Normally a rotation drive will start throwing errors or making noises when it's on it's deathbed. Easy to hear at home, but impossible to hear in a datacenter or server closet. An SSD when it dies is often just "vanishes" in catastrophic fashion. Hopefully you/someone is watching SMART levels/errors and can swap it out before then.
This brings up another issue in the near-term / future, where home users are going to be pushed more and more into either external storage sync or cloud storage services to help mitigate SSD failure. It would be nice if $company could include wear alerts in their operating systems to notify users about possible pending failure, but that makes it harder to sell backup services if you know when it's coming ;) On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > Other than price, which will be more reliable over the long haul? > > Ever since I first used a flash chip back in the early 2000s the worry about > wearing out the storage elements has always been on my mind. But with the > wear leveling techniques built into SSDs and the increase in storage cell > robustness, that may not be a legit fear any more. You still have ESD > failure modes but that would apply to rotating disks. You can put the disks > from a failed drive into a good drive and recover from a disaster sometimes. > But other than that, it would seem to me that the rotating media is more > likely to fail. > > From: Eric Kuhnke > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 12:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Rotating Media > > Large scale backup storage? > > I can build a server with 40 * 8TB 3.5" HGST spinning 7200 rpm drives, > divided up into several Linux mdadm RAID6 arrays with hotspares, for > considerably less money than the same capacity built out of 1TB 2.5" SSDs. > > There is now a Samsung 15TB SSD that costs ten thousand dollars... > http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/8/1/12342696/samsung-pm1633a-ssd-15tb-storage-drive-specs-price > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Is there a good reason to continue to use rotating media going forward? > >
