TriX wrote:
With respect, I do not agree. Please post the source of your information. BTW, the top rated SSD manufacturers (Samsung, Intel) do not make HDs.
Rereading articles, it seems that I was incorrect, in a way.
Being that few "regular people" read and write as many times as the SSD's are rated, I guess the SSD do last. HDD are suppose to last forever but I would guess that the mechanical parts will go bad after a very long time.
For those who nearly fill their SSD, that tells me the unused portion will be used lots over and over again. That will wear the unfilled portion out much faster than is a much larger unused portion.
So to me that means either will store well enough for "us regular people", but not is the SSD is nearly filled to begin with.
Here are some quotes from the following articles:
1)
https://www.exittechnologies.com/blog/it-tips/hard-drive-vs-ssd-vs-storage-system/"HDD’s are more vulnerable to mechanical failure since they contain moving parts...
Usually, they will warn the user before failure as they start to make a lot of noise or load data slowly."
"Solid-state drives do not suffer from mechanical problems...
However, the electrical circuits that contain the data can wear out and fail. Writing data is harder on the drive than reading data.
One unique issue that SSDs have that hard drives don’t is electron wear.
When writing a 1 or a 0 to the same location repeatedly, that cell can begin to wear out. This is mitigated through a concept called wear leveling or provisioning.
Normally, an SSD fills up to 60 % and that data doesn’t change much, but the remaining 40% changes often as the user creates and deletes files.
Once a failure occurs in that overused 40%, the whole drive fails. The provisioning function reorganizes the information on the drive as needed. That way all sectors are being worked evenly, prolonging the life of the drive."
2)
https://www.howtogeek.com/322856/how-long-do-solid-state-drives-really-last/"A joint study between Google and the University of Toronto covering drive failure rates on data servers. The study concluded that the physical age of the SSD, rather than the amount or frequency of data written, is the prime determiner in probability of data retention errors. It also determined that SSD drives were replaced at Google data centers far less often than conventional hard drives, at about a one to four ratio. But it wasn’t all positive in favor of SSDs: they experienced higher uncorrectable errors and bad blocks at a much higher rate than hard drives over the four-year testing period. Conclusion: in a high-stress, fast-read environment, SSDs will last longer than hard drives, but be more susceptible to non-catastrophic data errors. Older SSDs are more prone to total failure regardless of TBW or DWPD."