Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 54137
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2021/12/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/8    

2011/7/1-30 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:54137 Activity:nil
7/1     Does anyone have good info, either published or anecdotal, about
        SSD failure rates. I am seeing an alaarmingly high failure rate
        in Enterprise applications at scale. -anonymous coward
        \_ http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html
           http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/213442/solid_state_drives_no_better_than_others_survey_says.html
           http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-6/taux-pannes-composants.html
           Annecdotal: yes, HD-to-HD it's comparable, if it is of high end
           brand. HD-to-HD, SSDs suck if it is OCZ and cheap brands. Byte-for
           -byte, it is horrible. My Samsung failed catastrophically in 11
           months but was perfect before that.
2021/12/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/8    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2009/6/1-5 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:53065 Activity:kinda low
5/31    I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I do play games sometimes. Is the
        80G Sony PS3 sufficient for say, 2-3 years? I'll use it 80% for
        BlueRay movies and 15% game (I play 3-4 games a year max), and
        possibly 5% something else. I'm just trying to figure out how
        long a 80G will last based on my usage, and whether I can get
        away with a 40G version, or if the 160G is a must have or not. Thanks.
	...
2008/8/4-10 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:50776 Activity:nil
8/4     I went to Fry's for the first time in ages and was surprised to
        see a 1T Seagate HD on sale. I'm still using my 250G and it's
        only 60% full. What the heck do people put on their HD these
        days, porn? I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy a
        1T drive for personal use.
        \_ HDTV.
	...
2007/5/17-19 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:46676 Activity:nil
5/17    My new 750G Seagate HD shows only 698G available. WHAT THE FUCK??
        \_ 750G = 750*10^9 bytes.  Your OS is probably measuring in 2^30 bytes.
           See GiB vs GB
        \_ Also, disk drive manufacturers advertise "raw" storage, while
           your O/S measures usable storage. You lose quite a bit to
           disk label information, metadata and other various things.
	...
2007/1/7-16 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:45525 Activity:nil
1/7     Looking to get an external HD for my mom (not yermom). Fry's has an
        ACOMDATA 250GB USB 2.0 for $70 after rebate, but I see only review on
        teh Intarweb (and it's suspiciously glowing). Any of you fine sodans
        have experience with this product or its ilk? TIA. --erikred
        \_ Seagate has 5 year warranty, I think. However their reliability
           has gone down the drain in the past few years. I have a WD250
	...
2006/11/7-8 [Computer/Rants, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:45218 Activity:nil
11/7    I just received my 250GB segate HD that is made in China. I've
        had good experience with segate but they were made in
        Singapore. Has anyone been using Segate drives made in China?
        Any issues? It'll suck if my 250G drive would go bad..
        \_ It doesn't matter.  Your drive *will* go bad, it is just a matter
           of when.  Do backups, use raid or mirroring or both.
	...
2006/7/17-19 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:43698 Activity:nil
7/17    My western digital WD800UE 80gb 5400 RPM laptop HD sometimes
        gives off a few "clicking" noise. Although this has been going
        on for a while and I haven't run into any problems. Is this
        the click of death? Should I be concerned? I am using it in an
        external enclosure and had it shortly after I got it. (it
        started to make that noise when I was trying to "disconnect
	...
2006/5/18-22 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:43088 Activity:nil
5/18    dnm, a friend an occasional denizen of #csua has some hardware for
        sale.  He wanted to make it available to local geeks before
        advertising on craigslist or eBay so I'm posting this for him.
        No prices listed, email dnm with an offer.
        -dans
        * At least 5 HP Vectra VL420 DT desktop boxes, all Pentium 4 1.6 GHz
	...
2005/12/22-23 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:41113 Activity:moderate
12/21   What's the quietest, most reliable 300-500GB HD out there these
        days? I'm mainly concerned with reliability/sound/price per GB
        to store lots of media stuff, and I'm not too concerned about
        performance. Also a related question, when do you guys think
        1T drives will come out, 2008? 2009?
        \_ in my experience, seagate drives tend to be quieter than others
	...
2005/11/16-17 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:40609 Activity:kinda low
11/15   [unrelated to politics] My debian machine at home (I'm learning and
        tinkering) seems to spin the HD down occasionally.  I'd like to never
        spin down the HD (or at least control which hours it can).  Any
        pointers to doing this?
