| 1 |
On 17 February 2010 06:27, Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> I thought SSDs were projected to |
| 3 |
>>> last longer than HDs? Also, from what I've read, SLC should last much |
| 4 |
>>> longer than MLC. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> It's the other way round: HD's last longer dan SSD's. [1] |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Disadvantages |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Thanks for the link. I did some Googleing too and I'm really |
| 11 |
> surprised at what I found. It sounds like SSDs don't have the |
| 12 |
> projected longevity they did when I researched this a year or so ago. |
| 13 |
> I'm troubled by the ever-lurking possibility of an HD failure and I |
| 14 |
> thought SSDs would be my way out. Is an HD the best choice for |
| 15 |
> reliability? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> - Grant |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As far as I know, solid state devices are much more susceptible to |
| 22 |
solar flare damage, particularly if you are outside. This is not |
| 23 |
exactly common, but hey. Of course I also have a theory that not an |
| 24 |
insignificant number of computer problems are caused by bit-flips from |
| 25 |
cosmic ray induced muon showers, but I digress... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~daid |
Archives