bit-tech.net

SSD users report widespread data loss

SSD users report widespread data loss

SSDs are quickly finding their way into many enthusiasts PCs, despite their high price per GB.

A recent survey has found that many people have experienced data loss from solid state storage, with over half of the respondents saying they had lost data.

Of the 560 people that completed a survey drawn up by risk management and data recovery firm Kroll Ontrack, 57 per cent said they had experienced data loss when using SSD/flash technology.

Interestingly, 75 per cent also considered the recovery of data from SSD/flash to be nearly impossible or complicated when compared to the techniques used to extract data from broken or damaged hard disks.

Despite concerns over data recovery, however, 75 per cent of respondents believed that SSD/flash is a safer, more robust storage technology that additionally consumes less power and is therefore more environmentally friendly. What's more, over 90 per cent of respondents said they perceived SSD/flash failure rates to be minimal and the technology to be reliable.

The respondents polled included business, home and government users, 70 per cent of which revealed that they currently use or plan to use SSD/flash technology in the near future.

System area corruption accounts for 60 per cent of SSD/Flash data loss,' explained Kroll Ontrack's data recovery technology manager, Troy Hegr, 'but physical damage, file system corruption, electronics failure and human error are also factors. In the case of SSD/Flash data loss, recovery can be more complex.

'SSD/Flash data reside in a more scattered format on the drive as compared to traditional hard drive media where data is stored more linearly. Industry standards for data layout and organisation on SSD/Flash mediums are not yet fully established, often requiring custom recovery solutions based on the specific manufacturer and model of the device.'


Have you experienced data loss from a solid state drive? Let us know in the forums.

64 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
faugusztin 1st September 2011, 10:22 Quote
One drive (Patriot Torqx) died on me. But data loss ? No. Any sane person have backup systems in place (Crashplan, doing backups to other computer in LAN for example), so there is no data loss even if SSD dies.
CDomville 1st September 2011, 10:27 Quote
I haven't experienced any data loos on my drive, but that's because I manually move the Users directories onto the larger rotary drive whenever I do a fresh installation, and I also use various free sections of drive space from dropbox/github and the like to back up my data.
Mentai 1st September 2011, 10:39 Quote
SSD's are too small to store any data on, you just run your OS off them. Having said that, I would have thought the failure rate lower than mechanical disks.
Baz 1st September 2011, 11:04 Quote
Had over 30 SSDs come across my desk, and have had zero drive failures from retail units. HDDs have a failure rate of around 2.5%, and from contacts in the etail industry, SSDs have a failure rate of sub 1%. I think this survey is just a case of angry users venting, while happy users don't make a fuss.
cgthomas 1st September 2011, 11:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
One drive (Patriot Torqx) died on me. But data loss ? No. Any sane person have backup systems in place (Crashplan, doing backups to other computer in LAN for example), so there is no data loss even if SSD dies.

Exactly what I was thinking. I think the norm is if you have an SSD or RAID 0 that you regularly backup all your data to another drive or external location.

Isn't data loss something out of 2002?

If the SSD suddenly dies I know that I have a recent system image / file backup at a safe location plus I can RMA the failed drive and get a brand new replacement. So where's the loss, maybe a tiny headache but no irreplaceable loss.
Adnoctum 1st September 2011, 11:18 Quote
I haven't had any data loss from my OCZ Vortex 2 and Intel X25M drives.
I have lost data from mechanical HDDs, and from anecdotal evidence from the Internet, so have most people.

Therefore I can write an article titled "HDD users report widespread data loss" with a straight face.
The survey plays up the risk of SSDs and plays down the fact that "Flash" drives also include USB sticks that are far more likely to fail (hinted at in the original PR but not explicitly stated). I don't see any figures in the article or in the original Kroll PR "article-writing kit" breaking down the failure rates of SSDs and USB "Flash" sticks.

A self-serving "survey" with 560 respondents from a self-interested company's press release. Call me when this issue is dealt with more thoroughly and impartially.
Marvin-HHGTTG 1st September 2011, 11:38 Quote
57%? I hadn't realised that was the proportion of morons - maybe take a few percent for the innocent few.