        \_ # apt-get install hdparm
           # hdparm -S 0 /dev/hda
	...
2005/5/12-13 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:37652 Activity:kinda low
5/11    If you noticed that your laptop HD never rests because it's doing
        something, and you've already killed all auxilary processes and made
        drives not "Fast Indexable", it's the explorer that's funky. Here
        is one solution. Kill explorer and then run it again. You can use
        a batch file script:
        taskkill -im explorer.exe /f
	...
2005/5/11-12 [Consumer/Audio, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37625 Activity:nil
5/11    I'd like to be able to use my mp3 player as a rescue os disk as well.
        It shows up as USB HD on most OS.  The mp3 player itself works fine
        as long as I store all of the music on the first vfat partition.  I'd
        like to be able to either install linux onto the HD or store various
        ISO images on the HD and have it boot from it, with menu, so I can
        can select different images.  Anyone know of such method?
	...
2005/5/9-11 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37579 Activity:kinda low
5/8     Poll. If you even had to return a HD, what was your experience like?
        \_ Hitachi: Regular RMA, No advanced RMA, test suite sucks
        \_ WD: Had 2 consecutive failures (same model) in 6 months, the RMA
           website is really good, has tracking and advanced RMA. Advanced RMA
           requires you putting in credit card number so that if you don't
           return the defective drive in 30 days they'll charge you. It's not
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html
I feel ethically and morally obligated to let you in on a dirty little secret I've discovered in the last two years of full time SSD ownership. I'm talking about catastrophic, oh-my-God-what-just-happened-to-all-my-data instant gigafail. I bought a set of three Crucial 128 GB SSDs in October 2009 for the original two members of the Stack Overflow team plus myself. Portman Wills, friend of the company and generally awesome guy, has a far scarier tale to tell. He got infected with the SSD religion based on my original 2009 blog post, and he went all in. The tale of the tape is frankly a little terrifying: * Super Talent 32 GB SSD, failed after 137 days * OCZ Vertex 1 250 GB SSD, failed after 512 days * GSkill 64 GB SSD, failed after 251 days * GSkill 64 GB SSD, failed after 276 days * Crucial 64 GB SSD, failed after 350 days * OCZ Agility 60 GB SSD, failed after 72 days * Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 15 days * Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 206 days You might think after this I'd be swearing off SSDs as unstable, unreliable technology. Storage Review calls it the fastest SATA SSD we've seen. Beta firmware or not though, the Vertex 3 is a scorcher. We'll get into the details later in the review, but our numbers show it as clearly the fastest SATA SSD to hit our bench. ocz-vertex-3 While that shouldn't be entirely surprising, it's not just faster like, "Woo, it edged out the prior generation SF-1200 SSDs, yeah!" It's faster like, "Holy @&#% that's fast," boasting 69% faster results in some of our real-world tests. Solid state hard drives are so freaking amazing performance wise, and the experience you will have with them is so transformative, that I don't even care if they fail every 12 months on average! I can't imagine using a computer without a SSD any more; they need brand new 6 Gbps interfaces to fully strut their stuff. No CPU or memory upgrade can come close to touching that kind of real world performance increase. Just like I date crazy girls fully expecting them to stab me: Always have that backup plan! My SSD simply holds my OS and apps, while my big mechanical drive (anything Western Digital Caviar Black) holds my docs. The projects that require serious I/O (like my localhost and 20 drupal sites) run off the the SSD but are, of course, version controlled through Git. Bloomcb on May 2, 2011 2:36 AM Hey thanks Jeff for posting.. I have been thinking about SSD's for a while now, and wondering what their reliability is like.. given what you said, it certainly sounds fine to put up with the hassles for the enhanced speed. Considering most of what I do these days is either backed up locally via NAS, and Dropbox, and GIT for dev work, it really isn't like the bad old days (I remember buying an Amstrad PC-1512 - ok, I am originally from the UK, and that was the first real PC I could afford back then - it had a WD 10mb HD that fitted into a card slot.. So, my rather modest AMD based laptop should squeal with delight once I get an SSD for it... David Sheardown on May 2, 2011 2:42 AM Do you know why they are failing? Have the manufacturers said why the reliability is so bad? It might be costly, but would you consider buying 2 and using RAID 1, so that if 1 fails, the other one