Hello, everybody. I’ve been looking for a new storage solution. I know, that HDDs are reliable and SSDs are for fast access, but I’ve been an HDD user ever since. I have an SSD, but I only have the OS on it. Likewise, I want to do some basic File operations, as writing documents or copy files. It would also be great if I could use it as a Backup kind of sorts device. It would be great if I could move my data from my old WD-Elements external HDD, quickly, to an intern HDD without any fuss. I just need a Storage medium that’s cheap and good. Do you have any recommendations? Thanks in advance!
SSDs are way more reliable than spinning disks, especially in a laptop that gets banged around. HDDs win in only one category: capacity per price.
SSDs are way more reliable than spinning disks
That’s true, with one caveat: if an SSD fails, it’s usually catastrophically and without warning. HDDs usually give some warning signs before they fail completely (bad sectors, read/write errors, strange noises).
The SSD memory cell failure mode is to retain the last written contents, so I actually don’t think I agree. In the SMART diagnostics, it shows how many of these bad cells are present, which is a reasonable indicator of impending failure from age
One major failure mode of SSDs is that they can corrupt their FTL map. That kills all of the data instantly.
(Now, a major reliability advantage of SSDs is that by being faster, you can also make a backup of them faster. And if backups goes faster, you’re more likely to actually do them. Right? Right!?)
Hdd are good for storage. An SSD sometimes fails by the block mapping area that handles location of where it placed bits of data. When that fails nobody is getting any data off that storage. with an HDD even if your fs table dies you can still pull all the files off using the strings tool. Having said that some sort of self healing system like ZFS should be used to prevent bit rot.
As someone who is slowly migrating his Nas to u.2 SSD, so much this.
Reliability, speed, density. Everything is better with solid state.
The main drive should ALWAYS be an SSD these days. Having an SSD drive is the single most important component when it comes to making your PC feel fast. Even when it comes to secondary drives, I’d stick to SSDs, since you can find 2TB SSDs for less than $100 these days.
HDD come into play when you need more than 4TB and have stuff to store that doesn’t need to be fast, like movies, backups, etc. Those are fine on a HDD, as HDDs are still substantially cheaper at that size and you won’t even find >10TB consumer SSDs.
Another thing to consider is noise, HDDs make quite a substantial amount of noise in a modern PC, so a USB HDD that you can disconnect when not in use ain’t the worst idea.
As for reliability, there is no real advantage one way or the other, both can randomly die. Make backups.
SSDs are really the way to go unless you need massive amounts of storage. I have 4x4 TB spinning disks in a RAID z1. I built it out of refurb WD enterprise grade hardware on the cheap. Going on almost a year of trouble free use. I got each drive for 30 bucks. There’s no way I am going to get that kind of space on an SSD for 120 bucks.
if you have to ask then get an ssd
HDDs are for cheap, not for reliable. Anecdotal, but my personal failure rate with HDDs is around 98% while my failure rate with all forms of flash media (including SSDs) is around 2%.
With 1 TB SSDs being available for as little as $20 (not particularly fast ones but still far faster than HDDs), I don’t see a use-case for HDDs at all unless you need dozens of TBs of storage.
Hard drives are not that unreliable, well, so long as you pick the right model.
BackBlaze’s statistics are here: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q2-2023/ - they run tens of thousands of inexpensive drives to run their cloud backup service. Some HDDs are much better than others.
That document also links to their SSD statistics (they don’t have that many SSDs yet, so the stats aren’t as good) but while SSDs tend to have lower failure rates, there are some models of SSD that have higher failure rates than HDDs. For example, one Seagate SSD they use has an AFR (annualised failure rate) of just under 2%, but one Toshiba HDD they use has an AFR of only 0.31%. (Another thing to be aware of is that Backblaze’s drives will all be in air conditioned data centres, not in the random temperature/humidity spreads of a PC in someone’s home).
If you look at the stats as a whole generally SSDs have half the failure rate across the board to HDDs, but it varies a lot by make and model. So be careful on which you pick, and take backups :-) For my money, all my PCs (desktop and laptops) are pure SSD setups. My server still uses spinning disks, mainly because it’s older server class hardware with a SAS array.
By the time enough longevity data has been collected to be really useful, obsolescence is becoming a factor. And even if the same model number is still being sold, the hardware inside may have changed and all of the data may not be directly relevant.
Sticking with a reputable product line and assuming that past performance is relevant doesn’t always help, either… I remember the Deskstar Deathstar drives fiasco, and got bit hard by it.
Of course anecdotes are of very limited usefulness, but I had exactly the opposite experience. The HDDs that failed on me, failed slowly with SMART errors that gave enough time to make a backup, and never failed completely. On the other hand I had a cheap SSD die completely and without any warning after only limited use, and experienced bit rot even on reputable vendors.
tl;dr choose what you want but make backups