Widespread. Prumph.
dunx 1st September 2011, 11:46 Quote
My SSD did loose data once, but as stated who'd trust their precious data to just one drive of any type ?

dunx
Spreadie 1st September 2011, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin-HHGTTG
57%? I hadn't realised that was the proportion of morons - maybe take a few percent for the innocent few.

Widespread. Prumph.

Yep. This survey reads more like a Numpty count than anything else, to me.
Bungletron 1st September 2011, 11:54 Quote
Before I knew what type of sample was polled I immediately assumed that most of the sample must be business users given the nature of the responses and the firm commissioning the poll. A server farm running banks of SSDs in raid 24/7 will suffer failure on a much higher incidence and commission firms for costly recovery, I doubt this tallies with the usage habits of most people on this forum, I have only had my SSD for 2 months so fingers crossed it will continue to operate reliably for some time!
xaser04 1st September 2011, 12:08 Quote
The survey size is far to small to make any conclusions. Both of the SSD's I have (one in desktop, one in laptop) are proving to be rock solid.

My desktops drive stores everything bar my media and my laptops is just for the core OS and games.

I do however have my documents and images backed up in multiple locations (things like CV's and cashflow files etc) whilst my Media is stored on an external HD.
mi1ez 1st September 2011, 12:10 Quote
Basically this proves that people who have lost data are more likely to fill in a questionnaire on data loss...

And who's surprised at that?
faugusztin 1st September 2011, 12:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
If the SSD suddenly dies I know that I have a recent system image / file backup at a safe location plus I can RMA the failed drive and get a brand new replacement. So where's the loss, maybe a tiny headache but no irreplaceable loss.

In my case it was Patriot Torqx 128GB (Indilinx) -> Corsair Force 120GB (SandForce 1xxx).
DbD 1st September 2011, 12:21 Quote
Just had a 9 month old vertex 2 in my laptop die a couple of weeks ago. It is worse then mechanical hard disks - they tend to degrade, even in a head crash you can get a lot of data off them. Also the smart monitoring tends to pick up on a failing disk - I have had warnings in the past telling me old hard disks were getting dodgy at which point I swap them out.

SSD's are different - well there is the SSD monitoring stuff, mine said the vertex 2 was on 82% health last I checked it, it obviously wasn't. One day I turned on my latop and my SSD appeared as unformatted. All data instantly gone and no chance of recovery. Sent it to ocz, they sent me a new one but obviously as I stick it back in the laptop I am not filled with confidence this one won't randomly die too.
faugusztin 1st September 2011, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
...

Ever heard of backups ?
Blackshark 1st September 2011, 12:31 Quote
C300 256Gb worked like a dream being filled many many times over (got to love a decent TRIM implementation). Also have 2 64Gb C300s, 2 96Gb OCZ drives and again, all are used daily and fairly heavily (web server, torrenting, VMs) and no issues with dataloss at all.

In 20 years of using spinning magnetic disks, I can think of many occasions, (gosh some of them send shivers down my spine) where I have lost data. From disks that have died gracefully over 6 months :-) to three that just never came back on :-(

But, to be fair I have only used a small number of drives compared to a large survey. Problem I think with this is it sounds like replies may have included 'deleting data that I cant then simply use undelete' to get back (ie. all the NTFS file recovery tools). That is MUCH harder on SSDs, the one time I tried to help a colleague, I said, IMO we have no chance, and after a few days, we had recovered ZIP! Where as HD recovery, other than the 3 that literally just went dead on me, I have always managed to get back most of the data and normally everything.
feathers 1st September 2011, 12:40 Quote
When I first bought my generation 1 OCZ vertex 30gb a few years ago, it had a bug which caused the drive to disappear if u copied large data to it (installing Flight sim X). OCZ released FW patch and that fixed the problem. There was a later incident where windows XP was corrupt after installation. I reinstalled it and it was fine. But of course as we know XP is not a good OS to install on an SSD. Have had no problems since those initial issues and the drive has performed better with subsequent FW updates. OCZ have recently been caught out in a few scandels though. Quality control seems to have dropped and they tried scamming people with lower than rated SSD. A friend of mine was one of those caught out and he found the OCZ SSD had smaller capacity and way below spec transfer rate. OCZ replaced the drive and sent a second vertex 2 120gb by mistake. The extra SSD died the same day but he has RMA'd it.
Nexxo 1st September 2011, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin-HHGTTG
57%? I hadn't realised that was the proportion of morons...

