Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016, 21:40:20 CET schrieb herve: > On 11/02/2016 15:23, Stefan Monnier wrote > > I have it all on my SSD, and I use daily backups. > > Before that, I used an HDD, with the same daily backups. > > > > If you don't perform regular backups, then clearly you don't care about > > your > > data, so why bother trying to distinguish if the HDD is ever so slightly > > less untrustworthy than the SSD? > > > > And if you do perform regular backups, then you only need your storage > > media to be "reliable enough", so again the minute differences in > > failure scenarios for HDDs and SSDs don't matter because both of them > > are "reliable enough". > > > > The differences are important, tho: > > - SSDs are silent. > > - HDDs are not silent. > > - Some operations are much faster with the SSD (tho those don't > > affect me very much, in practice, so it's not the main selling point). > > - Oh, did I mention how little noise SSDs emit? > > > > > > Stefan > That is not untruth, but if you think about ecology, a media that lives > 5-10 years is not the same thing that one living 3-5 years. > > You trade lifetime for comfort , maybe another one will make a different > choice ? To take en example : you can decide to drive a Ferrari at 160 > Mph, and you'll gain a lot of time in transfer, but you'll have the risk > of an accident and a shorter life. It's your choice, not THE only choice.
I don´t think it is proven that SSDs fail earlier than HDDs. So far none of the SSDs I use have failed and one is almost 5 years, still thinking about itself that it is actually almost new according to SMART data. And the only reason it isn´t older is that it is the first SSD I got. I expect it to live on for years to come. So do you have any factual data to prove your claim? So far I didn´t see any proof that SSDs fail more often or earlier than harddisks. Thanks, -- Martin
