex 3 IS A PIECE OF CRAP badly design over heating a big issues



i rather use the old standard hard drives as they are more better.

have to say seagate hybrid ones are not bad at all
still going strong

Indeed, HHDD are not bad at all. i bought one for myself, and i have to say it's around 75% of a SSD Drive, and it uses SLC nands. nothing to complain about them.

just like to add Kingston V Series 128GB

watched some movies on it last night
next morning.

just does not want to boot up at all total dead fuses all check out ok


another peice of crap

they are a crap design and like most ssd drives over heating is a issue

I keep "hoping" and "wanting" to like Kingston SSD, for Kingston was a good name for RAM and their warranty was/is outstanding.

But for SSD, it's a no-go. The nand they use is rated at less than 3000 erase/write cycles.

I'm sure others in the industry are just as bad, but Kingston stands out since their PR and ad department was ohh-so brilliant and praised to high heaven the extreme durability of 3,000 write cycles! Ughh...

IMHO, the industry is pushing in the wrong direction. They are increasing density and the expense of longevity and durability. And they are having to use that very same capacity improvement to overprovision and spares to offset early cell failures.

Just make it right in the first place instead of doing all this sidestepping and dancing around.

_________________
On a clear disk you can seek forever.

(128 gigabytes x 3000 cycles) / (10 years) = 105 gigabytes per day

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

The new nand flash chips is pice of crap - you know the "problem chip". Compnent has very very bad quality.

_________________
Flash Killer - everyday new resources (pinout, XOR, ECC,config) for flash devices

3000 cycles for each cell

http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/endurance-samsung-mlc-vs-samsung-tlc.jpg

_________________
Angel Data Recovery

FYI 105GB/day is not much

_________________
SAN, NAS, RAID, Server, and HDD Data Recovery.

You forgot to say , to read/write only one cell you need to read/write min 4Kb page size

_________________
Angel Data Recovery

I didn't forget anything, I just ignored it because the firmware and OS are optimised so that it makes essentially no difference to the calculation these days. In fact some SSDs use compression, in which case write amplification can be as low as 0.5.

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

I wouldn't call it "optimized" it's just the way it works. FS driver operates in clusters, so when you work with files, even if you change one byte - the whole cluster will be updated, except for a file record that can be smaller than data cluster in size

On a side of SSD it depends greatly on firmware. There were SSDs that split data by byte between two pages, so when you want to write one byte of data (from user perspective) and a data cluster (from FS driver perspective) at least two pages will be updated on that particular SSD, because data will be split evenly between two pages, that's just a real life example, all SSDs are different inside

There are some SSDs that report number of erase cycles for the whole drive: essentially it represents number of erase cycles on all data cells (it is possible to calculate this value because of wear leveling mechanism)
Some SSDs even show % of life left based on that erase cycles number and theoretical SSD usage per day

End user can rely on those values and even try to calculate SSD's "life expectancy" based on Power On hours and erase cycles

_________________
SAN, NAS, RAID, Server, and HDD Data Recovery.

so what the public dont know its a dirty tricks with the ssd companys who make them
find some cheap crappy chips

so does this mean the drives after say 3000 erase/or write cycles

automatic shut down or just burn out


its a bit like printers you get so many prints and clean
before the printer shuts down for good.
its dirty tricks from companys that make them

its a way to sell more products

SSD's in idea circumstances go to read-only when their lifespan of write/erase is used up.

It's not an intentional dirty trick or scam by any company. It's simply a company's natural psychotic drive for profit at any cost that creates these low quality SSDs. They spend seemingly extraordinary amounts of money and time on R&D to try and produce these things at the lowest possible cost.

Saving $0.05 USD on a NAND chip can mean millions in extra profit. At the cost your data of course..

_________________
On a clear disk you can seek forever.

What percentage of SSD faults are the result of NAND flash failures?

AFAICT from various storage forums, including SalvationData's, the most common failure mode appears to involve corruption of the Flash Translation Layer. In such cases there is no actual failure in any physical component. Can anyone enlighten me if I'm wrong?

_________________
A backup a day keeps DR away.

In modern SSD and flashes (pendrive, card memory) chip failure is quite common comparing to the older devices.

_________________
Flash Killer - everyday new resources (pinout, XOR, ECC,config) for flash devices