Well you are complaining that HDDs are going damn cheap and as a result, QC has dropped.
The reason I say RM2k is because industrial class SSDs costs atleast that much with that amount of space, and as we know it is -- is more reliable than HDDs.

So which do you want?

That's is why i am complaining that things will not last longer if you are not paiding what you wanted. But as you'd mentioned SDD with 1TB industrial class costs 2k. I just want to know how long can it last or are we paiding that amount of sum that can use it reliably?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here lol...
So first you say HDD are too cheap and as a result QC has suffered. Now you're saying HDD will not last longer if we aren't... umm paiding?... what we want? Huh?

What the heck is "paiding"?

The google you hog so much uses those industrial class SSDs I'm talking about.
The facebooks, the twitters, the cnn... jeez, most of the uses SSDs. If they're not reliable, why would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to switch their storage space?

SSD will eventually fail though, just the rate is unjustified at the moment cause SSD just being adopted in recent years, < 5 years, HDD has been for quite sometimes.

Reliability? There's no such thing as reliability, otherwise those makers will build 1 time then close business (100% guarantee??). Which is why redundancy is being used, this is reliability and backup, yes backup is important as well.

Dirt cheap drive now allows users to RAID without spending more so, you want reliability? RAID + Backup then, since it's "dirt cheap" that you can afford more.

newer model wow, just gave achieva a call regarding my RMA, they also said will send a brand new hdd back to me by this week...

what is the largest capacity for notebook harddisks at standard size / height?

i presume the best place to buy (inlc the physical installation) this is in lowyat. can recommend me which shop's gooding?

This post has been edited by winter1941: Jul 17 2012, 08:50 PM

d largest i found so far is 1tb (WD10JPVT). not too sure bout other brand.

speaking of 2.5" hdd, WD now got 2tb SATA3 2.5" hdd but thickness is 15mm.
i just noticed wd no longer named their hdd "CAVIAR/SCORPIO".

end user can direct deal rma with archieva now?

Not sure la, but they accept my hdd for rma..

guys i tot i just share some info here. last weekend i wen to digital mall in PJ to look for couple of stuff, HDD being one of them. Checked the prices around for 2.5" 320GB WD Blue. All IT hypermart ~ RM180, Jayacom ~RM170, Aoneplus ~ RM230. No prizes for guessing which 1 I am not going to bother visiting again next time.

WD Green HDD suit for RAID?

At first, I used to think SSD has no moving part, it should be significant reliable than HDD, and this is many people perception as well, I reckon

But to my disappointment, after reading many complaint about SSD, and search through, SSD also subjected to failure as well despite no moving parts in it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-re...ate,2923-3.html

SSD failure % can be on par with HDD as well.

Just HDD being mass use around, that's why we see many complaint about dead HDD.
For eg. There are 500 million of HDD in the market, a 1% failure means we see 5 million dead HDD, and complaints around.
While there may be only 1 million of SSD, even at failure rate of 2%, we only see 20k dead SSD.

5 million dead HDD vs 20k SSD, the figure look huge difference, but it doesn't say SSD is more reliable or not.

HDD become cheap, doesn't mean QC also must become "cheap".

So those product that sold in few buck which is cheap in cost, so QC also no bother to check?
Unrelated.

HDD is not going to be sold at few buck, (can keep on dream for it, but won't happen), same like just like processor, ram and other hardware.
Manufacturers will opt to obsolete the product, once it get too cheap that not viable to produce in term of cost.

Also expensive doesn't mean QC is top notch, and consumer won't get a defective product.

Very interesting data. but by very roughly looking at the data I already couple of trends such as returns by brand and return rates (they tend to group by +/- 1.5%, +/-2.4% and 3.5%+).
But the SSD (again without calculation) they seem to be statistically significant to have lower return rates. Notice how i am saying return rates per what the data says and not failure rates. But honestly I would have no issue taking these figures as "failure rates" as I feel most buyers are well aware of their purchases before hand. Good stuff.

And the reason for those failures are... surprise; firmware issues.
Sandforce controllers has been notorious for their BSODs, it's not on a hardware layer either it is more towards the firmware. So, techcnically it has nothing to do with the hardware.

Intel can create reliable firmware for their Sandforce based SSDs (330 and 520).

That article is over a year old, and over the last year the SSD market and industry has changed considerably.

That being said, we do need another 2-3 years to tell if SSDs are as reliable as HDDs or not. Intel's first generation X-25 SSDs are still running strong today.

Whether firmware or not, or hardware itself or firmware, once the computer BSODs, cannot boot up again, be it HDD or SSD even physical is not damaged, as a consumer, we facing the same consequence, a dead computer that cannot function.

Reliability is about we can continously using the computer without any problem/glitch.

---

Added on July 18, 2012, 10:52 pmYes, it is premature to judge on SSD.

Still think SSD tech is far more maturing, especially on firmware issue.

Saw those experience suddenly SSD cannot function due to firmware issue in the SSD thread or a sudden SSD malfunction, my company still decide to use HDD for the latest purchase of office computer.

Fyi, my company office still got computer using a 80GB HDD (which is largest at that time), still functioning strong.


This post has been edited by cherroy: Jul 18 2012, 10:52 PM

I don't know if SSD is more reliable or not, but the price it is selling now is simply too expensive.

Is that extra speed worth so much money? I don't think so, personal opinion though.

You need to experience that speed to feel that "worth of money", it's "feels it to believe it"
Currently the price is getting closer to comfortable range, might consider it next year for my new laptop (if I ever can get one )

They dun make 'em to last anymore!
My Seagate 80GB IDE hdd from 2002 is still functioning!

This make me think about SSD, able to last that long even with no moving parts?

Don't you mean the price of buying it is too expensive?

It's not about the sequential read/write performance, which is only about 3x or 4x the best that HDDs can offer. It is the access times, which is about 0.1ms and extremely fast compared to HDD's +10ms times; about 100x difference. For operations that involves tons of random reads and writes, like when on boot, SSDs are very responsive. If it takes you long minutes to boot up or do a virus scan that you would like to reduce by a lot, SSDs can do it.

It is more of a QC issue. Theoretically, the NAND storage is good for at least ten years. Most of the failures at this time, isn't related to the actual NAND storage. Most of it is probably due to firmware, manufacturing defects or poor QC.