SSD vs HDD which is best after 5 years from now?
I heard that SSD is not recommended because it has a limited number of write cycles.
So, it all depends on how many writes cycles the SSD chip can handle and on your Storj activity.
Essentially, I would recommend HDD.
I think it is usually in dwpd. Storj use is nowhere near a drive write per day…
I was thinking ssd might live longer than hdd in low write. Power use is also much lower in the idle state.
So, we should invest in ssd because once the high investment is paid off, ssd is then free where hdd will fail after a few years and uses constant power that whole time
While SSD’s have published lifetimes, usually noted as TBw (terabytes written) or as DWPD (drive writes per day); hard drives have much of the same life to them and if you continually write to the same few sectors then you will end up wearing them out.
This is actually a very fair point, but also one that may only stand in place with a fairly costly high KWh cost to offset the SSD’s high CAPEX cost. It’s something the enterprise world deals with constantly- is it better to take a slightly large CAPEX to keep OPEX low, or is saving some on CAPEX and a higher OpEX does not eventually make TCO higher overall.
2 Likes
The only problem is that SSD are more expensive these days still, I guess. So it takes longer to reimburse them.
Good points however @andrew2.hart.
This is not really true. Filesystems usually write a lot to a few sectors (the ones containing the filesystem metadata) and it’s no problem for hard drives. SSDs have to use wear leveling for this and if they don’t the area with the metadata gets damaged quickly.
Before SSDs could do wear leveling, there used to be special filesystems or drivers for flash-based storage to avoid that problem.
1 Like