SSD reliability lower than disks?
Summary: Recent reports suggest that SSD's are no more reliable than 1 TB hard drives. Given that few SSDs are 1 TB, the reliability per bit is much lower for SSDs. Why?
Recent evidence suggests that SSD's are no more reliable than 1 TB hard drives. Given that few SSDs are 1 TB, the reliability per bit is much lower for SSDs. Why?
Background A French site specializing in Mac systems got data from a French retailer on disk and SSD returns. They saw about the same failure rate for SSD's as they did for 1 TB hard drives. More recent 2 TB hard drives were less reliable. Not a surprise since it takes time for the manufacturing processes to mature.
These findings are surprising if you consider flash chips to be like the thousands of other integrated circuits that you use every day. IC reliability is impressive and it is not uncommon for a chip to work flawlessly for a decade or more.
But flash chips aren't like other chips: they require ?20 volts to write data. In the chip world, where insulating layers may only be a few molecules thick, 20 V is a lot of electrical pressure.
Wait a minute, you might think, there isn't a single flash chip that specifies a 20 V or even in 15 V power requirement. And you would be correct.
Flash chips have power specs like other chips. What's different is that flash chips have on-board electrical pumps - in the form of dedicated capacitors and an oscillator - that take supply voltage and convert it to the higher voltage needed to write a flash cell.
Here is a recent annotated chip photograph, courtesy of Toshiba Corporation (the folks who invented flash) that shows the chip area devoted to the pump function.
The Storage Bits take Storage is the most difficult problem in computers. Moving bits through a pipe is easy. Storing bits for years is hard.
It is no surprise that devices composed of multiple high-voltage flash chips may have infant mortality rates similar to disk drives. After all, we've been building disk drives for over 50 years and the advances in density, capacity and reliability are just as amazing as they've been for semiconductors.
The irritating part of all this is that we shouldn't have to rely on data filched from a French retailer to know what to expect from our expensive flash drives. The vendors know what the reliability is: they build hundreds of millions of devices a year and they track the returns on every batch.
But, like every other storage vendor, they would rather give us bland assurances than hard facts. First mover disadvantage and all that.
Bottom line: don't trust your SSD any more than you trust a hard drive. Backup your data locally and online at least once a week.
Only you can protect your data.
Comments welcome, of course. I'm on my 2nd SSD-equipped notebook: a 13" 4/128 GB MacBook Air. I expect that larger, faster & cheaper mini-SATA replacement drives will be available by the end of 2011.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
My experiance with SSD
The 3rd drive sat on the shelf for almost 6 months before I installed it, because I didn?t want to go through the hassle of rebuilding my laptop if the SSD failed. Again. I finally purchased an imaging backup package and an external hard drive to keep a daily restorable backup.
I love the performance increase. My 3 year old C2D is faster than the new i5s I have purchased recently because of the SSD. But because of my experience, there is no way I would ever deploy an SSD on one of my users laptops. I just can?t trust them.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
I doubt those two deaths were from anything other than you getting two bad drives (it happens). At to the 'hot swap' thing.... YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HOT SWAP A SSD DRIVE!
Says right on their websites that doing that can kill a SSD drive instantly.
SSD unreliability is not NEWS?
:-(
When (not where) were the SSD's (in this study) manufactured?
Another way of stating that, will this study accurately predict the reliability of Apple's current MacBook Air Flash storage systems over time? (I only use Apple products as an example because it was stated that this French retailer specialized in Apple products)
How does a capacitor ....
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
charge in parallel, discharge in series? You would need more than one.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
Some DC to DC Voltage doublers work this way, but not this one. Basically, capacitors are charged in parallel, then discharged (generally into other capacitors) in series.
With two capacitors, it nearly doubles the Voltage, but one can use more than two capacitors.
A problem can occur if you need a lot of current. It is hard to do, at which point you actually need the oscillator and transformer, followed by a diode bridge to turn it back to DC.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
I have a Toshiba laptop with both an SSD (boot drive) and a regular hard drive. Out of the box, the system was not installed or configured with consideration for the SSD. I have scoured the system looking for any and all references to temporary locations and files. Every one of them that I have found have been changed to use the regular hard drive for temporary storage.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%20600052675&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
The good ones also tend to be quadruple the price
Maybe, but were the SLCs checked for reliability?
No sense putting in unreliable disks for any price for the data is more valuable than the drive. If the SLCs were ramped up in production the price would drop from $11.50 per gigabyte. Since they use these in the military, they can take plenty of punishment. As for the controller, that is on the motherboard or a daughter card. Separate piece. Just take the drive off and hook it up to another computer with a USB adapter and get your data. You also have to backup to more than one disk.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
I think he means the flash memory controller built into the SSD itself.
I do agree that if they ramped up production, SLC prices would fall. But I suspect that's not the industries intention since they want people to buy cheaper MLC drives every two or three years instead of the more expensive SLC drives every ten years.
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
I believe the memory controller in the SLC is better too.
I have valuable data so I would go with the SLC. I can juggle so many and 2 or 3 SLC would probably cheaper than 5 or 6 MLC to guarantee against data loss. The trick is to have a few hard drives going at once to prevent data loss.
Wrong measure of reliability
Don't trust anything
Re the reliability of drives, don't rely on any of them. Even if someone developed a storage that could last a thousand years with 100% reliability, it's useless if someone steals it or you have a house fire. Personally a 2TB drive terrifies me. 2TB is a helluva lot of data to lose and if the data is genuinely valuable you should regard the minimum backup as 2x the capacity in 2 different locations. My MacBook Pro backs up to an off-site(ish) RAID via Time Machine and to a weekly SuperDuper clone.
Retail info reliable
If there was some type of broad study which lists the reliability of SSD drives from all manufacturers and compare against the PATA/SATA drives, then that would be different.
In the end, [at least part of] this blog is nothing but shotty reporting.