SSD Reliability

Silencing hard drives, optical drives and other storage devices

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

ascl
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 1:15 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by ascl » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:41 pm

1.3 initially, but since then I've upgraded to 1.5 and still having problems. Its been suggested that I should do destructive flash (ie to 1.1) and upgrade again. Which I'll do, and may work... but it suggests that the firmware is corrupting itself, which is scary.

Alternatively, it could be some bad flash chip that isn't getting properly detected. Either way, its still immature software/hardware. I'm not sure that I'll be happy if re-flashing from 1.1 will 'fix' the problem, as it suggests something very bad happening...


Anyway, don't get me wrong, SSD's have awesome potential and I'm not trying to say OCZ or any other SSD is bad, just that its new and there will be teething problems. As a software engineer I am more aware than most how hard it is to release bug free software.

Cryoburner
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:25 am

Post by Cryoburner » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:34 pm

ces wrote: I think that is unlikely. That is the kind of thing you can't hide for long. Once it gets out, the self inflicted damage would be immeasurable. The person who did it would have to be sacrificed.

The greater source of inaccuracy is that more of the people who buy them don't report anything. And I could easily see the reporting rates differing from brand to brand.
I agree that it might be difficult to cover up if it were done 'officially' by a company, but it's certainly possible for someone with a connection to the company to do it on their own. Imagine someone with a large amount of stock the company, or someone who's job relies on a major product release being a success. There could just as easily be a disgruntled former employee doing the same. They just have to make a number of accounts and post a collection of positive (or negative) reviews of a product at multiple sites around the time of a product's release to have an impact on potential customer's buying decisions.

I do agree that people not reporting their experiences can cause a shift in accuracy as well though. Many people might be more likely to review certain popular products from well known brands just to let others know they have it, and as a whole, people are much more likely to report on a negative experience than a positive one.

That said, I still check user reviews prior to buying just about anything online. It's probably best to take them in context with more 'official' reviews as well though. : )

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:31 pm

Here is where I got the info that h55 motherboards don't do AHCI:

"Looking simply at the Intel specifications, the H57 seems to be a P55 with integrated graphics support, with the H55 giving up RAID, AHCI, and a couple of USB ports. "

They have a lot more info here including a list of what is and it not included in the H55 and H57 chip sets.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?o ... mitstart=1

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:55 pm

ces wrote:Here is where I got the info that h55 motherboards don't do AHCI:

"Looking simply at the Intel specifications, the H57 seems to be a P55 with integrated graphics support, with the H55 giving up RAID, AHCI, and a couple of USB ports. "

They have a lot more info here including a list of what is and it not included in the H55 and H57 chip sets.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?o ... mitstart=1
Hmm, the not having AHCI part doesn't seem to be particularly accurate:
Intel H57 and H55 Express Product Brief wrote:Intel RST also provides benefits to Intel H55 users with a single hard drive. Using Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI), storage performance is improved through Native Command Queuing (NCQ).
The H55 loses RAID but not AHCI. Besides, I think it's stupid that an older ICH8 chipset would support AHCI whereas the latest does not.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:15 pm

ilovejedd wrote:Hmm, the not having AHCI part doesn't seem to be particularly accurate...
The H55 loses RAID but not AHCI. Besides, I think it's stupid that an older ICH8 chipset would support AHCI whereas the latest does not.
Please explain. They say that the H55 doesn't do AHCI in the chart and then a second time in a sentence.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:23 pm

ces wrote:Please explain. They say that the H55 doesn't do AHCI in the chart and then a second time in a sentence.
Would've thought the quote from Intel's product brief is self-explanatory. In short, H55 supports AHCI.

Just to make things more concrete, Anandtech reviewed a bunch of H5x motherboards and apart from Gigabyte, AHCI seems to work on all of them, be it H55 or H57.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2945

The Gigabyte boards had BIOS issues and AHCI wasn't working on both H55 and H57 versions.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:30 pm

ilovejedd wrote:
ces wrote:Please explain. They say that the H55 doesn't do AHCI in the chart and then a second time in a sentence.
Would've thought the quote from Intel's product brief is self-explanatory. In short, H55 supports AHCI.

