Hardware SSDs or HDDs - Which is better?

[HarveyHouston]

There is a lot of talk about SSDs in this day in age. (Please read the Disqus comments for a more in-depth idea of what people think of SSDs). Therefore, I'm wondering: Which is better - Solid-state drives or hard disk drives?

To recap...

Solid-state drives (or SSDs) are called so because they have no moving parts. They store information in electronic cells in NAND computer chips, and thus are typically much faster to read from than other existing methods. SSDs were invented in 1991, but haven't seen widespread use until the past decade. SSDs can connect to the motherboard inside a computer via two ways - either directly to the motherboard via a certain slot (usually PCIe) or with a cable like a hard drive (usually SATA).

Hard disk drives (or HDDs) contain a series of magnetically-coated spinning glass disks that are read from and written on by a series of magnetic heads on both sides. Depending on how fast the disks spin (measured in RPM) and the speed of movement of the heads will determine the loading time for files, folders, and partitions. Since the HDD's conception in the mid-1950s, they have been made to better correct read/write errors, and have been made more resistant to shocks and other factors which could damage the magnetic surfaces of the disks.

 

[HarveyHouston]

Didn't read the Disqus comments? Here's what I said on the article:

"Solid-state drives (SSDs) are a relatively new technology, having been implemented in PCs as a standard within the past decade (although SSDs themselves have existed since 1991), so there's still some doubt about them being reliable for long-term storage. Hard-disk drives (HDDs) have existed since the 1950s, and thus have proven their reliability (and have radically improved since their conception). Thus, one has to consider these facts:

• SSDs are super fast, loading files almost instantly. HDDs take some time depending on how many RPMs the discs can spin.
• SSDs have NAND flash, meaning they require a battery for storage, and thus can lose data over time when the battery fails. HDDs use magnetic discs which keep data for longer, and thus need no battery - so long as the electronic components don't wear out, they can last for decades.
• SSDs are resistant to shock and the elements. HDDs can get damaged when dropped or succumbed to weather unless protected in weatherproof casing.
• SSDs use electronic cells which wear quickly when overheated while in use, or when too cold while not in use. HDDs are more resistant to extreme temperatures, although it may cause the moving parts to fail.

It is a good idea to have both technologies in the same computer. Ideally, the SSDs can be used to run the operating system(s) of choice (Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc.), while the HDDs can be used to store personal files you wouldn't want to get lost. Regardless of any setup, always keep a local backup of your files in portable HDDs; they're not super-expensive, especially 1 or 2 TB drives nowadays. Clouds can be used, but it's better to have a local backup in the event that you don't have internet access."

However, I could be wrong. What do YOU guys think?

 

[Randall_Adams]

HDDs are good for archival and long term storage type things. They're cheaper, so if something doesn't need to go fast, then they're ideal. You can throw backups of files you have on one and let it sit somewhere. If you need more space and it isn't ideal to use an SSD, then you can also chuck one in your computer for that extra stuff.

If you can manager to have everything on you computer on an SSD, then you should. If that's not feasible, or is impractical, then put the things you use least on a HDD. Flip the idea that your OS should be on an SSD and everything else should be on a HDD, that's just silly. Put everything you can on an SSD because you time is precious. Why not let my games or other programs load faster?

You should keep a backup of everything you don't want to lose, regardless of whether or not it's on a SSD. (Not that most people actually do that... but we should.)

Also, fuck cloud storage. You'd be an idiot to pay monthly for something you could buy one time and save money on in the rather-near long term. So using anything beyond what's offered for free is a bad move. The only exception is if you need to store some hyper important stuff off site. A fire, flood, earthquake or tornado at your house could destroy your backups along with the primary copies of files. So if you need to have a backup and need reliable internet access to it then yeah, go for cloud storage stuff, but if not, you can always store a backup of your most important files at a relative's or friend's house.

