Stop using hdds

yeah let me just use a drive that is expensive as shit per GB and has a higher rate of failure

but I guess all we care about is muh speed

SSD is good to keep old hardware alive. My 2012 MBP should get another year or two from going to SSD.

SSD is good for server applications where you expect to replace hardware on the reg.

Spinning rust is good for cheap deep storage.

My dick is good for your mom.

HDD: 1TB: $50
SSD: 1TB: $250

>higher rate of failure
you seem confused

>your time: worthless

Now show random 1k.

>SATA SSD
Cute.

>not storing data on magnetic tapes

>$250 for a purchase you make every few years
how is that an issue for an actual functioning adult?

>there are people who genuinely believe there is no viable market for HDDs
>system boots in 30s not 10s
Not my problem you have a razor thin attention span
>5x the storage capacity for the same price

yes, and over 5x higher transfer speeds
you fail to understand the point of SSDs
HDDs are totally fine for storing actual data, but for things that need a lot of writes or quick access they're completely worthless

it's not just booting, it's programs starting up, thumbnails loading.... everything
not all of us are

Thank you for your contribution

Attached: you.png (1190x906, 178K)

Attached: 1497790315667.jpg (1200x1553, 556K)

This
/thread

>do mathematical programming
>store intermediate results every now and then
>a terabyte of data every week
The choice is to either wait slightly longer or constantly buy new SSDs because of disk failures, also risking corruption of results.
If you really use the disk for something, HDD is a no-brainer.

Sure. Just as soon as 4 tb of SSD storage don't cost like a motor vehicle

Holly shit not my serial number, fucking monsters

>unironically having an active internet connection on what you consider your private machine at all times
just get a cheap shitposting device and airgap your real pc

You vastly underestimate the endurance of SSDs.
E.g. 1TB Samsung 860 Pro comes with a warranty of 5 years or 1200 TB of writes; that's 4.5 TB a week on average.

I stand corrected, though I'm slightly sceptic about data loss, which is not covered by typical warranty.
I've lost a lot of hours because of an SSD failure way back, but I'll have to check my stance after looking at some data. Thanks for the heads up.

>OS locks up
>no way to know if it’s writing or not
>have to force power off
>data corruption or device flat out stops working
What a time saver

The random failure rate of HDDs is on par or worse than that of non-chink SSDs, and data loss isn't covered by warranty either.

However, you should consider whether the speed is worth paying for - i.e. there's no point in paying for terabytes of SSDs if it only improves your calculation performance by 5% compared to a HDD, and the money is better put towards RAID0, faster CPU, etc.

>higher rate of failure
>you seem confused
Not him, but could you expand on this?

Maybe do not use shit OSes and/or shit laptops without a disk LED.

Get back to me when I can have 10TB of replicated data for $600 on an SSD.

Attached: 1527617359440.jpg (638x558, 63K)

>2010
>get back to me when we can have 500GB for $600
>2014
>get back to me when we can have 2TB for $600
>2018
>get back to me when we can have 10TB for $600

meanwhile everyone else enjoys the speed of SSDs while keeping their animu collection on HDDs

Attached: 1401274776645.jpg (869x1263, 190K)

>laptops
Forgot to mention this can happen if your temps go too high and it kills power
Maybe don’t use vulnerable storage mediums

Not only this isn't a problem for 99.999% of people, overheating kills laptop HDDs too, and you don't even need a thermal shutdown for that.

SSDs will typically endure more data being written than HDDs do. Most modern consumer SSDs will last at least 1000 write cycles, which in the worst case scenario for a 250GB drive is 250TB written. Consumers aren't going to write that much data to a disk before they replace it. Most professional/enterprise SSDs will last 5,000 cycles or more, which means at a minimum more than a petabyte written before they die. Outside of use cases like scratch disks where you're constantly writing to the disk, SSDs are going to last longer than the typical lifespan of a magnetic hard disk.

disk != disc

>spinning rust is good for cheap deep storage
Until QLC hits the market. HDD-tier capacities in a 2.5" form factor with much higher speed. Low write endurance, but for archiving and backups it's more than sufficient.

QLC is only a 33% improvement ofver TLC density-wise, plus they'll probably need to have more spare area for wear leveling, so don't count on any miracles.

They have already released an 8TB 2.5" enterprise SSD for archiving and backup purposes.

Why not both? I use a 128GB SDD for OS and some apps and 1TB HDD for storage and stuff.

Source? Also, what about SSD health while not in use (without power)?

ye, i use both - ssd for os, hdd for anime and other shit that i don't use every day intensely.

Most manufacturers state that the drives will retain data for 6 months without power. Source is manufacturer specs backed up by reviewers. Most drives lasted longer than manufacturer specs in testing.

guru3d.com/news-story/endurance-test-of-samsung-850-pro-comes-to-an-end-after-9100tb-of-writes.html

Prices have been slowly dropping. It's going to be a long time before we see terabyte SSDs under $100.

The absolute state of this fucking board

>there are people who genuinely believe there is no viable market for HDDs

No one is saying that. We're just saying SSDs are better.

Linux doesn't have this problem

Who is we

Me and my SSD friends.

OP where are the NVmE drives? They are the only one that matter, personally I use SATA SSDs as "big" storage, don't even have plate drives anymore (picc related 970 EVO)

Attached: diskmark.png (402x367, 38K)

These are for WORM applications.
You still use HDDs/tape for achival and backup.

Archival backups are a perfect example of WORM. Continuous non-destructive incremental backups of a system could technically be considered WORM even though the write portion doesn't all happen at the same time.

It's missing the read many part.
Backups are that, backups, you don't touch them that often.

