SSD for a desktop computer - worried about SSD lifespan?

Question

Hi,
Okay, I know that SSD's are a lot faster than HDD's. I actually even swapped my laptop's HDD for an SSD and yes (primarily to make it more silent and shock resistant), it is lightning fast. However, on that laptop I do only light internet browsing, ebook reading, internet radio listening, typing etc, so it's likely that the SSD will last for 10+ years as there isn't much data write there. So my laptop is very silent, very quick, shock resistant and the SSD will last for almost forever.
Now, I have just put together a brand new AMD top-spec desktop computer. The only thing to decide is to install my good old Windows 7 Home Premium on a 250/256GB SATAIII SSD or a 2TB 7200rpm SATAIII HDD. Noise is not a problem here as the many fans in the computer will be louder anyway. Shock resistance also not an issue, as the computer will stay firmly on a massive dedicated computer stand and will not be moved at all. Of course SSD's third advantage, speed, is still there, it would be a lot faster than a HDD. But... And that is a big BUT. On this computer I will do intense browsing (and browsers will cache a lot), will do other cache-using things such as using Google Earth, Photoshop, video editing software etc., many-many thousands of images and audio/sound effect files that need caching etc, and also will frequently install huge (5-20GB) games and copy/move huge (5-25GB) video files, there will be lots of compressing/uncompressing etc. I know that there is an issue with SSD throughput - i.e. the more data you write on the SSD the sooner it brakes, or starts to have "bad sectors" from where data needs to be moved to other part of the SSD drive. So my big issues are: given the above circumstances, what about SSD lifespan (maybe it would brake in a year?) and especially what about SSD data reliability (many of those files will be critical that must not be lost due to an unrecoverable data loss etc.). Of course I could use an SSD along with an HDD but then I would start losing the speed advantage. So sticking to the "SSD only" scenario, where everything is on the SSD, what do you think? Does the (much) faster speed worth it? How long do you think my SSD would last? (The planned SSD is either a 256GB Toshiba 63188 which is very fast but have only 1 year warranty OR a Samsung MZ-7PD256BW that is a bit slower but have 5 years warranty). Second questions is, if I go very deep in my pocket and starve for a few weeks :-) and buy an 512GB SSD, would that last longer? (I don't think I need more than perhaps 180GB, as I will save finished stuff onto an external USB backup hard drive, but maybe the data is written onto different parts of the SSD so 2x space (in theory I guess) means that there is more chance the files are written to different location so the same location gets less usage, so it lasts longer... who knows)...
Any idea/info/advice is welcome - thank you in advance.

Answer 1

life span isnt really an issue for SSDs anymore they have improved massively.



yes their lifespan is still less than HDD however they will still last years.



easiest way to extend the lifespan is do most stuff with your HDD, the only thing that reduces the life of the SSD is adding and deleting files on it. reading from the SSD doesnt effect it atall, i.e if you have all your most used programs on your SSD like web browser, windows, office, and anything else, and then all your games and other work stuff on your HDD the only things that will be rewritten on the SSD are when your programs get updates thats not often.



also can have some of your more favourite games on the SSD.

Answer 2

SSDs are also more reliable than HDDs.Furthermore HDDs do fail with usage(it gets hot when spinning which sometimes contributes to the failure) and once it dies without warning you need to go for expensive data recovery.SSDs provide software that when one is about to fail,speeds goes down to protect data and you will be informed about the impending failure.By the time it is about to fail,the drive is already obsolete and is too slow in the standards then.

I suggest you bite the bullet and get the 960GB Crucial M500(which is very bang for buck in terms of GB per dollar),that will last you a long,long time.Use this as a single drive solution(means no HDDs) and you cannot go wrong.

It is pretty ironic that people trust HDDs more than SSDs when HDDs just fails more often and at the wrong time.

The SSD will only wear out fast if you use it in a file server running 24/7 where files and data are constantly bounced from drives to drives including the SSD.however with that extreme usage it will still last for 3-4 years usually.

Answer 3

a million, this could matter on the penpersistent, your limited via the relationship velocity, USB 2.0 you will no longer get better than 35mb is the main suitable project, extra like 5-10mb pass speeds. 2, your extra useful off going with a HDD, an SSD gets sluggish in the experience that your employing it to function and eliminate fairly a lot of data all the time. i could use the SSD for my majorpersistent, and get a HDD aswell for data that your going to be including and transgering to the flashpersistent.

Answer 4

The main advantage of an SSD as you know is speed. You can do what I do, use an SSD for your C-drive and use Windows 7 backup to put image back-ups on a larger slower storage drive. That way, if your SSD fails.you can get it replaced under warranty and re-image the new one and lose no data.