Anyone hear about Solid State Drive (SSD) reliability issues?

[Sjhonny]

Why does the SSD controller die? Isn't it like the "brain" of the SSD, just handling where the data goes, which blocks get written and so on, based on firmware?

Some more reading:
Endurance Testing: Write Amplification And Estimated Lifespan
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-520-sandforce-review-benchmark,3124-11.html

Why does the controller fail first? Because it has to endure way more then the flash, it's as vulnerable to imperfections as any computer part, producers don't have the time to extensively test the controllers over a long periode of time (standard usage scenarios) & tweek the design according to there findings.

Making computer parts isn't exact science. If you miss a deadline, your out, since the competitors will not wait for you. Therefor extensive testing is sacrificed for aggressive development. That's why for example NASA uses only decade old chips in there space hardware, because that hardware has been extensively tested.

 

[daneoni]

Been running mine non-stop for 10 months and it hasn't even blinked on me.

*knocks on wood*

 

[DeF46]

Why does the controller fail first? Because it has to endure way more then the flash, it's as vulnerable to imperfections as any computer part, producers don't have the time to extensively test the controllers over a long periode of time (standard usage scenarios) & tweek the design according to there findings.

Okay I still don't understand, maybe because in my mind I picture the controller as a kind of small CPU (it's not memory writing to itself is it?) and I've never had a CPU or even a motherboard, die on me. What does the controller endure exactly? I mean what does it have to endure more than my Amiga bought in 1985 and still working today has? The disk drive of my Amiga is dead yes, that's because there are mechanical parts and some floppy disks have "died" due to the storage technology... but a circuitry that just processes logic, it's not memory is it? I'm really puzzled.

 

[CrispEditor]

Flash controller complexity

Okay I still don't understand, maybe because in my mind I picture the controller as a kind of small CPU (it's not memory writing to itself is it?) and I've never had a CPU or even a motherboard, die on me. What does the controller endure exactly? I mean what does it have to endure more than my Amiga bought in 1985 and still working today has? The disk drive of my Amiga is dead yes, that's because there are mechanical parts and some floppy disks have "died" due to the storage technology... but a circuitry that just processes logic, it's not memory is it? I'm really puzzled.

Remember that the older CPUs had significantly larger transistor and circuit sizes - so quantum effects and heat effects would take longer to "rot" the electronics. Modern electronics will have circuitry to put right the odd errors (internal error correcting) to help ensure high MTBF. But also remember that heat is the worst enemy of electronics. The core of a CPU or I/O chip or flash controller is going to be working overtime, all the time. With potentially millions or hundreds of millions of transistors, all working hard to channel your data to the right areas, they are not "simple" devices. Unlike modern CPUs which can use clock frequency scaling and moderate clock speed due to heat, probably these chips dont, in the interests of time to market, or there is no such thing as "idle" time.

CPUs and hard drives have had decades of refinement and understanding. Flash memory is still in its infancy, and each new generation probably has new technical issues to resolve, and there are fewer players.

Some people will get excellent service out of their flash; some will have errors after a short time.

So, who knows

 

[ixodes]

I'm on year three, of heavy usage with two different SSD's in two of my ThinkPads, no problems.

Yet that's rather meaningless, based on what I've read. Both good and bad, this remains a fairly new technology that doesn't have a long track record as compared to HDD's. Oh sure, many test labs have run them through their paces for very extended periods of time, yet nothing beats using one under real world conditions inside ones laptop or desktop.

I have a 15" and 17" MBP each with SSD's that are just over one year old, and so far so good. However that said, I am concerned with how much warmer a MBP runs than the ThinkPads I have which are equally configured.

Heat being the enemy of electronics, there's a lot to be said for a laptop that's 0.3" thicker, with large vents, high capacity dual fans, and a thermal management system designed for keeping things cool.

Time will tell.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

Aware of all bad reports on OWC's range of SSD's but they are the only brand that have not let me down.

First Used Mercury Extreme and no troubles .. sold with machine after ten months.

G.Skill Falcon lasted four days and replaced.

Kingston SSDNow failed after five months and replaced.

Mercury Extreme (2) no problems and sold to purchase faster model.

Mercury Electra 6GB/s replaced as Firmware update would not take but working great.

So SSD's are not perfect but in my own experience OWC seem the best buy. No doubt others have different stories. This is the 'net.

 

[hfg]

Well ... my experience with OWC brand SSD drives has been disappointing.

I have 3 of their drives:
3G 120GB in Mac Pro
3G 120GB in iMac
6G 240GB in MacBook Pro

In all cases, the SSD holds the OS and applications, data and user files are on a separate standard disk drive. They are set up to dual boot OS X and Windows 7.

The Mac Pro drive failed within a week of installation, was quickly replaced by OWC, and has been working fine ever since for over a year now.

The iMac drive just failed last week, totally locking up the boot sequence from any bootable drive (initially thought to be a main-board failure). It had been installed for over a year with no problems. I am awaiting a replacement from OWC.

The MacBook Pro drive has been installed for about 4 months and has had no problems so far.

I really like the speed of the SSD drives, and will continue to use them, but I am not impressed at this point with the reliability of the drives I have tried.


-howard

 

[DeF46]

Any feedback on Intel SSDs? Are they more reliable?

eg. Intel SSD 520 Series

 

[Sjhonny]

Intel is the best for SSD's. Although the 520 also uses Sandforce, but with different firmware then OCZ, so it should be fine