I have seen that SSD storage needs electricity, in order to not lose data, so: If a Linux system with an UPS, that works as a NAS that runs 24/7 existed, and the data would be only written 1-10 times, the “full” capacity of the each physical drive, so TBW wouldn’t be an issue, with, a Raid 1 consisting of 4 drives used for 4k videos, and after a few years for 8k videos, would It be better to use SSDs or HDDs for this purpose with unlimited money and wanting a “no need to modify me for an eternity system”? With equal parts, would the HDDs system be more or less reliable than the SSDs system?

    • HTWingNut@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but that chart is OLD and talks nothing of modern processes. SLC, MLC are much less susceptible to loss of data because of only 2 or 4 voltage charge states per cell. Looking at QLC especially with 16 different voltage states per cell, just a small voltage loss would mean data corruption.

      This is likely more concerning for well worn SSD’s however, and not for a reasonably fresh one.

    • dev_all_the_ops@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That article is confusing. They claim you don’t need to worry, then they drop a sentence like this.

      Even a worn-out SSD would still go a year without data loss, according to the original presentation, and that’s while being stored at 87 degrees Fahreneit the entire time

      So which is it? If I have a SSD in a drawer I sure hope it will last more than 1 year.

  • Pvt-Snafu@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you have money for an SSD system, then why not? Also, there is no “no need to modify me for an eternity system” as such. Backups and periodic verification is a must if you want to keep your data. No matter HDDs or SSDs. Also, RAID 1 with 4 SSDs? That’s only 1 SSD usable capacity. Unless you mean RAIDZ1.