The problem I saw last time I dug into this (almost 3 years ago now that
I think about it!) was that it wasn't obvious which SSD's were made with
which technology unless you forked over for "enterprise" SSD's.
I put an 8GB enterprise SSD into a server to speed up someone's busy
database and it ran for 6 years and still worked when the server was
replaced. In the meantime I saw two ~$100 SSD's fail in office
computers. I also saw somebody put an SSD into a DVR and had it fail in
a matter of months.
It's possible "cheap" and "good" have come closer together in SSD's, but
last I knew you had to pay 2-3x more for "good".
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2016 12:06 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Is there a good reason to continue to use rotating media going
forward?