will still be working? Can Berk Gder on May 2, 2011 3:07 AM @Can Berk Gder, comparable speed? Sequential, sure, but nobody cares about that on SSDs except marketing weasels. What we care about is random 4K, which the Vertex can do 250MB/s incompressible, while HDDs struggle to do 1MB/s each (the high-density - 3TB - 7200 35" ones, smaller/older are far worse). You could stick two VelociRaptors, but notebooks don't supply 12V to the drives, so you don't give them power. Poromenos on May 2, 2011 3:28 AM @Can Berk Gder, pardon me if I misunderstood, but what makes the Black array an instant and automatic backup, especially compared to the SSD array? Apps 55753818692 823210138 54f697b0f292c60aa6e0030f691186d2 on May 2, 2011 3:43 AM @Mircea and @Poromenos Honestly, I've used neither (SSDs or a RAID setup). I'm not denying SSDs are fast, nor am I trying to bash them. I've also pointed out that this setup wasn't feasible for a laptop. The point I'm trying to make is, I think Jeff is looking at this from a very strange angle. When I look at the data, I say "SSDs are blazing fast but they fail like crazy." Jeff says "they fail like crazy, but I still love them, so let's buy more SSDs." I've been keeping an eye on SSD prices (which are much higher here than the US) for a long time now, but I think I'll wait a bit longer after reading this post. I just can't afford to replace a $1k drive every 8 months. Alexandru Mooi on May 2, 2011 4:07 AM I agree with your comments, I fitted out a 6 year old ThinkPad X60 with a Vertex 2 last month and it now feels faster than my Quad Core i5 desktop w/ 6Gb of RAM. I wanted to ask if anyone knows much about the SMART monitoring on SSDs, and whether it can predict these failures. If they're failing for some other reason then I guess all bets are off, though. Angus on May 2, 2011 4:20 AM @Can Berk Gder, RAID is for high availability and/or performance, it's not a backup. High availability allows your server to continue servicing while one of its disk is dead. Slavo on May 2, 2011 4:24 AM Shouldn't all of those drives have been under warranty when they failed? I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that's three years old and still going strong. It came with a ten year warranty which seems pretty incredible. I wonder what their replacement strategy is in nine years. Anyway, now I am paranoid and off to double check my backups. William Furr on May 2, 2011 4:48 AM I'd be willing to bet the listed failure rates, while higher than platter HDDs, are not as high as this sample set would lead us to believe. I have two SSDs (Supertalent and Intel) with a total running time about 1150 days with no problems. That's not to say they won't fail tomorrow but I keep my backups upto date so I am not really afraid of the possibility. Chris on May 2, 2011 5:04 AM I can confirm your experiences; I built a PC for my mother and couldn't understand what was wrong when it wouldn't start. Windows wouldn't boot, and neither would any of the safe modes. I was stumped because I thought "It's only been in here less than a year," it can't be the SSD. The worst part, as you mentioned, is that it was a total catastrophic failure like I've never seen with HDDs. I managed to recover the data using boot tools, but couldn't write to the drive, perform certain diagnostics, format or erase partitions. OCZ replaced it without hesitation (Vertex 40GB), but it taught me a lesson about the _real_ reliability of SSDs. Naturally, I have still used SSDs in my last two laptops! PS: The OWC 6gb/s SSDs are supposed to be the fastest, most reliable SSDs around I've heard. com on May 2, 2011 5:14 AM Odd, the particular brand i'm using leaves a 3 year warranty and a life expectancy for a million hours. How is that even close to a good deal for the manufacturer? Naaaah, but sourcesafed and nothing you can't reinstall on the system drive. Crypth on May 2, 2011 5:24 AM Is it just that the reliability of the new hotness isn't there yet? Is last years slower model more reliable, or can you pay more for more reliability? Joel Hess on May 2, 2011 5:25 AM All this fuss - the future is here already and it isnt the current type of SSD. Keep your data & apps away from your computer whatever form your computer is and let your ISP & cloud provider have the hassle (check that you have a decent service level agreement) I know speed and network availability is occasionally an issue at the moment but that will improve. I know what they're like, and for laptops I would use nothing else on account of the greater physical robustness. The fact of the matter is, outside a few corner cases, SSDs for desktop storage don't provide any particularly useful performance advantage. This will add up to entire minutes saved up over an entire year! I will lose more time to having to replace faulty disks, restore from backup, and redo work lost since the prior backup, than an SSD will ever save. I mean, sure, if I were compilin...
