Personally I have focused on fast SSD storage and utilized the vast, cheap, slow storage available with mechanical drives for backup.
At the end of the day, if an SSD fails, you're effectively just screwed. If a mechanical drive fails, there is some possibility that the data is recoverable. But moreover, mechanical storage is so cheap by volume that you can just have redundant backup and never worry about it, really.
I thought that SSD fails “better” than HDD because SDD become read-only first.
Only when they get to the end of life of the cells. If there's another failure before that, it's likely a full failure.
Thanks. In that case is it known which of those two possibilities are most likely?
To my knowledge, that isn't a consistent pattern (someone please correct if wrong).
According to @postcard64 below I’m oversimplifying things (at minimum).
Personally I have focused on fast SSD storage and utilized the vast, cheap, slow storage available with mechanical drives for backup.
At the end of the day, if an SSD fails, you're effectively just screwed. If a mechanical drive fails, there is some possibility that the data is recoverable. But moreover, mechanical storage is so cheap by volume that you can just have redundant backup and never worry about it, really.
I thought that SSD fails “better” than HDD because SDD become read-only first.
Only when they get to the end of life of the cells. If there's another failure before that, it's likely a full failure.
Thanks. In that case is it known which of those two possibilities are most likely?
To my knowledge, that isn't a consistent pattern (someone please correct if wrong).
According to @postcard64 below I’m oversimplifying things (at minimum).