If you consider the normal distribution of intelligence in the general population, it works out about right. :D
V3ctor 1st September 2011, 13:16 Quote
In a Forum in Portugal we have dozens of cases of it... OCZ drives are the worse, some can't even install windows, others give alot of BSOD's, there's even a guy that bought 2 and both had the same issues... This last generation of SSD's have lots of problems.

I'm still happy with my Intel G2 160Gb and my Gskill Falcon I 64gb, no problems whatsoever
MjFrosty 1st September 2011, 13:57 Quote
Those statistics are odd. Although I'm under the impression the results would include memory sticks which have a tendency to die, which is where that high figure springs from.
Phil Rhodes 1st September 2011, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Had over 30 SSDs come across my desk, and have had zero drive failures from retail units.

Then I suspect you have not run any of them long enough for it to have been a reasonable reliability test.

You may recall some time ago and more than once I mentioned a need to do more comprehensive robustness testing on SSDs especially as system drives; I was shouted down.

Sometimes it's so disagreeable to be proven right.
MjFrosty 1st September 2011, 14:22 Quote
Proven right by what? A survey which is going to be mostly filled in by a handful of disgruntled people?

Terrible logic there, Phil.
fooboi 1st September 2011, 15:11 Quote
I have in the span of ten years accumulated around 15 broken mechanical drives,no slow degradation just poof next day gone, I'm known as the HDD destroyer in my company.
Adnoctum 1st September 2011, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
You may recall some time ago and more than once I mentioned a need to do more comprehensive robustness testing on SSDs especially as system drives; I was shouted down.

Given SSD, NAND and controller manufacturers do more testing and read/writes than you are ever likely to do, I'm thinking SSDs are going to be just fine for most users (individual implementations aside - Intel 320 being an example). Far more likely is that just like mechanical drives you'll replace it before it fails. Speaking of mechanical drives, how is your data reliability with all those highly spinning disks and fragile heads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Sometimes it's so disagreeable to be proven right.

What? What proof has been offered? See this quote from Kroll...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroll PR
This survey was conducted by Kroll Ontrack. A total of 560 online questionnaires were completed among individuals in the following categories: business user, home user and government user. Interviews were completed in the spring of 2011.

In other words, they stuck a voluntary survey on their site, or paid another site to pester their visitors, and from the tiny few who bothered to say yes (no break down of the numbers, and a selection bias to begin with) they concocted a self-serving argument that SSDs fail and are hard to recover data from.
So a company that specialises in data recovery from failed drives say that drives fail a lot, that drives are difficult to recover data from without specialist tools and that, oh yes (!!!), they just happen to have those specialist tools and would be willing to use them for a fee*.

So if your drive dies, which it will according to these completely trustworthy and unbiased statistics, don't bother trying to recover the data from the drive yourself or recover it from your backup (you did make one right?), just send it along to Kroll Ontrack ("... the largest, most experienced and technologically advanced provider of data recovery products and services worldwide...") and they will recover your vitally important documents and porn.

Did you also miss this bit...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroll PR
System area corruption accounts for 60 percent of SSD/Flash data loss, but physical damage, file system corruption, electronics failure and human error are also factors.

So...the same factors that affect any other type of storage medium?

The story here is that there is no story. It is a self-serving PR piece that companies spew out by the ton every day in the hope that some journalist/blogger will pick up and cut and paste into a quick (and cheap) news filler. It is called "Press Release Journalism" or "Churnalism" and it is an incredibly sad reflection of the media.

