My Kingston SSD just took a shit and died...

That particular ssd is very cheap. It's why I hesitated buying one. I'm thinking of getting a WD Blue. Are they any good?

I think the EVO is SLC or at worst MLC.

I'll have a look at the Crucial too, it's about $40 cheaper than the EVO so I might go with that. I'm not storing anything important on the SSD but I'd like to get more than 12 months out of it this time.

Apparently I fucked up and bought one of the shit ones. I thought it was MLC but it was TLC which I knew had crap reliability.

thanks for that, i'll probably go along with mx500. seems that my country is updated with the prices too.

what's a good HDD for storing lots of important shit? i was looking at some 6TB WDs and Seagates but i've seen tests show that shitloads of them fail early.

Attached: 1561630560472.png (598x628, 383K)

you're a moron for trying to pick which make or model of drive is most reliable. It's impossible to know that ahead of time. The only way to find out is to do something like Backblaze - buy a thousand drives and run them for years. But by the time you've run them for years, the drives you can buy today are different models. Which might be good or bad, you don't know.

You should expect that whatever kind of drive you get might fail at any time with no warning, because they all can. You don't trust a brand name, you trust redundancy and backups.

but surely one type from a brand is better in some way than the other? i.e WD green VS WD red?

No. Let me repeat that for you. All drives can fail at any time with no warning, and there's no reliable way to tell in advance which models are more likely to do so.

Mate, come on. That's like saying a brand new Jeep will be as reliable as a brand new Toyota. Chances or not, there's a pretty good idea of which one will fuck up before the other.

>took a shit and died
Did you flush?

You're an idiot. A shit SSD will die with no warning and say goodbye to all your data. A good SSD may still die but will become read only do you can recover your data. I have Samsung 830 series SSDs that are still at 99% drive health with 25+TB written to them. Not all NAND is the same and yes, at some points you're paying for the name, and the reliability that the brand brings. For instance you couldn't pay me to use SATA drives.

What wrong with SATA drives?

I'm sorry. I'm a dirty phone poster. It auto corrected. I mean Adata, the company.

Even excitingly expensive enterprise drives fail. Those are presumably built to a higher standard, and sold to people with deeper pockets and a lot more riding on their data than some guy with an anime collection. And they still die. Randomly and unpredictably. The only thing you can do about that is to MAKE BACKUPS. But the thing is, once you've done that, you don't really give a shit, do you? You've converted a drive failure from a data-loss disaster into a minor inconvenience. So you no longer have to care about trying to pick which drive has a 1% vs. a 2% annualized failure rate. You can buy whatever is cheapest for the capacity you need and if it happens to fail, you replace it.

He's talking about HDDs. Not that SSDs are much different. Some failure modes just click the drive into read-only mode, some leave it stone-cold dead, or partially operational. Again, there's no reliable way to predict how likely this is to happen, or when it'll happen.

The MX500 appears to be TLC but the reviews for it were pretty good. It also had a better guarantee of being able to read/write at least 150TB of data on the 250GB model.

Price wise and longevity wise, I'll get the MX500.

When in doubt, MX500. 99% of the performance of an 860 for 80% of the price.

t. owns a 1tb one

For sata ssds, only get samsung. Rest are shitty, literally all of them even name brands. Only get samsung, seriously.

I would settle for OVER 250 at the very least, 120gb (111gb in windows) is not enough for a fully updated windows 10 creator.

SSDs are horrible for cold storage, depending on temperatures they loose data as short as a few weeks.

Had a crucial drive that showed up as not formatted in an external case when I left it unused for a month or two, formatted it, used it as a system boot drive in another computer and haven't had a problem for the last half an year.

>I would settle for OVER 250 at the very least, 120gb (111gb in windows) is not enough for a fully updated windows 10 creator.
The absolute state of WinBloats

>Talking about HDDs.
Ah. Well then it's all about backups, backups, backups. If it's important, you should have at least 2 copies on separate media.

WTF you smoking it doesn't take up 30Gs ver 1903 on my 64gb tablet with wacom digitalizer.

That's such horse shit. Idk what that user is doing, but my fully updated, legit copy of windows 10 Pro is 62GB, including all my programs

When a company fucks you even once on a particular product, you never buy that type of product from them again.

Don't buy from crucial; google crucial bait and switch. They're shit

not the latest or not fully updated with insider updates

Stop saving full copies of old windows installations to revert to you dum dum.

Hmm. What about the EVO then? Good proven history?

Asking is leading the pack for a reason. Speed and reliability aren't cheap. I've had nothing but Samsung SSDs since I started building and SSDs were like $1.50 per GB. All of them still work flawlessly to this day.

Wtf. Samsung* is leading the pack for a reason

kingston are extremely shit SSDs
not only that, the smaller the ssd the quicker and likelier it is to fail, no matter the brand

>I think the EVO is SLC or at worst MLC.
Samsung EVO line is TLC with an SLC buffer.
Samsung PRO line is MLC with SLC buffer.

samsung is also selling 120 GB because the competition is tough

not sure if there is cache on these tho
they say 250GB has cache
120 should be 128 to have cache afaik

>the smaller the ssd the quicker and likelier it is to fail
Where are you getting this from? I have a 60gb Intel drive that has been used everyday since 2013 and it's still 100%.

it's on the specs of any drive faggot
the smaller the size, the smaller terabytes written capable it is

if you're rich get a 1TB for menial tasks and you're safe for life

seagate nytro SSDs are pretty cheap and are supposed to be server quality, i.e. very reliable. You can get a terabyte for something like 2-300 dollars. I plan on putting one in my next build, but im poor so that may change by the time i have money

you BACKUP on an SSD?
you have some balls dude (or you must not care)

Attached: ebic.jpg (1003x525, 51K)

>if you're rich
If you just need the spaceand don't care about the SATA bottleneck, a 1TB MX500 goes for $110 these days. 1TB 960 EVO goes for $140 as well.

western digital green

My WD Blue is starting to choke after using it for 7 years but I'd say thats pretty reliable

WD Blue 3D is a solid choice. 5 year warranty and better endurance ratings than MX500 while having the same speeds

buy 1 more

he mean ReadyBoost+pagefile

use firmware tools and lowformat it with less space

I have it, and its failing as we speak.
Granted, my thinkpad has a faulty mainboard that causes the sleep to fail each time.
Thats gonna kill any ssd.

Attached: 1562506735009.jpg (646x595, 42K)

>poorfag barracuda cope

its how the technology is, each sector can take a limited ammount of writes
better SSDs have better firmware that offsets writes more efficiently so the whole this weara down slower
thus a bigger SSD with more sectors would wear down slower