Did anyone actually get a hybrid drive?

They were. They had SSDs in 2007.
geek.com/review/review-samsung-64gb-ssd-570935/

That's just a year off then, and they were still an expensive enthusiast niche product for the first few years.

I had one for my laptop, and while the SSHD only had 4GB SSD storage, it helped immensely on boot time.
Today SSD is cheap enough that I wouldn't bother with it.

My T420 came with one. Didn't really seem faster than an HDD, to be honest.

It's the worst
of 2 worlds

People who bought laptops around 2014

>magnetic chad being replaced by fragile silicon
daily backups go to the magnetic chads, fucking always... no admin would trust fragile oxides.

That's only because tape drive is better $/GB.
SSDs are solid state devices, not mechanical, which allows them to live for way longer.

The two HDDs in my NAS are Seagate 2TB SSHD purchased around 2015 I think. Whether the 8GB FLASH is even used is anyone guess, they were originally in my desktop until I removed them after a motherboard failure.

>to live for way longe
source

>That's only because tape drive is better $/GB.
Yes but a HDD has advantages similar to tape while retaining ability of random data access.

>SSDs are solid state devices, not mechanical, which allows them to live for way longer.
That's literally not known at this point because SSD haven't been around for long enough to verify that (and early SSDs were rather failure-prone).

they came on laptops. good boost to boot time. price was like 10-20$ more than just HDD. overall, worth it.

Should I just get a 1tb ssd or 2tb hdd ?
2tb would be nice to have but I don't need storage that badly and the ssd is silent and faster for load times
How's m.2, is it worth it, over sata

the other guy is obviously right given that
>Once SSDs reach around the same GB/$ levels as HDDs, it will be over for the HDD
IF SSDs go cheaper per GB/$ then yes, it's over for HDDs. And the same is true for tape and everything else for that matter.

Now, that is a big IF. Looking at prices, there's cheap 120 GB and 240 GB SSDs. If you just want _some_ storage to use on a Pi or something it's now cheaper to buy a 120 GB SSD than say a 512 GB or 1 TB HDD. That wasn't the case a year ago. But I'm not exactly seeing a large amount of 8 TB SSDs or 1 TB SSDs anywhere near the price of a 1 TB HDD for that matter. We still have a LONG way to go until 1 TB SSD storage is cheaper than 1 TB HDD storage. But.. if that were to happen then HDDs are dead. The only advantage a HDD would have then would be the shelf-life, SSDs can't just sit there forever - specially if the temperature is high.

If the choice is 1 TB SSD vs 2 TB HDD total storage then you should absolutely buy the SSD. Then buy a 8 TB HDD for mass storage when you can afford it. But if you already have a 512 GB SSD and you're looking to expand your storage and you're on a budget then do get some HDD. Not sure why that's a choice, though, 1 TB SSD is about the same price as a 4 TB HDD?

As for the m.2, it depends. Look at the SSDs rated speeds then subtract a bit. Is it way above 600MB/s? The Samsung 970 EVO Plus is much faster at supposed 3000 MB/s (it's fast but in reality it's not that fast). The Kingston SSDNOW A1000 240GB on the other hand .. it's supposedly able to do 1500 MB/s read but in practice it's more like 500 MB/s. So it depends on what drive you get. M.2 pcie drives can be faster but it really depends. You might as well get a SATA if it's a cheap drive.

>Now you have to wait for the HDD part to do its job
That's the point of the flash part, after some usage it should know which data are accessed most often and serve them from cache. Of course this depends on what controller/algorithm it uses, some are probably worse than others.
Also my guess is, they may have poor reputation/reviews, because there will be very little difference before it knows what to put in the cache. Or maybe some are just shit, it's really hard to tell with most "user reviews" being by complete tech illiterates.

Ssds outlive humans. The only reason you get hdds now are because cheap Terabytes.

>IF SSDs go cheaper per GB/$ then yes, it's over for HDDs.
its all but guaranteed, maybe not next week or year but give it a little time and its a certainty... just maybe not as soon as we would like.

Attached: 4ED8DA7BA25841898D250C084E5FC3F8.png (382x491, 96K)

Apple still defauts to SSHD in the more expensive iMac models. The cheapest models default to HDD.

bought one when I was a poorfag
It's the first drive that ever died on me

2 times the drives both will die at the same time.
Get me one of those helium drives

Still waiting for $100 5TB SSD.

Cache is too small. You're better off with a software solution like primocache using writeback cache mode. 1TB SSD + 8TB HDD is a dream

Had a Firecuda SSHD, it failed so I don't use them anymore.

SSDs will never be as cheap as HDDs though. Theyre getting cheaper and cheaper, but so are hard drives.

I'm tempted to get a 1TB Samsung NVME drive and like an 8TB HDD to use StoreMI with.

SSHDs only maintained relevance thanks to the significant cost of early flash.
Once flash became more than a niche product, they became obsolete. Nowadays, you have various caching methods from different vendors that allow you to replicate the SSHD concept with greater flexibility.

Yea I mean they're okay but unless you have very specific use cases you're better off with an ssd

you're going to regret that statement in 100 years when hard drives become so obscure they become expensive antiques

>being this stupid

Attached: image:1423.png (800x800, 21K)

except you can't archive SSDs because they don't retain data for very long when they aren't being powered.