* (For an arm, a leg and your first born child)
supermonkey 1st September 2011, 15:20 Quote
I see quite a few people talking about regular backups to reduce data loss, but I interpreted the article a bit differently. Of the people reporting data loss on a given SSD, how many were fortunate enough to have that data backed up elsewhere? Even if I can recover my data form a separate home server, I might still report a failed SSD as data loss.
Blackshark 1st September 2011, 16:18 Quote
V3ctor - yes I have heard of people unable to install windows on SSDs but then I tend to think these are the same people overclocking their bus's to breaking point. The SSD by its very design is solid state. Therefore like all electronics is more reliable than a mechanical version.

I simply can not believe that Business would use them if they had had those sorts of failure rates. Yes I am sure you will tell me they use Enterprise class SSDs but lets be clear, they use the same memory, same controller, etc... as SSDs meant for me and Joe Public
-EVRE- 1st September 2011, 16:18 Quote
I have two crucial ssd's in daily use for 2 years now, never had a problem with either of them, thats why I spent $40 more to get a crucial M4 for a recent upgrade.
azazel1024 1st September 2011, 16:28 Quote
If you read the article they are citing data loss as things like file system corruption, file corruption, accidently deleted data, etc. None of those are "flash" issues. Those are all user/OS issues.

The rate of actual failures is pretty low, in the 1-3% range. So even if you have some of those respondants running around with multiple drives, you may only have 5-10% of respondants having suffered an actual drive failues. That means 40-50% are user/OS issues that you'd see on spinning disks as well.

Been running a 60GB Vertex for a year and a half now and a 30GB vertex for about 9 months now and no issues with either (92% life left on the 60GB, bought new. 58% life left on the 30GB, bought used).
azazel1024 1st September 2011, 16:34 Quote
Oh and every single important thing is backed up. Pictures, music, documents and itunes backups from my wife's laptop are backed up to the home file server as an on-demand process (IE when I think about it about every 3-5 weeks) as are pictures, music, documents and movies from my computer. The server automatically pushes out new movies to the router attached USB harddrive (used by the couple of media players for our TVs for streaming h.264 stuff) weekly at 2am Sunday.

I have plans for a USB drive sitting in a fire safe connected to the file server as secondary backups just for the important documents and pictures (probably not backing up movies and music as that is a crap load of stuff, ~900GB. Family pictures and videos and documents is probably only about 200GB)

In a next house with a better setup I plan on having scheduled weekly backups from my computer and my wife's to the server. However, with her having a laptop right now (migrating to a desktop in the next year or so once I upgrade my PC and she gets mine as a hand-me-down) and my PC being on a switched outlet (I have a 3 1/2yr old and a 1 1/2yr old and another one on the way, and the youngest loves just playing with the buttons on the computer, so when it is off it needs to be OFF!) there isn't an easy way to do automated backups.
V3ctor 1st September 2011, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshark
V3ctor - yes I have heard of people unable to install windows on SSDs but then I tend to think these are the same people overclocking their bus's to breaking point. The SSD by its very design is solid state. Therefore like all electronics is more reliable than a mechanical version.

Just regular Joes... No OC, and loads of people, I thought that was strange, mainly were OCZ Vertex 3, with Sandforce controllers, they flashed theyre drives with lots of different OCZ firmwares trying to solve the instability problems...

I'm just happy I have one of the earlier SSD's, I just think that my Intel is unbelievable reliable...

Normally in HDD's the SMART kicks in and warns us that a drive is going to fail or something, with SSD's we don't have that "feature", it just dies and there's no way to get your data back.


Here's a quote from a helper in the Forum
Quote:
You just do the firmware update? To me died 2x OCZ Agility 3, the 3rd didn't die because I updated immediately .
-> post 412

Use google translator :D there are lots of reports in the pages before and after
Ph4ZeD 1st September 2011, 18:06 Quote
A data recovery company doing a survey that concludes that people need data recovery services? No way!
true_gamer 1st September 2011, 18:44 Quote
I have found that I was losing Data/Files corrupted when using my old C300 in Raid 0 as a boot drive.
I haven't had any problems since using a single Vertex 3 as my boot drive.
leslie 1st September 2011, 22:10 Quote
You spent a bunch on an SSD, if you can't afford a backup system, you can't afford an SSD.

