SSD+SSD or SSD+HDD?

[iOSDroid]

Hello!

What would you prefer (recommend), a combination of:

1. SSD of for example 120GB (only for the operating system and essential system programs: CCleaner, Antivirus, Anti-Malware etc) + SSD of 500GB and up (storage: files; personal or not, music, movies, games etc) or,

2. SSD (only for the operating system and essential system programs: CCleaner, Antivirus, Anti-Malware etc) + HDD of 500GB and up (storage: files; personal or not, music, movies, games etc).

Why don't people opt for the first (1.) combination? Technologies have advanced to a much larger scale and, why not? Many (it seems) decide on a combination of "SSD+HDD", being a better option, which is "SSD+SSD". Is it not advisable to use an SSD as storage(?) Or is it because of the PRICE of these? - I wonder. What do you think?

I find it interesting...

[krampak]

Basically because of the price. If the purpose is storage with sporadic access, it is much better to buy an HDD, because for the price of a 500GB SSD, you can buy a 4TB one.

[Sylver]

As krampak rightly says, speed provided by an SSD is not essential for storage, apart from the fact that the price per gigabyte is much higher than for HDDs. If it is data that will not be used very often or whose use does not require enormous performance in access and reading times (for example music, films...), the HDD is the best option.

If budget is not a problem, you can always invest in several SSDs or directly in a large main one and partition it to your liking, although in that type of files that I mention the performance will not affect significantly, so in my view the investment would not be justified.

Greetings!

[iOSDroid]

I agree with you, yes.
A while ago, I was reading around, that they said that "SSDs have a longer life than HDDs". Is that true or a myth?
I had an HDD that lasted me almost 2 years, while the SSD is still working today (it already has a little over 3 years and never failed). When my old HDD (1TB) wanted to "retire" - it gives a little "fear" to trust them. I don't know... maybe the HDD had a defect, that's why it didn't even last me 2 years

My current 1TB HDD, is already 3 years old and the truth is I don't quite understand, what kind of disk is more "enduring", SSD or HDD(?). Anyway.

Regards!

[Sylver]

I believe that the lifespan of a disk is determined by several factors. While SSDs had a very limited lifespan in their origins, now manufacturers are managing to develop extremely durable products that maintain performance over time, and the good news is that this is progressively being standardized.

In the case of mechanical disks, attention must be paid to details such as brand and model (there are manufacturers that offer disks expressly to be in dedicated servers or subjected to very long periods of uninterrupted use, so they take care to make them "more resistant" if possible), the use they receive, the care they are given from the software, etc.

Despite this, one can come across a defective disk or a model that turns out to be bad in general (this has happened to me, for example, with Maxtor in the past), just as there are those who suffer from the failure of several consecutive disks of the same brand and, in parallel, other users have the same disks lasting for decades (as may be my case with Western Digital, of which I have disks with more than 10 years that are still active in perfect condition and other colleagues have had several broken, one after another systematically).

Greetings!

[cobito]

The reliability of mechanical disks is superior but they are more delicate. An SSD can withstand shocks and movements while in operation without problems, something that the mechanical disk does not do. You were probably unlucky.

It is not excessively rare to see mechanical disks failing after a few months (although it is not usual) but flash memories have a number of write cycles that, when exceeded, makes the entire unit unusable. It is also true that there are mechanisms that increase the life of SSDs such as leaving a percentage of the disk inaccessible to the user to replace defective areas or the trim itself that distributes the writing load throughout the disk to avoid burning a specific area in which we write more than usual. But the limitations of the technology are what they are. A mechanical disk well cooled and without movement is more reliable than an SSD unit.

[Yorus]

What you do need to keep in mind is that when an SSD dies, it really dies, and data recovery is practically impossible. That being said, I have seen very few SSDs die and I definitely prefer them for performance, but always making sure to back up the important stuff.

[iOSDroid]

Oops, I didn't know that. Very useful info. I'm sure some (invited or not) will be interested in that topic.

Thank you very much for the knowledge shared