Just to make things more concrete, Anandtech reviewed a bunch of H5x motherboards and apart from Gigabyte, AHCI seems to work on all of them, be it H55 or H57.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2945

The Gigabyte boards had BIOS issues and AHCI wasn't working on both H55 and H57 versions.
OK. Seems like Anandtech sees it there.

Just for the heck of it, can you tell me where that Intel document is located?

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:40 pm

ces wrote:OK. Seems like Anandtech sees it there.

Just for the heck of it, can you tell me where that Intel document is located?
Product Brief:
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/323192.pdf

Addendum:
A better resource might be the Intel 5 Series Chipset and Intel 3400 Chipset Datasheet, Section 1.3

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:37 am

ces wrote:
dhanson865 wrote: The 40GB Intel X25-V and it's sibling the Kingston SNV125-s2/40gb are slower performing but presumably identical in reliability as the 80GB Gen 2 drives. I have 2 PCs and a Server at work using the Kingston variant and if the Intel 40GB ever dropped to the $50 price point while the Gen2 80GB is still above $100 I'd probably buy a stack of them.
My understanding is that the 40G Kingston/Intel does not have trim while the Intel/Intel does. And also that the 40G Kingston/Intel is no longer available.
You can enable trim on the Kingston drive with or without updating to the latest firmware but the best hack is the one that allows you to put the Intel firmware on the Kingston drive since under the covers it really is an Intel drive it works perfectly fine.

As to availability I mentioned it because the title of the thread is "SSD Reliability" not SSD Availability. But since we are on the topic you never know when someone will start selling refurbished drives or end users will start selling/trading used drives.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:56 am

dhanson865

You really know your stuff.

Tzupy
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:47 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Tzupy » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:47 am

There's a new and interesting article at Anandtech regarding SandForce drives, link:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3661/unde ... -are-equal

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:33 am

dhanson865 wrote:Assuming newegg data means anything to you we have (sorted by most reviews and only picking drives worth buying performance wise)

Intel 80GB retail 134 reviews 1 drive failed.
Intel 80GB OEM 193 reviews 6 drives failed.
combined we have 327 reviews and 7 drives failed or 1 failure for every 47 reviews (but we have no idea how many sold on newegg that didn't submit a review).

OCZ Vertex 30GB Retail 353 reviews 4 drives failed and another 17 reviews with what I'm guessing are compatibility issues. Hard to say what percentage of those are the SSD controllers fault.

OCZ Vertex 60GB retail is chock full of so many negative reviews I find it hard to categorize them all.

OCZ Agility 60GB retail is a similar story (it's the same controller as the vertex but just as importantly it's the same ODM)

Patriot Torqx 128GB retail 118 reviews about 50 dead drives (worse than the vertex and agility but easier to count)

Intel 160GB OEM 61 reviews 4 drives failed

OCZ Agility 120GB retail 54 reviews 4 drives failed

Intel 160GB Retail 52 reviews 0 failed some reviews about a preproduction firmware batch accidentally escaping the lab.

Crucial M225 64GB Retail 50 reviews 2 failed

Partiot Torqx 64GB retail 35 reviews too many failures for me to care about counting. Call it one in 3 reviews with some reviews mentioning multiple failed drives

OCZ Vertex LE 100GB retail 17 reviews 0 failed (not exactly a large sample size and the are all reviews less than a month old. These drives could start failing any day now but for now the record is clean).

Crucial C300 128GB retail 11 reviews 0 failed (again too early to call)

Crucial C300 256GB retail 10 reviews 1 failed (again too early to call)

Corsair Nova series 7 reviews 0 failed (again too early to call)
OK it's 2 weeks later roughly and I'm checking up on these newer drives

OCZ Vertex LE 100GB retail is up to 25 reviews and 1 DOA. Better to have a doa than a failure while in use so that is pretty much a clean record so far.

Corsair Nova series is up to 10 reviews still no failed drives*. This is still too early to tell but it's holding a 4 egg rating so it seems promising.

Crucial C300 duo are up to 15 and 22 reviews now. I'm not sure if I should change this to 0 failures and 2 compatibility issues or 1 failure and 1 compatibility issue. Still an excellent showing at 5 eggs on each.

No entries for the Agility 2 yet.
No entries for the Vertex 2 yet.
No entries for the Corsair Force yet.
No entries for the Plextor PX-xxM1S yet.

