Question Do SSDs have a longer lifespan and greater reliability than traditional HDDs these days ?

[yifat]

in my desktop PC I have 2 disks:
a 2.5" SSD for my operating system and all apps.
and another internal 3.5" HDD for what I call "data" which includes: video files, audio files, family pictures, documents etc.

every time I buy a new computer, I take out the "data" disk from the old computer and plug it into the new computer. (the SDD "operating disk" is not-important because the new computer comes with a new one and I have to re-install everything anyway).

this "data" disk has the content that is important to me and I backup it's content to another HDD and on the cloud daily.
because of this importance - this disk has to be reliable and have as much longevity (lifespan) as possible.

lately I've read that the newer modern SSD's have a bigger lifespan (in terms of years) than HDD's (this was not the case years ago).
would it be a good idea to switch from HDD to SSD for my "data" disk? will it more reliable and have more longevity?

the capacity I need for the "data" is only about 2TB so the price difference between the SSD and the HDD don't matter much.

and yes, I know all disks fail at some point and it's just a matter of time.

 

[USAFRet]

All my house systems (except for the large NAS space) have been SSD only for years.

would it be a good idea to switch from HDD to SSD for my "data" disk?

Yes.

But also, no matter what type of drive, start and continue a good automated backup routine.
Any drive, of any type, can die. Or any of the other reasons your data can go bye bye.

In answer to your question, Yes. SSDs can be more reliable than HDDs.
But that only is seen in fleetwide numbers.

The single device in your system, it might die. HDD or SSD.

 

[hotaru.hino]

In theory, yes, SSDs are more reliable in the sense that they don't have moving parts and aren't susceptible to mechanical issues.

In practice for a typical home user? It probably doesn't matter much. It's hard to get any metric on reliability or longevity because there isn't any useful data about it for this environment. Sure you could go read Backblaze's HDD/SSD reliability reports, but that only really applies to using storage drives in a cloud storage server environment, which is much harsher than even a typical home NAS.

Then there's the issue that electronics could suddenly die early on (or sometimes just because).

So this is a case of get whatever helps you sleep better at night. What's more important is you have a good backup plan in place.

 

[35below0]

There are dirt cheap SSDs that you shouldn't trust. Always read reviews before you buy.

I have had HDDs lasting basically forever without failure. They can last a long time reliably. I still use a large HDD for movies, and also games and a bunch of files that don't benefit from fast speeds.

I trust both technologies if they're from reliable vendors.
Backups are always highly recommended.

 

[Bob.B]

in my desktop PC I have 2 disks:
a 2.5" SSD for my operating system and all apps.
and another internal 3.5" HDD for what I call "data" which includes: video files, audio files, family pictures, documents etc.

every time I buy a new computer, I take out the "data" disk from the old computer and plug it into the new computer. (the SDD "operating disk" is not-important because the new computer comes with a new one and I have to re-install everything anyway).

this "data" disk has the content that is important to me and I backup it's content to another HDD and on the cloud.
because of this importance - this disk has to be reliable and have as much longevity (lifespan) as possible.

lately I've read that the newer modern SSD's have a bigger lifespan (in terms of years) than HDD's (this was not the case years ago).
would it be a good idea to switch from HDD to SSD for my "data" disk? will it more reliable and have more longevity?

the capacity I need for the "data" is only about 2TB so the price difference between the SSD and the HDD don't matter much.

All disk fail......take it to the bank.
It might be 10 mins or 10yrs.
Ssd vs hdd......flip a coin.

 

[yifat]

All disk fail......take it to the bank.
It might be 10 mins or 10yrs.
Ssd vs hdd......flip a coin.

yes I know, that's why I backup daily in 3 places including cloud
regardless I still have to make a decision of either SSD or HDD for my data storage based on which will have a lower chance to fail on my in the next few years.

 

[35below0]

If the data is just to be stored, and speedy access times are not important, look at Toshiba P300 or Western Digital Blue 5400rpm.
Try to avoid high rpm drives because they do have a shorter lifespan, and they do make more noise. And the extra speed is worthless in the age of SSD. Plus you want bulk storage, not speed. Right?

You'll get more terabytes of storage for less money with a HDD. They take up hardly any more space than a SATA SSD. An NVMe would take up almost no space but it would be a glorified flashcard really.

Seems like large HDDs are tailor made for bulk storage. And they're easier to unplug in case Windows needs to be reinstalled. This is true of SATA SSDs too.
Not every motherboard allows you to "swith off" an NVMe.

 

[hotaru.hino]

regardless I still have to make a decision of either SSD or HDD for my data storage based on which will have a lower chance to fail on my in the next few years.

We can't answer this question because there's no statistically significant data on failure rates for drives in a home NAS setting available to back up the answer. At least as far as I know. Google is your friend.

But if you're really paranoid about this, then sure, go with an SSD since theoretically they can last longer.