Cache (3312 bytes)
www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/213442/solid_state_drives_no_better_than_others_survey_says.html
In fact, they're marginally less reliable: Taken as an average across models, 205 percent of SSDs got returned as non-functioning, compared to 194 percent of hard disks. published its sixth-monthly report into hardware reliability. Given free access to an unnamed online retailer's sales and returns database, it was able to measure the failure rates of hardware sold between October 2009 and April 2010. The data was sampled in October just passed, giving a maximum potential usage period of 12 months. This time around, hard disks appear to have slipped a little in reliability compared to the previous survey six months ago, when the failure rate was 163 percent. In other words, the difference might have been even greater. Therefore it's always been assumed they should be much more reliable in the short to mid-term, although all flash memory has a finite life span that's shorter than that of hard disk counterparts. Of the five traditional hard disks manufacturers included in the survey--Maxtor, Western Digital, Seagate, Samsung, and Hitachi--only one had a higher failure rate than that of the worst-performing solid state disk brand--SSDs from OCZ saw 293 percent failure returns, against Hitachi's 339 percent. When it comes to RAM, it perhaps comes as no surprise that high-performance modules see the highest returns. These rely on state-of-the-art components that are then pushed to the very limit of what they're capable of. However, the failure rates for the worst offenders are massive, with more than one in 10 modules proving faulty. OCZ is by far the worst with 676 percent failure rate, followed by second-place GSkill, with 273 percent. Corsair comes out third taken as a whole, with just 141 percent of its modules failing. Motherboards and graphics cards from virtually every manufacturer seem to average a failure rate of up to 3 percent, while power supplies offer a little more variation, with rates up to 33 percent. If you're looking for an ultrareliable power supply purchase, the Thermaltake EVO Blue 550W had zero returns, according to the survey. And the most reliable component in the PC is the CPU, with a failure rate of 018 percent. This won't surprise anybody with experience: I've never had a CPU fail on me, at least beyond my own inability to provide adequate cooling. Indeed I have computers of between 10 to 20 years old whose processors work fine. Ultimately, however, this survey doesn't provide high quality data. The biggest issue is that the results refer to products sold between October 2009 and April 2010. Some might possibly still be on sale now, but many will have been superseded by newer ranges. This has a particular impact when considering the memory modules figures, for example; the list of worst-performing memory modules includes several DDR2 performance modules. A contemporary list would no doubt involve almost exclusively DDR3 technology. All technologies need time to bed-in in order to get optimal reliability. Similarly, SSD is a young technology and when the survey data was taken, it was even younger. It will be fascinating to see the results of the next survey in six months time to see if the trend continues. Keir Thomas has been writing about computing since the last century, and more recently has written several best-selling books.
Cache (994 bytes)
www.hardware.fr/articles/810-6/taux-pannes-composants.html
Pour tre comptabilis ce SAV a du tre fait directement via le marchand, ce qui nest pas toujours le cas puisquil est possible deffectuer des retours directement auprs du constructeur : toutefois ceci reprsente une minorit durant la premire anne. Western Digital conserve sa seconde place malgr un taux de panne en hausse, alors que cest Maxtor qui occupe la premire place. Cela ne donne pas vraiment envie de confier 2 To de donne ces disques seuls : un mirroring ne sera pas de trop pour scuriser les donnes. Logiquement les disques 7200 tpm sont moins fiable que les 5400/5900 tpm, avec prs de 10% pour le modle Western ! Pour la premire fois, nous intgrons galement les SSD dans ce type darticle. Voici les taux de pannes enregistrs par constructeur : - Intel 0,59% - Corsair 2,17% - Crucial 2,25% - Kingston 2,39% - OCZ 2,93% Intel se distingue ici avec un taux de panne des plus flatteurs. Parmi les quelques modles vendus plus de 100 exemplaires, aucun naffiche un taux de SAV suprieur 5%.