On 02/12/2016 11:48 AM, herve wrote: > There can be any proof or factual data yet because this is a very young > technology. But what we know is that there is a limited number of write > cycle. Of course hdd can fail with mechanical problems ssd don't have. > From what i read, ssd are much much faster, but, at the time i read, hdd > can be more reliable. And the cost of reliable ssd are no comparable > with hdd. > > What i know is that usb key that are sold to be 'almost' eternal, > (relatively to computer evolution) dies very often, too 'young'. I can > understand someone wanting to preserve it's lifetime avoiding too much > write cycle, for example system in ssd, /var and /home in hdd. i would > do the same. Your experience is your experience. it can't be an > everybody rule. > > My laptop is in use since 2007, with the same HDD, that's 9 years, and i > except too to live on for years. > > hervé Early SSDs had horrible lifetime expectancies of 2-3 years. They quickly increased to 5, and are now over 10 for high-quality ones like the Samsung 850 pro. HDDs are slightly more reliable, but their only real advantage at this point is price/GiB. SSDs are orders of magnitude faster, require less power, and are silent. Really, either you want massive storage, in which case you should stick with HDDs, or you want speed, low TDP and noise, in which case you are better off with an SSD. And in *both* cases, you are a fool if you do not back your data up regularly. And if you do, who cares if your disk dies? Both an SSD and an HDD will die at some point, you are stuffed if you did not back up. So: Decide if cost or the other stuff is more important to you; that's the only useful measure at this point. After that decision, back up, and you'll be fine. Bennett -- GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature