On Sat, 2022-11-12 at 07:27 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:22:19PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > [...] > > > I think what hede was hinting at was that early SSDs had a (pretty) > > limited number of write cycles [...] > > As was pointed out to me, the OP wasn't hede. It was hw. Sorry for the > mis-attribution. > > Cheers
What I was saying is something like that the number of failures out of some number of disks doesn't show the numbers of storage space failing (or however you want to call it). For example, when you have 100 SSDs with 500GB each and 2 of them failed, then 49TB of storage survived. With hard disks, you may have a 100 of them with 16TB each, and when 2 of them failed, 1568TB of storage have survived. That would mean that the "failure rate" of SSDs is 32 times higher than the one of hard disks. I don't know what the actual numbers are. Just citing some report saying 2/1518 vs. 44/1669 failures of SSDs vs. hard disks is meaningless, especially when these disks were used for different things. If the average SDD size was 1TB and the average HDD size was 16TB, then that would mean that the actual survival rate of storage on hard disks is over 17 times higher than the survival rate of storage on SSDs, ignoring what the disks were used for.