SSD's are owned by bleeding edge enthusiasts, you take what comes with doing so, and you should have already learned to make backups.



The only time I have seen flash memory lose data (ssd or thumb) was either accidental by me, complete failure, or the drive was full and corrupting data.
rjkoneill 1st September 2011, 23:56 Quote
pointless and irrelevant news is pointless and irrelevant
faugusztin 2nd September 2011, 00:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
complete failure

This. One day working normally, next day no hard drive drive on boot.
Aragon Speed 2nd September 2011, 02:36 Quote
I've just had my 'less than a year old' Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB give up and die on me today, so don't tell me one type of storage device is better than another without an unbiased poll of less that 10,000 people. 560? There are more people than that walking my local high street at any one time on a week day.
rogerrabbits 2nd September 2011, 03:06 Quote
The data loss from government users was probably from leaving them on trains.
hrp8600 2nd September 2011, 09:41 Quote
12 months with no data loss
Next day all data lost, C300 failed.
Might be some time before SSD's are as reliable as normal hard drives long term.
But at least prices are falling.
Valo 2nd September 2011, 09:59 Quote
I have two answers in one for you surprised by the results of the survey:

servers and admins

In that kind of environment it is easy to max out hte IO threshold. That is also why they mentioned data recovery and were OnTrack's customers. Bear in mind that consumers buy a small percentage of SSDs manufactured.
Eagle27 2nd September 2011, 11:19 Quote
I have bought 2 Crusial M225 64 disk and have been very happy for them, but I have discovered that it has trouble handling big files. I experienced many times that my games with big files ->2GB became corrupt many times. When I placed my files on a normal disk the problem went away. The only conclussion about this for me was that I do not trust my SSD's to handle very big files.
I must say that I am running my laptop on one of the drives now with new firmware (Ver. 2030) and is very happy about it. have not seent he issue yet on this one.
KiNETiK 2nd September 2011, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
A data recovery company doing a survey that concludes that people need data recovery services? No way!

My thoughts exactly!
Lee @ Scan 2nd September 2011, 14:51 Quote
I've had my OCZ Agility 3 vanish from the system once, causing a BSOD in the process and then it not to be found on the boot sequence at the beginning.

It was a 20p - 50p moment right there as I just finished installing windows and games I play.

However a power-cycle and a few choice words whispered to the drive coaxed it to appear again and so far it seems to be okay.

I just hope this is not a sign of it going to fail and die on me soon...
Adnoctum 2nd September 2011, 15:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valo
I have two answers in one for you surprised by the results of the survey:

servers and admins

In that kind of environment it is easy to max out hte IO threshold. That is also why they mentioned data recovery and were OnTrack's customers. Bear in mind that consumers buy a small percentage of SSDs manufactured.

But they are also the kind of users (if halfway competent) who should have more robust data handling procedures that shouldn't require the employment of data recovery services. Violation of these procedures are messy, expensive and unnecessary.

It is also these users who would be least affected by SSD failure. Such users would be managing systems that would either have online drive redundancy ready to take the place of a failed drive (my own home NAS has 3 x drives in RAID 5 + 1 x drive as a hot replacement ready to rebuild the array) and/or several replacements on hand. Such systems should also eliminate power issues with a UPS and provide for daily offsite backups. Larger businesses should also be looking at offsite server replication, especially those that are multi-site or rely on a constant network presence.

Except for the server replication, none of this needs to be expensive and can easily be done for small businesses or even individuals. Except for the daily, offsite backups, I do this at home. I could offsite backup if I really, REALLY didn't want to lose my huge porn collection and could justify the hosting expenses for personal use. It should be a no-brainer for a business, especially given work-generated data requirements are generally very small without the huge video and audio files.