Stop using ram

Stop using monitors

That doesn't make these drives any less useful for backups and archiving.

Higher price per gig than rust and tape.
Also QLC is certain to have lower data retention, there's that.

Price per TB for spinning rust has gone down tremendously as well, and SSD prices have begun to plateau. SSDs are absolutely tue best thing for a primary disk, but magnetic media still fulfills a valid role as high reliability mass storage.

Why don't SSDs have internal batteries like old game cartridges?

That sounds inconvenient as fuck. How would a setup like this work for the vast majority of users? I'd be wasting time just transferring shit around all day.

Old game carts stored data in SRAM, which takes energy to hold, but the required current is extremely minimal.
SSDs hold their cache in DRAM, which takes way more energy to hold data in. A battery won't last long.

The really expensive enterprise ones do have a battery (actually a big ass capacitor I think) though. When power is lost the drive uses the battery to immediately commit the DRAM cache to flash.

This is all well and good, but you still lose whatever was sitting in system ram. Really just use a UPS and have the control software shit the machine down correctly.

Why? I don't work with large files and rarely transfer anything, the fuck would I throw away money lmao

>If you have set up your Linux distro correctly, you should have set some caching settings. Writing files to a HDD that is under 2GB for example will be written to memory first anyway, you won't notice that at all.
linux file systems work differently than ntfs or fat. ext for example doesnt fragment like the windows variants. its the reason why files are written to cache first before committed to the actual file system.

I'm too lazy to move my OS to my SSD
Does it make a significant different in loading speed of everything else if my OS is on my HDD but I keep everything else installed on the SSD?

Rust and tape for offline/cold backups, sure. SSDs also have the benefit of never becoming unreadable. QLC will make sense for backup purposes, even if that's the only use case for it.

programs that would take a minute to load on a hdd load instantly on a ssd

Board barely approved buying $1k worth of small SSDs. I don't think they'll be happy to hear a project requiring $10k+ of funds when we still got a ton of HDDs lying around.

>Implying I give a shit about speed
I want storage

>we wanna see what pictures ya got user
>why don't you want people to see the pictures on your twelve external solid state hard discs?
>we asked a panel of normies who think that an external disc is like a floppy and they agree that only terrorist criminals need high capacity assault memory

Which other brands are reliable, besides Samsung?

Dunno m8, I don't own any other brands. I had a Corsair piece of shit but like everything Corsair makes it died after ~3 years. Most brands don't actually make the NAND or controllers for their drives, but Samsung does.

Yeah. I mean, SSDs are great for the OS drive, but in terms of storage per dollar, at least today, you can't beat a decent RAID using HDDs

>not using Storemi
The patrician choice is a 512gb NVME boot drive with all your major applications
A 4tb 7200rpm barracuda paired with a 256gb 850 evo for a scratchdisk/games/ other large applications
and a NAS with as many 8tb reds as needed for media storage.

Everyone who fabs their own NAND.
So, Crucial (Micron), WD/SanDisk/Toshiba and Hynix, but I don't think Hynix sells retail SSDs.

What are some really good HDDs?
I have an old external HDD that seems to be having problems lately, I'm not sure if it's dying or the cable is broken since I can't find any other mini USB cables I had. Sometimes it doesn't get recognized, I just untangle the cables and it works, videos play fine.
It's at least 5 years old, I didn't use it often and mostly use to storage JAV.

Anyways I wanted to make sure and get a Seagate Expansion Plus 2TB. What I need is something cheap (great value, maybe around 50-70€), reliable/long-lasting. Speeds should be somewhat decent and stable.

Attached: 1522644249735.jpg (1280x720, 92K)

then give me money

Have any of you had SSDs fail yet?

I've had two WD Black HDDs fail since 2013.

Why the fuck do people post dumb comments like this? If you have nothing to contribute, then lurkmoar.

2tb going strong since 2016. 1.5tb is filled with games and creative software

iFyOuHaVenOtHinGtOcOnTriBuTethENlurkMOAR

Attached: spongebobr.jpg (1600x900, 104K)

If it doesn't have a DRAM cache and MLC/SLC, then don't buy it.

Attached: steve.jpg (720x540, 86K)

HDDs are my preferred drives for everything but OS and web browser.

your ssd is weak on you

Attached: pc~01.png (501x505, 53K)

stop using ssds

Attached: 76876.png (412x1101, 163K)

My 55GB SSD from ~2013 is still doing fine.
I also have a Samsung HDD (500GB) that's going strong for much longer. I can't really tell since when I've been using it exactly but I was using it when the 8800GT was still kinda new

fuck I wonder if it's because mine is a 256gb or it's just windows 7 being fucky with nvme but I don't see speeds like that

Unless the 970 is that much faster

Attached: 960 evo.png (406x368, 46K)

I literally can't seem to find a difference between m.2 and SATA drives in speed except for file transfer. I have a 960 evo 500GB and a Crucial MX500 to store my other files on. I recently bought that 500gb m.2 drive, expecting it to be faster but no.

LEAVE

stop using SSD (Sata and NVmeme)

pic related: ramdisk

Attached: 2018-02-02 14_51_56.png (402x367, 35K)

just started using the 960 making the jump from regular hdd

my
fucking
dick

250gb Crucial MX200 I bought in 2015 for $80.

I don't know why you retards think you need to buy only the most expensive SSDs, cheap ones are good too.

Attached: diskmark.png (402x371, 36K)

oh yeah i remember that feeling

It's not that bad if you use the newer HDDs ( it's only half of the Samsung 750

Grab the ramdisk utility for your motherboard and use that instead if you want fastest load times.

No, fuck you.

why don't you move to china if you think fingerprinting and constant surveillance is fine?