 

[Lacius]

For storage, an HDD is fine and cheaper. For your boot drive, an SSD is a must-have.

Regardless, all important data should have backups in multiple locations.

 

[FAST6191]

RAM based drive.

Though more seriously

SSD. Reliable, quick, cost per GB is more than spinning rust. Death rattle non existent which can be a problem -- not all spinning rust will get a click of death but... you note it when it does happen. Outside of some very specific server things then I would not worry about total bytes written these days but once you might have. Storage without power and storage in cold is a largely theoretical thing, and if it mattered I would be more inclined to store it on such a thing than on a conventional drive if I wanted it to be around in 10-20-30 years (though storage volumes for that length of time are tricky).
Can be annoying different form factors. If you want to try one on an old OS you might have a harder time as it will probably not be geared for it.

Spinning rust. Reliable enough but perhaps less so than SSD, especially if you are going to drop your laptop (though some laptop drives have G force sensors), cheap for bulk storage (max size this vs max size SSD is going to be different, though things are slowly catching up. If you are going for a general setup that you can work with then there is not a lot in it) and cheaper per GB, random reads notably slower (it really is -- my SSD died, after being ridden hard and put away wet, the other week and I went to a spinning rust on what should have been a fresh faster OS install as I had one around... wow).

 

[Hayato213]

Depends what is the need of the drive, for something you want to have fast boot time you would use a SSD, as current generation gaming consoles PS5/Xbox boot and load game much faster than their previous generation. A computer with a solid state drive would boot faster than SSHD drive, and SSHD drive would be faster than a regular drive.

Regular HDD would be good for storage of data that you keep for archive, and not write a lot of data over and over. Then there are drives design for NAS and Surveillance usage with 24/7 operation.

 

[FAST6191]

Do people still care about boot time? It felt like an odd concern with those laptops that dual booted into a stripped back version of Linux with technically a browser on there, and even more so when Windows started to push it as a concept/reason for getting rid of traditional power states.

 

[Randall_Adams]

Do people still care about boot time?

Of course. We're antsy, impatient animals and we care about our time sometimes. Knowing I can be logged back into my computer after clicking "restart" in 15 seconds means I'm far more likely to restart it when I'm getting bitched at by some software to, or when I think it will resolve some random issue. And it taking 7 seconds from hibernate also makes it great. I'm much more likely to turn off my computer to save some electricity. It's also nice when I occasionally am in a hurry and forgot to copy a file to a flash drive and need to turn it back on real quick.

 

[Originality]

There’s a few things that haven’t been mentioned yet in this thread. SSDs are only faster whilst it still has SLC cache space left. After the cache is filled, it drops to the slower MLC/TLC/QLC speeds, and some cheaper SSDs don’t have any cache. Also if the drive runs out of space for TRIM to run effectively, a SSD can drop to sub-HDD speeds. The number of calls I get where a laptop is slow because the drive is 99% full…

On the other hand, generally the access speeds are so fast that IO queues are not a thing, where as HDDs are always slowed by the IO queues. There’s also a thing about bit-rot but I believe that mostly affects enterprise archives and isn’t noticed so much in consumer scenarios.

Also when it comes to failure, a HDD usually gives you enough advance warning through SMART tests that you know when to backup your data and replace it. If a SSD fails, it will usually be sudden.

I’m just waiting until either Crystal or biological data storage advances past the theoretical stage…

 

[The Catboy]

Most of the time I store my OS and home on two separate SSDs and then have either another SSD or HDD for random crap, like games I don't always play or backup files.