This leaves user error or maliciousness, which is just as likely to happen with mechanical drives and just as difficult for a recovery service to reconstitute into usable data. But this shouldn't affect back-ups.
friskies 2nd September 2011, 15:56 Quote
Guys, when they say solid state storage they also mean memory cards, and those freak out and die for no apparent reason ALL the time.
Adnoctum 2nd September 2011, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ Scan
I've had my OCZ Agility 3 vanish from the system once, causing a BSOD in the process and then it not to be found on the boot sequence at the beginning.

I had something similar happen when I first installed my Intel SSD, but it was due to laziness on my part.

I had been using a HDD as my main drive in two partitions; OS drive (C) and storage (D). It meant I could re-install OS from a cloned image without needing to replace all the accumulated crap on D: again.
I plugged the Intel SSD in and installed a new OS on it. Then, being lazy and lacking boot discs (I spent a full 30secs looking!), I plugged in the HDD intending to set the SSD to 1st boot device and formatting the old C: partition from the OS.
BIOS didn't even see the SSD. Or then it did, and I made it 1st boot. But then it was gone again on restart after F10. And it wasn't in the boot list in BIOS again. On reset the SSD was in BIOS again and made boot device, and made it through to OS on restart.
HDD was D: and E: in drive listing, went to format D: and the HDD disappeared! Not even in list of attached devices. Then a BSOD, not as easy with W7 as it used to be with W98.
It was at this point I wished BIOS had a shell environment for this kind of simple task. My next MB will have EFI. My life would be much easier if every computer had EFI and a shell utility.

Then I did what I knew I should have done in the first place but was too lazy to do so: I spent 20 minutes hunting for a boot CD I knew I'd have somewhere and deleted the partition, changed the boot priority in BIOS (which now saw both the SSD and the HDD) to SSD, and booted into OS where everything was happy and good. I debated extending the storage partition into the now deleted area, but now I use the area for the cloned OS image and regular incremental backup images.

So...how lazy were you being? ;)
Fizzban 2nd September 2011, 16:43 Quote
Solid state memory chips will just up and die with no warning. I've had it happen in other devices. One good thing about mechanical drives is at least you usually get some warning signs before they die.
Yslen 2nd September 2011, 18:32 Quote
Data loss with SSD/flash? Did this survey include saving something to a USB flash drive then losing it?
feathers 2nd September 2011, 18:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ Scan
I've had my OCZ Agility 3 vanish from the system once, causing a BSOD in the process and then it not to be found on the boot sequence at the beginning.

I had something similar happen when I first installed my Intel SSD, but it was due to laziness on my part.

I had been using a HDD as my main drive in two partitions; OS drive (C) and storage (D). It meant I could re-install OS from a cloned image without needing to replace all the accumulated crap on D: again.
I plugged the Intel SSD in and installed a new OS on it. Then, being lazy and lacking boot discs (I spent a full 30secs looking!), I plugged in the HDD intending to set the SSD to 1st boot device and formatting the old C: partition from the OS.
BIOS didn't even see the SSD. Or then it did, and I made it 1st boot. But then it was gone again on restart after F10. And it wasn't in the boot list in BIOS again. On reset the SSD was in BIOS again and made boot device, and made it through to OS on restart.
HDD was D: and E: in drive listing, went to format D: and the HDD disappeared! Not even in list of attached devices. Then a BSOD, not as easy with W7 as it used to be with W98.
It was at this point I wished BIOS had a shell environment for this kind of simple task. My next MB will have EFI. My life would be much easier if every computer had EFI and a shell utility.

Then I did what I knew I should have done in the first place but was too lazy to do so: I spent 20 minutes hunting for a boot CD I knew I'd have somewhere and deleted the partition, changed the boot priority in BIOS (which now saw both the SSD and the HDD) to SSD, and booted into OS where everything was happy and good. I debated extending the storage partition into the now deleted area, but now I use the area for the cloned OS image and regular incremental backup images.

So...how lazy were you being? ;)

Had you been eating chocolate or custard shortly before doing this?
faugusztin 2nd September 2011, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
One good thing about mechanical drives is at least you usually get some warning signs before they die.

Nope. Sometimes they do, sometimes not.
Fizzban 2nd September 2011, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Nope. Sometimes they do, sometimes not.