We should have massive capacity SSD's at bargain bin prices by now, the price fixing slanty eye jews are milking this shit year on year.
My case has 5 hard HDD in it and each one of them seems to weigh more than it;s size should even be possible of.

StoreMi caps out at like 256GB for the SSD tier. You need to buy the original version or go with a caching program instead

idk man. The original RAM in my pc is dead, whereas the HDD (currently in use in my NAS) is perfectly fine.
there's no proper data yet, only anecdotes

I got a 500gb SSD when they dropped to £100. Now that a 1tb is available for the same price, I see no point in getting a HDD for anything other than a NAS.

>Ssds outlive humans
*blocks your path*

Attached: 1121e98312c45444889cef.jpg (1600x1599, 231K)

Samsung warranties 1tb 860 evos for 5 years or 600tb writes. Are there any comparable price/$ hard drives with such favorable warranty terms? The best I've seen is a HGST Enterprise on Newegg 2tb warrantied for 1 year.

I would use Enterprise pricing but I don't have access to actual quotes so I won't bother.
I'm guessing that's qlc

Anyone considering buying HDDs: look at warranty periods and consider the 5 year cost of either option, rather than the initial purchase.
Yes, raid10 hard drives are very budget friendly

they're nice for gaming, i have two 4tbs myself
obviously not as fast as an actual SSD
they're also quite handy in a PS4, if you can't afford an actual 2tb ssd

>except you can't archive SSDs because they don't retain data for very long when they aren't being powered
It's actually the opposite, magnetic drives are bound to attenuate over the course

No I'm not gay

Attached: virgin ssd vs chad hdd.jpg (1801x1339, 801K)

Yep.
Like all SSDs, it blew up and took all my data with it - even on the (obviously still working) HDD part.
I have it in a box somewhere around here, hoping someone who's not a brainlet like me (proven by the fact that I bought the thing in the first place) might know how to get the (no doubt perfectly-fine) HDD part running and get that data off.

No joke I still use a Sandforce-era SSD as the boot drive in my desktop. Been working fine for like six years.

It's the worst of both worlds and literally contradicts the positives of both.

An SSD:
+ Won't fail from vibrations
+ Doesn't have mechanical moving parts which can fail
+ Has more accurate lifespan estimation
+ Is faster
+ Can hoard more data in the future for cheaper price unless HDD platters get another technological upgrade to their material and data inscription methods
+ Quiet

- Will get fucked by an electrical failure or instability, whether caused by itself, or as a side-effect of other hardware failures via the board, which can wipe and corrupt all data
- Will get fucked by firmware failure, bug, or intrusion, which has a high chance of making retrieval impossible
- Will get fucked by the chip control failing in a way that's hard to fix and which has a high chance of making data retrieval impossible

An HDD:
+ Won't fail from firmware because firmware is irrelevant
+ Won't fail from electrical failure because that only translates to mechanical parts failing while data already inscribed on the platter is retrievable, mechanical inscribing property becomes a strength
+ Due to lower speeds, any registered ongoing intrusions or data corruption can be mended, even if partially, making at least part of the data retrievable
+ Data lasts much longer in case of off-line storage, if HDD is kept in plastic containers away from moisture and high temperatures

- Mechanical parts can fail due to various reasons, like vibration, but data from the platters is at least retrievable
- Speeds will always be lacking compared to SSDs
- Price-per-1GB will be higher than SSDs in the future unless HDD platters evolve again
- Can't monitor and estimate lifespan accurately
- Noisy (albeit some have soothing hums and some are well engineered to be quieter, so it's relative)

Smart people use both for specific tasks where their strengths apply and weaknesses are offset. HDD, archive shelf; SSD 24/7
Retards think one can replace the other.
Full retards get SSHD.

Don't be a retard.

850pro have infinite write and 10 year warranty.

I dare you to unplug your SSD for 6 months and tell me all your data is still there.

>after some usage it should know which data are accessed most often and serve them from cache
Yeah it's still fucking shite. Never felt like it got any faster despite literally doing the same things most of the time. Or does it have to fucking re-learn on every boot?

every ssd on amazon for under 60 bucks will fail in under a year
not even nand health issue the fucking controller will die

People did, but it was a bad idea and soon overshadowed by SSDs just getting cheap enough that you don't care

Sounds useless. Just get an SSD and an HDD. Put OS and programs on SSD, and fat streaming media (music, videos) on HDD.

he will not be alive in 100 years

I did a long time ago, but on pcie. It had some weird drm shit, so it became useless.

I have a hybrid in my Thinkpad, that shit feels slower then a HDD. Should have bought a macbook, they just werk

Yeah. I use an SSD for OS and an SSHD for storage.

I have a laptop with 2015 that has one. It's shit.

I've had this same drive in my pc for 4 years. How much longer do I have?

This, so much this.
SSDs safely go into read only mode on failure. Your data is safe

One of my friends bought one.

It was a piece of shit and because it was a Seagate it stopped working relatively quickly.

I've been running one for 4 years and 4 months without any issue. It started as my boot drive, then I upgraded my system slowly and it turned into a drive with 1 or 2 games on it at a time. Diagnostics all say it has 99% health, and I haven't noticed any degradation in speed or anything since then.

SSDs are cheap now, I wouldn't worry about it too much, you can replace it for $20.