Plextor

*Someone actually zero filled his SSD, admitted to doing it in his newegg rating, and then complained about the performance of the drive in the same review. Assuming he returned it to newegg the next person they ship that drive to will have the same problem if they don't do a secure erase! A corsair rep needs to respond to that review and educate their customers about the proper way to format/partition an SSD and the dos and don'ts of erasing an SSD.

It would also probably do all of these SSD retailers to gently guide the speed issue type complainers to the Anand article about how many Intel chipsets bottleneck transfers to/from the SSD. Of course Intel probably wouldn't like to see that.

They don't need to go as far as selling them on adding a new controller card but setting expectations about random access being more important that sustained r/w would take a little heat off the motherboard drive controller bottleneck.
Last edited by dhanson865 on Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

ascl
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 1:15 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by ascl » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:54 pm

Interesting figures. Its a pity we don't have access to better metrics, I'd love to know what kind of reliability figures SSDs have. My experience hasn't been great, but I just reinstalled on a HDD.... and do I want my SSD back! I am thinking at this point that I'll grab an Intel drive. They seem the most reliable.

NoiseFreeGuy
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:16 pm
Location: Guelph, Canada

Post by NoiseFreeGuy » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:16 pm

Eunos wrote:... I doubt there is sufficient data to address the original question when nobody would even have a 5 year old SSD.
Ahem.

I still have SSD's from the early 1990's when Sandisk was still named Sundisk! They are still alive and well.

Eunos
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eunos » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:35 pm

I stand corrected, however my point still has some merit given how different a modern SSD is from previous generations. Who is going to accurately predict that a Sandforce or C300 drive will last 5 years?

NoiseFreeGuy
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:16 pm
Location: Guelph, Canada

Post by NoiseFreeGuy » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:19 am

Eunos wrote:I stand corrected, however my point still has some merit given how different a modern SSD is from previous generations. Who is going to accurately predict that a Sandforce or C300 drive will last 5 years?
Just for some interesting trivia.
The 40M (that's megabyte) SSD that I bought back in 1995 cost me $1300, ouch!

Eunos
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eunos » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:50 pm

I was afraid to ask. :D

seoulman
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:34 am
Location: Copenhagen, DAN

Post by seoulman » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:04 pm

Great thread. I would add that solid drives with single-level NAND flash cells (SLC) should be more long-lived than multi-level cells (MLC) from a technical viewpoint. Also, SLCs are faster - but expensive.

Considering only reliability, SSDs have many plusses over HDDs. SSDs can take quite some punishment as long as soldering isn't affected. When dropping a laptop, the SSD will be the least of problems! SSDs may "deteriorate", like USB drives, whereas HDDs often fail catastrophically with short or no notice. The downside is that parts of the SSD might be corrupted unnoticed until data is lost, again like USB drives. However, SSDs have way more advanced controllers which should alert you of errors.

I completely agree with ces that warranties may be misleading. Still, it buys peace of mind for several years often for little cost. Think of it as plain insurance. :)

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:18 am

New firmware for the C300 fixes a ton of issues but as usual updating the firmware on your SSD may brick it so backup your data first and have a spare drive around to use if you brick the SSD. Oh, and besides even if it isn't bricked the firmware update wipes the drive.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State ... td-p/12363
Change Log:

* Improved Power Consumption
* Improved TRIM performance
* Enabled the Drive Activity Pin (Pin 11)
* Improved Robustness due to unexpected power loss
* Improved data management to reduce maximum write latency
* Improved Performance of SSD as it fills up with data
* Improved Data Integrity

Note: This requires a Low Level Format to the SSD which will erase any data on the drive.
Please ensure that your data is backed up prior to performing the Firmware Update. We are hopeful that future Firmware revisions/updates will not be destructive.

Eunos
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eunos » Tue May 04, 2010 8:13 pm

"In Crucial update, Drive TRIMS You!!"

If I remember correctly from when I updated my Intel firmware, they threaten that the warranty is voided in the event that anything goes wrong with the update procedure. A shame, as SSDs are too light to make good paperweights.

Not sure if this applies to Crucial. If the company is smart they will remove the download ASAP until they get it fixed.

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Wed May 05, 2010 6:06 am

Eunos wrote:"In Crucial update, Drive TRIMS You!!"