 

[lamb-duh]

Also, fuck cloud storage. You'd be an idiot to pay monthly for something you could buy one time and save money on in the rather-near long term.

one time? you don't jut buy a harddrive once and use it forever. i keep all my non-physical media on a dedicated computer in the corner. it's an oldish business class tower with three hard drives. i have very low expectations of it, until recently i accessed it exclusively from a 100Mbit network. about once a year i spend $100-$150 to replace one of the hard drives because it's either failed or i've run out of space. last year i replaced a drive i thought had failed only to find out the issue was actually with the sata controller on the main board. (i've also had to replace the computer itself twice in the last five years, but both times were my fault)

cloud storage isn't for me and i've saved a lot of money not using it. but it's not for idiots who want to pay monthly for something you could buy one time, it's a service you buy if you don't want to deal with that particular nuisance in your life.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

I have only hdds at the moment, but i might get an boot ssd

i just hate how some ssd owners act, like whenever i tell some people that i have an hdd i get told "im sorry" like it's not that fucking bad guys holy shit

 

[FAST6191]

i just hate how some ssd owners act, like whenever i tell some people that i have an hdd i get told "im sorry" like it's not that fucking bad guys holy shit

It is.
My SSD died a few weeks back and as I had a decent size spinning rust drive around I went with that... everything feels so slow.

 

[Randall_Adams]

one time? you don't jut buy a harddrive once and use it forever.

i didn't say it lasts forever... does anything last forever? you puttin' words in my mouth now. but yeah, you do buy it one time. if it breaks, you buy another one.

but it's not for idiots who want to pay monthly for something you could buy one time, it's a service you buy if you don't want to deal with that particular nuisance in your life.

admittedly i wasn't counting people who have enough money to not need to worry about being frugal with it. maybe my poor-man's mentality is showing. but yeah, you're right about that. paying for convenience is a good reason too.

(assuming people learning the price difference wouldn't motivate them to buy their own drives. cause if it did then they'd fall into what i'm saying in the next paragraph)

and yeah, idiot was a bit strong, i really should have worded the sentence to say "idiotic" instead. as in the action is idiotic, not necessarily the person is an idiot. we all do stupid things sometimes, but that doesn't mean we're stupid. idiotic like you're doing something stupid, like you're not doing something smart. so not knowing that buying your own drive would save you money is being stupid when it comes to that in particular. when it comes to cosmetology i am lacking in that knowledge, i am stupid in it, i am idiot in regards to that.

 

[DinohScene]

Harddrives for bulk storage all day, SSD for OS/drives which see a lot of activity.

All of the laptops I own have SSDs (except the iBook G3) and computers have SSDs as boot drives.
All of those drives have been imaged and stored on a harddrive 8^)

 

[Sypherone]

For a running a system a SSD is the be way because if Speed. But not for secure of data, because of limited writecycles, tendetion to have more biterrors then hdd and data loss if they are not powered regulary.
But they getting better and better. Newer have wearing level. This is used for, that each block is getting written the same time. This way in combination with a high TBW value, the drive is getting a very long livetime. It can theoretically calculated by every user by his daily write amount.

But for datasecure or backup a hdd is prefered. They are so resistent against datalose. It can lay somewhere in the corner of decades without getting lose any data or corrupt any bit.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

M.2 NVME for my main system, SATA HDD for my NAS storage.

 

[TomRiddle]

Harddrives for bulk storage all day, SSD for OS/drives which see a lot of activity.

All of the laptops I own have SSDs (except the iBook G3) and computers have SSDs as boot drives.
All of those drives have been imaged and stored on a harddrive 8^)

Exactly, ssd is an essential for boot drive and HDD is for files that you don't really access on a daily basis, once in a while or not that much. Also for home server use to store data.

 

[1B51004]

SSDs for OSs and fast computer, HDDs for archives and backups

in fact, i might have to defrag my sis's laptop, since its getting slow, but i dont think she'll ever let me haha

 

[johnMactavish]

Hi! H have a 500 gigabyte hdd and a 250 gigabyte ssd. It took me a long time to buy an ssd, but it's worth it. Take my advice, buddy, buy an ssd put an operating system on it and you will no longer have problems with speed within the system or with running system applications. I also suggest install demanding applications on the ssd, such as games or the same products from adobe