HP Warns That Some SSD Drives Will Fail at 32,768 Hours of Use

[TechLady]

"The abnormal expiration time translates to 3 years, 270 days and 8 hours, a lot less than the normal lifespan of these products. For some of them, the warranty can be extended to up to five years."

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...-ssd-drives-will-fail-at-32-768-hours-of-use/

 

[Fred Claus]

Almost 4 years is the lifespan of an SSD? Why would you want that if you can get an HDD that holds more, lasts longer, and is cheaper?

 

[Porthos]

https://www.technibble.com/forums/t...rives-will-fail-at-32-768-hours-of-use.83765/

 

[nlinecomputers]

Almost 4 years is the lifespan of an SSD? Why would you want that if you can get an HDD that holds more, lasts longer, and is cheaper?

You need to reread this. It’s a bug in the firmware that prematurely kills the drive. It’s also been patched.

 

[britechguy]

And even though it's an absolute shame this issue made it "out into the wild" the issue was patched very, very quickly.

This points up two things:

1. Backups are not optional.

2. Updates are not optional.

Both of the above are, and absolutely should be considered, part of responsible computer ownership and use. If the latter are applied routinely, especially in cases like this, it reduces the need for the former.

 

[johnrobert]

How long do they typically last I thought a lot longer than a spinner
Too much bad blood for me to ever buy WD SSD.

I bought what I thought was a 2.5 H/D empty case at a market $2 when I opened it up it had an SSD
used Crystal it said 40 thousand hours and 110 gigs writes, I thought I was still good

 

[Larry Sabo]

This "Reliability of nand-Based SSDs: What Field Studies Tell Us" study says:

We observe that replacement rates for SSDs are significantly lower than for HDDs. Work by Schroeder et al. [20] and Google [21] shows that annual replacement rates for
HDDs typically exceed 1%, with 2%–4% common and
up to 13% observed on some systems. These numbers are
consistent with the most recent publicly available data on
HDDs, reported by Backblaze [17] based on observations on
their own data centers (see Fig. 4). In comparison, annual
replacement rates for SSDs are significantly lower, as we
have seen in Section III-A (typically around 1%, with the
worst model at 2.5%).

I tell my customers that on average, SDDs are twice as reliable as HDDs (1.5% vs 3% failure rate), immune to physical impacts like bumps and drops, many times faster, consume less power and are quieter. However, they are much less likely to be recoverable in the event of failure.

 

[britechguy]

However, they are but much less likely to be recoverable in the event of failure.

Which is why I still recommend backups be taken to the cloud or at least two separate HDDs, alternating between the two, as frequently as necessary (which varies widely depending on how quickly new material is generated). One could, of course, use SSDs rather than HDDs since the probability of any two drives containing the same data failing, simultaneously, unless they are physically in the same space and subject to something like flood or fire is infinitesimally small.

The last thing I put first as far as either backup or recovery is speed. Stability is much more important to me, and HDDs have a very, very solid track record and can even generally be recovered from in the case of most of their modes of failure. They also seem to have a very long shelf life, and I'll be curious if the same will be true of SSDs (or at least the ones produced up to now - they'll obviously be "perfected" for long term storageas time marches on).

 

[NETWizz]

I just never make any promises whatsoever regarding reliability. I didn't build it. Truth is some customers will never have a problem, and some will get a bad unit new out of the box.