If I remember correctly from when I updated my Intel firmware, they threaten that the warranty is voided in the event that anything goes wrong with the update procedure. A shame, as SSDs are too light to make good paperweights.

Not sure if this applies to Crucial. If the company is smart they will remove the download ASAP until they get it fixed.
If any SSD was bricked during a warranty period by me upgrading firmware and they didn't honor the warranty I'd be hitting up the attorney general, the Better Business Bureau, sending out EECBs, Yelling from rooftops, doing everything I could to get compensation and if not compensation to warn other potential customers.

Are you refering to the weasel clause in http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18363/e ... _REV26.txt ?

The word warranty in the weasel clause doesn't mean the same as the word warranty as relates to RMAing a bricked SSD. Those lawyers make lots of disclaimers but the support crew with the replacement drives work under different rules.

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Wed May 05, 2010 11:20 am

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3698/ocz- ... -shipments

OCZ halts sales of Onyx SSD.

CRC errors abound. Don't trust your data to an Onyx SSD until they fix it and the fix stands for several months.

QuietCat
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:49 pm
Location: Wet Coast

Post by QuietCat » Fri May 07, 2010 9:56 pm

Meanwhile, back on the Crucial front:
We are hopeful that future Firmware revisions/updates will not be destructive.
Wednesday wasn't future enough:
... we pulled the v0002 firmware update from the Crucial.com support site on Wednesday, May 5th.
At least this time it wasn't the firmware that made bricks, some sort of motherboard compatibility issue with the update tool. You can never do enough testing.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Tue May 11, 2010 7:07 pm

Any thoughts about the Kingston SSDNow V 30GB? I'm deciding between that and the Western Digital Scorpio Blue 80GB for a quiet thin client to be used with Magic Jack.

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Wed May 12, 2010 11:54 am

ilovejedd wrote:Any thoughts about the Kingston SSDNow V 30GB? I'm deciding between that and the Western Digital Scorpio Blue 80GB for a quiet thin client to be used with Magic Jack.
It's a low end SSD so in general it will be faster than a traditional hard drive. It's not anything to recommend compared to other SSDs but if the price is right you might want to give it a try.

1. It'll either work with your motherboard/drive controller or it won't. Odds are it will work. Here is a newegg review of the worst case scenario out of the box:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16820139162 wrote:Pros: Very fast read speeds. Desktop computer boots Ubuntu in approximately 5 seconds.

Cons: HTPC can't see the drive. (Which was the whole reason for buying it.)

Other Thoughts: I initially bought this SSD to replace the 8GB USB memory stick I am using as a boot drive in my HTPC (MythTV Frontend). Unfortunately, the BIOS detects the drive as a 0GB drive and the OS doesn't see it at all. I have now since moved the SSD into my desktop PC as my boot drive. It definitely boots faster than my 2nd gen. WD Raptor
2. You'll want to format it for 25GB or less. So long as your needs can fit in that capacity range it will probably work OK.

Either way 2.5" hard drive or cheapo SSD you'll have a chance of a drive failing on you. At least with the SSD it'll be truly quiet and you don't have to worry about shipping damage. For some people just knowing the delivery man is going to be playing soccer with their new drive is enough to force the SSD issue. A traditional drive might become a doorstop after about the 2nd kick but a SSD laughs and says where's the beer and chips, what's the score? :)

If you just want to get something cheaper than the Intel 40GB or want to avoid intel products for any other reason you could look for an Indilinx based drive like the Corsair Nova CSSD-V32GB2-BRKT which is also in the under $100 category but is a faster drive than the Kingston 30GB.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Wed May 12, 2010 12:49 pm

dhanson865 wrote:If you just want to get something cheaper than the Intel 40GB or want to avoid intel products for any other reason you could look for an Indilinx based drive like the Corsair Nova CSSD-V32GB2-BRKT which is also in the under $100 category but is a faster drive than the Kingston 30GB.
I would've actually preferred an SSD with Intel controller. Alas, I missed the boat on both the Kingston SSDNow V 40GB ($70 from 3rd-party Amazon seller) and Intel X25-V 40GB ($100 from Newegg). The shipping issue is actually why I'm considering SSD's in the first place. I'll be building two computers both of which will probably be packed in checked-in baggage and will travel around 7,000 miles. :roll:

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

SSD reliability May update

Post by dhanson865 » Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am

OK, it's been a month since my first data dive on newegg. Lets check on those these drives again.

quick summary (tired of updating numbers that increment so often):

Intel:
All Intel SSDs had low failure rates (maybe <2%?)

Indilinx:
Crucial M225 (Indilinx Barefoot) low failure rates (maybe <5%?)

Corsair Nova (Indilinx Barefoot) low failure rates (maybe <5%?)

OCZ Vertex and Agilility (Indilinx Barefoot) 30-60GB drives (chock full of so many negative reviews I find it hard to categorize them all)

OCZ Agility 120GB retail (Indilinx Barefoot) approaching a 10% failure rate.

Patriot Torqx (Indilinx Barefoot) dead drives approaching the 50% mark.

OCZ Onyx (Indilinx Amigos). (This drive was taken off the market due to a firmware bug, makes it hard to get valid numbers for a post fix rerelease)

Sandforce (radical new controllers):
OCZ Vertex LE (sandforce 1200) low failure rate (maybe <5%?)

OCZ Agility 2 (sandforce 1200) no failures reported yet.

OCZ Vertex 2 (sandforce 1200) no failures reported yet.

Mushkin Enhanced Io (sandforce 1500) no failures reported yet.

Corsair Force (sandforce 1200) No entries yet.

Sandforce drives have the most unconventional controller. It's unproven at this point and should only be bought by users with a strong understanding of the trade-offs this design uses. In some usage cases it's faster than the Marvell or Intel based drives in others it isn't. Long term reliability isn't proven yet.

Marvell:
Crucial C300 low failure rate (maybe <2%?) But a big brouhaha over a firmware update procedure that could leave the drive unusable.

Plextor PX-xxM1S (Marvell Da-Vinci) no failures reported yet.

Although these drives haven't hit their stride yet I have confidence that the Marvel controller will prove successful in the long run. This one is too new to write off.

JMicron (avoid these drives):
WD SiliconEdge Blue no failures reported yet but this drive is so overpriced I'm not expecting it to get reliable data for a long time to come. I'll just quote Anand on that
I've repeated it enough times that you should get the point by now - Western Digital's SiliconEdge Blue is just a bit behind the performance of an Indilinx based SSD. ...

The SiliconEdge Blue just isn't worth it. ... It has to be cheaper than both Intel and Indilinx drives, which means cutting the MSRP in half.
Corsair Reactor (chock full of so many negative reviews I find it hard to categorize them all)


OK, I don't have the heart to dig through all the Jmicron drives and list them here. Nor do I want to dig up all the Samsung controller drives.

Note the Samsung controller is generally considered safe/reliable but doesn't offer the performance to make it worth tracking for an enthusiast.

KayDat
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Post by KayDat » Sat May 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Wow, Plextor, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. The former king of optical drives...didn't know they were still alive. =P

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Sat May 15, 2010 4:33 pm

KayDat wrote:Wow, Plextor, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. The former king of optical drives...didn't know they were still alive. =P
Yeah, tell me about it. I was surprised a few months ago when I first hear about the drive.

I made a thread for it in April but so far my initial post is the only post in the thread.

viewtopic.php?t=58648

davepermen
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:54 am
Location: Switzerland

Post by davepermen » Tue May 18, 2010 1:37 am

0 of my ssds have ever had any problems. 4 intels, 3 mtrons, 2 samsungs.

i believe the intel failure rate is much lower than 2% out in the public. so far, i know of around i guess 5 different people that had actual problems, and most of them in the earliest days of the intel ssds (and some more than likely just some incompatible older computer that caused the issues).

out of the possibly 100thousands sold by now (maybe much more?), it's essentially a non-issue. hardwarewise, everyone of us trusts intel (except the amd fanboys) for their cpu, their chipsets, a lot for their gpu (at least at work), so why not the ssd? :)

oh, and besides, you do have a reliable backup, don't you? if you do, you don't care that much about your system. its the ONLY way to make it 100% reliable. by having a fallback if something goes wrong.

edit: together, i have now about.. hm.. at least 10 years of running ssd experience (spread over all the ssds i have). so some of them have quite some age by now (2.5years for the mtrons each afaik, 2 for the samsungs, 1x 1.5, 2x 0.5 for the intels.. from brain)

Post Reply