On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 13 Feb 2017 13:17:14 Poison BL. wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Frey <djqf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/12/2017 02:40 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> > > > So does anyone have any evidence of a current generation SSD lasting
> > > > more than 20 days?
> > >
> > > I have tried various SSDs (multiple brands and generations) over the
> > > last maybe five years and found that they're very unreliable (multiple
> > > brands too.)
> > >
> > > I know everyone's saying these things are reliable but out of four SSDs
> > > I own, I've had to replace three, some more than once.
> > >
> > > I just don't use them for anything I want to stay working. Right now I
> > > keep them in my mythtv frontends as I can restore the OS easily. One
> one
> > > of them the company involved (Kingston) even sent me a newer
> drive/model
> > > as it was replaced more than once.
> > >
> > > I know they're fast. But what's the point of going 500 MPH and crashing
> > > into a mountain with no chance of repair/recovery. I went back to a
> > > (relatively) slower rust raid10, and it's been reliable for the last
> > > four years. At least with a hard drive failure, you stand /some/ chance
> > > at recovery, not zero.
> > >
> > > The one SSD that hasn't had to have been replaced under warranty is in
> > > my laptop which I generally use maybe a dozen times a year. I fully
> > > expect it to die one of these times when I boot the laptop (it's one of
> > > the old models.)
> > >
> > > My experiences are with Samsung, Kingston, Intel, Crucial and AData
> > > SSDs. The last one I bought because these things I view as throwaway
> > > devices (the warranty expired on the original Crucial) and don't want
> to
> > > spend big money on them. I have noticed the AData SSD's performance is
> > > not as fast now as it was new (maybe 1.5 years ago?) So it'll probably
> > > pack it in soon too.
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > I've had more than one spinning rust drive fail hard over the years as
> > well, though yes, you do usually have some chance of recovery from those.
> > Gambling on that chance by leaving a given disk as a single point of
> > failure is still a bad idea, spinning disk or not. The point that you
> went
> > from single-disk SSD back to raid10 makes me question why, if your uptime
> > requirements (even if only for your own desires on a personal machine)
> > justify raid10, you weren't on at least raid1 with the SSD setup.
> >
> > As for performance degredation on SSDs, that I've definitely seen on
> pretty
> > much every brand, though I've had good luck doing clean reloads on
> samsungs
> > once or twice to get speeds back up some (somehow, even trim doesn't seem
> > to keep things at their best).
> >
> > I can't say they're more or less reliable than spinning disks, though
> they
> > do have the benefit of no moving parts to wear out over time (thermal
> > cycles can still cause a physical failure on them, though).
>
> Have you noticed a difference between mounting partitions on them with the
> discard option, Vs running fstrim on a cron job?
> --
> Regards,
> Mick


I actually only have one (exceptionally cheap, and little used) in a linux
box at all, and haven't tested with anything other than having discard set.
I sadly have to live the windows life on all my work machines :(

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Reply via email to