Note I said usually, not always.
leslie 2nd September 2011, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by friskies
Guys, when they say solid state storage they also mean memory cards, and those freak out and die for no apparent reason ALL the time.

I too missed that it was solid state storage, not just SSDs, that makes a huge difference.

Memory cards and thumbsticks are notoriously cheap and unreliable, combine them with iffy usb ports and you have a recipe for disaster.
LennyRhys 3rd September 2011, 01:09 Quote
What percentage of the SSD/flash market do SSDs occupy? Maybe 1%, if that - I bet 1 in 3 people has a USB pen drive or SD card to their name.
Bakes 3rd September 2011, 23:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
What percentage of the SSD/flash market do SSDs occupy? Maybe 1%, if that - I bet 1 in 3 people has a USB pen drive or SD card to their name.

True - and I have had USB pen drives break on me. Sure, there was that one time where I absent-mindedly chomped the plug on the end, and the other time when I dropped one in water... USB pen drives are far more likely to break than SSDs.
Cleggmeister 4th September 2011, 00:04 Quote
I've gained data, thus rendering this boring and boring article boring.
Rai 4th September 2011, 00:37 Quote
SSDs are generally reliable, except for several bad batches, such as the case with earlier Patriot Torqx drives. I had two fail on me in a row. Luckily I had a backup.
Roskoken 4th September 2011, 19:30 Quote
lol, think ill stick to a vilociraptor, a million pound per gig for experimental technology, no thanks.
Ph4ZeD 4th September 2011, 20:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
lol, think ill stick to a vilociraptor, a million pound per gig for experimental technology, no thanks.

By a million pound per gig, you mean £1 / GB, right?
rogerrabbits 5th September 2011, 04:47 Quote
but dood it doesnt have a cool name like v1l0c1r4pt0rz!
Anfield 5th September 2011, 09:09 Quote
I've been using a Samsung PB22-J 128GB SSD since may 2009, for a bit more than a year it was used in my desktop pc, then I got a Crucial M3 128GB for the desktop and moved the Samsung to the Notebook and both still work perfectly fine.
Spreadie 5th September 2011, 10:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
lol, think ill stick to a vilociraptor, a million pound per gig for experimental technology, no thanks.

Yes, because the WD VelociRaptor represents real value for money doesn't it? :|

Experimental technology?

"Troll, or just really stupid?"
mat0tam 5th September 2011, 10:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie

"Troll, or just really stupid?"

Personal preference?
Roskoken 5th September 2011, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Yes, because the WD VelociRaptor represents real value for money doesn't it? :|

Experimental technology?

"Troll, or just really stupid?"

Compared to an SSD, yip.

And it only took one small quip from me about there cost and un reliability for you to resort to personal attacks :(.

Keep reaching for that rainbow fanboy.
LennyRhys 5th September 2011, 11:23 Quote
Chill out guys - this is a community, not a ring. ;)

IMO saying "velociraptors are better value than SSDs" is stating the obvious - ALL mechanical HDDs are better value than SSDs, whether they have 10K RPM or not... but that's missing the point. People don't buy SSDs for value; they buy them for performance.

As for velociraptors, they are the hasbeens of the storage world - they still cost a fortune compared to other HDDs, can't touch SSD performance, and aren't a great deal faster than the best 7200rpm drives; I can't think why WD decided to relaunch them at a time when the SSD market is burgeoning...
Spreadie 5th September 2011, 11:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Compared to an SSD, yip.
And yet, you figure paying four times the cost of a bigger drive for a 10 percent speed bump is worthwhile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
And it only took one small quip from me about there cost and un reliability for you to resort to personal attacks :(.
Next time you decide to do a spot of trolling, have the good grace not to bleat about being attacked because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Keep reaching for that rainbow fanboy.
I'm the fanboy? I'm not scrambling to justify spending a stupid sum for minimal gain; but whatever keeps you warm at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Chill out guys - this is a community, not a ring. ;)
I know, it's a rare lapse - I haven't fed a troll in a while.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums