FordGT90ConceptSo HDDs are still king for archival purposes. Why am I not surprised? At least there's empirical evidence of the fact now.

OneMoarall this article says is that expensive SSDs are more reliable then cheap SSDS go figure ...

One of the study's biggest finding is that high-end (read: enterprise) SSDs with single-level cell (SLC) NAND flash memory are no more reliable than cheaper multi-level cell (MLC) drives.

This means what while SSDs are less likely to "fail" than HDDs, they're more likely to lose portions of their data.

R-T-BIt actually says:
and
So no.

OneMoarso nothing new its a silly study
thats the problem with these kind of 'studys` they give the appearance of providing new information but all they really do is spin it in a different way
(read: enterprise) SSDs with single-level cell (SLC) NAND flash memory are no more reliable than cheaper multi-level cell (MLC) drives. which says the expensive SLC cells vs Cheap consumer sells
its spin doctoring nothing more

R-T-BHmmm.... Whom should I trust... google, who has a stake in protecting data, or OneMoar, from the internet?

Please provide evidence of spin-doctoring. Otherwise, my choice is obvious.

OneMoarnot really if you are aren't writing to it and the drive is 'cold' e.g powered down then SSDs are the better option as they aren't as sensitive to thermo-magnetic disruptions
all this article says is that expensive SSDs are more reliable then cheap SSDS go figure ...

OneMoar0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f.r43.cf2.rackcdn.com/23105-fast16-papers-schroeder.pdf
read the paper for your self silly (look a the uncorrectable errors on SLC vs MLC)
and the final nail in this silly little bit of retarded ness is that studies such as this become less accurate the longer they are run

solid state tech has come a long long LONNNNNNNG way in 6 years so the entire study is moot due to changes in SSD tech over time you can't make a apples to apples comparison if you are mixing 5 3 and 6 year old apples into a pie

TheinsanegamerNIn a cold state, a ssd will only have data retention for 2-3 months. A hard drive, at minimum, can go 7-12 months, typically it is common to go years and still have retained data integrity. That being said, tape backups are really the only good "true" cold storage solution.

Also, the article is about how expensive SSDs based on SLC are not more reliable than cheaper MLC SSDs.

OneMoar0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f.r43.cf2.rackcdn.com/23105-fast16-papers-schroeder.pdf
read the paper for your self silly (look a the uncorrectable errors on SLC vs MLC)

and the final nail in this silly little bit of retarded ness is that studies such as this become less accurate the longer they are run

solid state tech has come a long long LONNNNNNNG way in 6 years so the entire study is moot due to changes in SSD tech over time you can't make a apples to apples comparison if you are mixing 5 3 and 6 year old apples into a pie

R-T-BThey are going by complete failure aparently, and saying RBER is a more reliable measure of that than UBER. That may be true, and yes, would not be what I or most would consider reliability as SSD failure itself is uncommon.



They appear to be age grouped to keep apples-to-apples valid.

OneMoarthey are grouped but they make no mention of when the drive was put in service and when it was taken out

R-T-BFair enough. It was a quick skim and I assumed that the grouping would be logically based on age, I did not validate that.

TheinsanegamerNIn a cold state, a ssd will only have data retention for 2-3 months. A hard drive, at minimum, can go 7-12 months, typically it is common to go years and still have retained data integrity.

FordGT90ConceptI was going to object to the 7-12 month figure but before I said as much, I just plugged in a 1997 Pentium II Gateway 2000 machine. It powered on but refused to give me any video. It might not like my KVM or the fact that keyboard is plugged in via USB instead of PS/2 so I gave up. I then tried my 2000 Compaq Presario with an Athlon processor. It shows the Compaq logo but it sounds like it just keeps POSTing over and over again. Both systems haven't been plugged in for years.

Without further testing, I don't know what specifically broke in the systems but at this point, the above statement appears to be true. I expected both systems to run without a fuss.

I'm debating about just pulling the HDDs out of them and erasing them. I'm pretty sure I erased them before I used them for old games so not really anything of value on them. It would tell me if the HDDs are still in good shape or not though.

FordGT90ConceptIt should be able to POST/boot without CMOS battery. Both systems should be able to run off of factory defaults. I suppose if I were to fully troubleshoot them, that should be the first thing I check. :laugh:

FordGT90ConceptIt should be able to POST/boot without CMOS battery. Both systems should be able to run off of factory defaults. I suppose if I were to fully troubleshoot them, that should be the first thing I check. :laugh:

TheinsanegamerNIn a cold state, a ssd will only have data retention for 2-3 months. A hard drive, at minimum, can go 7-12 months, typically it is common to go years and still have retained data integrity. That being said, tape backups are really the only good "true" cold storage solution.

Also, the article is about how expensive SSDs based on SLC are not more reliable than cheaper MLC SSDs.



OK, I have no idea what you are on about. This study just came out, and now you're sitting here saying it's unreliable because its been run too long, when it JUST CAME OUT? Also, when was the last time SLC tech changed much? MLC has been the name of the game for awhile, SLC has been largely stagnant with exception to capacity.

FrickI recently went through a bunch of old laptop HDDs. One of them is a 3GB drive from the late 90s iirc,and it worked flawlessly.

FordGT90ConceptSo HDDs are still king for archival purposes. Why am I not surprised? At least there's imperical evidence of the fact now.