On 17/12/2020 22:24, Chris Green wrote:
> I have had a mix of drives on many Ubuntu Linux desktops and Raspberry
> Pi over the last 15 to 20 years.
>
> In all that time I think I have had two disk drives (both spinning
> ones) fail.
>
> Disk drives are *amazingly* robust and reliable.  For example my first
> serious backup NAS was a WD 'my book' with two 1Tb drives, this ran
> continuously as my backup system with daily backups sent to it for six
> or seven years.  I only retired it because the disks filled up.  I
> recently booted it to try and find some old files of my daughter's, it
> booted fine (and I found the files, more than ten years old).
>
> I have a Lenovo laptop which is SSD based and I've steadily migrated
> my desktop system to being SSD based.  They're all carefully backed up
> so if the SSDs die I'll be OK but so far I've not had any SSDs fail,
> some must be quite a few years old now.
>
> The current backup system is a Pi with an external, spinning, 8Tb
> drive. This isn't very old yet so I've no data.
>
I had one SSD go on me under warranty in my laptop. It didn't die dead,
it just started giving control errors. SMART was used by the vendor to
validate my claim that it was in fact dying


The other SSD I have in this machine replaced a flaky drive about 6
years ago. It is still faultless. 6 years is beyond what my (rusty)
server drives normally do before being junked. I have an old server
drive in this PC also, as the server got upgraded. SMART shows way more
errors on it than the SSD.

In my limited experience SSDS are ALREADY more long-lived than disks and
more reliable. Even under fairly heavy usage. They are just expensive.....


--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05