Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

A Peek Into SSD Reliability

Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive?
By

Unfortunately, no hard drive manufacturer publishes RMA data, and this applies to the SSD vendors as well. However, back in December of 2010, Hardware.fr released SSD failure rate data gleaned from it’s parent company LDLC, one of the top French tech retailers. The Web site provides the following explanation on how it calculates these figures.

The returns rates given concern the products sold between October 1st, 2009 and April 1st, 2010 for returns made before October 2010, namely after between 6 months and a year of use. The statistics by manufacturer are based on a minimum sample of 500 sales, those by model on a minimum sample of 100 sales.

As you can see, these are not failure rates. They are return rates. Ultimately, the French-English language barrier was responsible for how hyped-up this information became. Sites like Mac Observer and ZDNet incorrectly reported these figures as "failure rates" based on a Google Translation.

Sold Between 10/1/2009 and 4/1/2010, Returns Made Before 10/1/2010
1 TB Hard Drives
Return Rate
2 TB Hard Drives
Return Rates
SSDs
Return Rate
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B5.76%WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS9.71%Intel0.59%
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C5.20% Hitachi Deskstar 7K20006.87%Corsair2.17%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.113.68%WD Caviar Green WD20EARS4.83%Crucial
2.25%
Samsung SpinPoint F13.37%Seagate Barracuda LP
4.35%
Kingston
2.39%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.122.51%Samsung EcoGreen F34.17%OCZ
2.93%
WD Caviar Green WD10EARS2.37%WD Caviar Green WD20EADS2.90%

Seagate Barracuda LP2.10%



Samsung SpinPoint F31.57%



WD Caviar Green WD10EADS1.55%



WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS1.35%



Maxtor DiamondMax 23 1.24%



Sold Between 4/1/2010 and 10/1/2010, Returns Made Before 4/1/2011
1 TB Hard Drives
Return Rate
2 TB Hard Drives
Return Rate
SSDs
Return Rate
Samsung SpinPoint F15.2% Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000
5.7%Intel0.3%
WD Caviar Green (WD10EADS)4.8%WD Caviar Green WD20EADS3.7%Kingston1.2%
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C4.4%Seagate Barracuda LP3.7%Crucial
1.9%
Seagate Barracuda LP4.1%WD Caviar Black WD2001FALS
3.0%Corsair2.7%
WD Caviar RE3 WD1002FBYS2.9%WD Caviar Green WD20EARS2.6%OCZ
3.5%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
2.2%WD Caviar RE4-GP WD2002FYPS1.6%

WD Caviar Black WD1002FAEX1.5%Samsung EcoGreen F31.4%


Samsung SpinPoint F31.4%



WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS1.3%



WD Caviar Blue WD10EALS1.3%



WD Caviar Green WD10EARS 1.2%




A drive failure implies the device is no longer functioning. However, returns can occur for a multitude of reasons. This presents a challenge because we don’t have any additional information on the returned drives—were they dead-on-arrival, did they stop working over time, or was there simply an incompatibility that prevented the customer from using the SSD?

Sold Between 10/1/2009 and 4/1/2010, Returns Made Before 10/1/2010
Top Three SSD Returns
Return Rate
Top Three HDD Returns
Return Rate
OCZ Vertex 2 90 GB2.8%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 160 GB
8.62%
OCZ Agility 2 120 GB2.66%
Samsung SpinPoint F1 1 TB
4.48%
OCZ Agility 2 90 GB1.83%
Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000
3.41%
Sold Between 4/1/2010 and 10/1/2010, Returns Made Before 4/1/2011
Top Three SSD Returns
Return Rate
Top Three HDD Returns
Return Rate
OCZ Agility 2 120 GB6.7%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 160 GB
16.0%
OCZ Agility 2 60 GB3.7%
Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000 2 TB
4.2%
OCZ Agility 2 40 GB3.6%
WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS4.0%


This information only presents us with more questions. If online purchases account for the majority of hard drives sold, poor packaging and carrier mishandling can have a real effect on return rates. Furthermore, we also have no way of normalizing how customers used these drives. The large variance in hard drive return rates underlines this problem. For example, the Seagate Barracuda LP rises from 2.1% to 4.1%, while the Western Digital Caviar Green WD10EARS drops from 2.4% to 1.2%.

Alright, so the data really tells us nothing about reliability. What does it say then? Well, there seem to be more satisfied French customers purchasing Intel SSDs and not returning them than any other brand. Interestingly, in private chats, engineers from several SSD manufacturers note that a significant percentage of returned drives are unused and sealed, even though customers claim a compatibility issue. Customer satisfaction is interesting, but it's far less interesting to us than failure rates. Moving on.

Display all 137 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 23 Hide
    Anonymous , July 29, 2011 5:52 AM
    You guys do the most comprehensive research I have ever seen. If I ever have a question about anything computer related, this is the first place I go to. Without a doubt the most knowledgeable site out there. Excellent article and keep up the good work.
  • 21 Hide
    Device Unknown , July 29, 2011 10:26 AM
    K-zonI will say that i didn't read the article word for word. But of it seems that when someone would change over from hard drive to SSD, those numbers might be of interest. Of the sealed issue of return, if by the time you check that you had been using something different and something said something else different, what you bought that was different might not be of useful use of the same thing. Otherwise just ideas of working with more are hard said for what not to be using that was used before. Yes? But for alot of interest into it maybe is still that of rather for the performance is there anything of actual use of it, yes? To say the smaller amounts of information lost to say for the use of SSDs if so, makes a difference as probably are found. But of Writing order in which i think they might work with at times given them the benefit of use for it. Since they seem to be faster. Or are. Temperature doesn't seem to be much help for many things are times for some reason. For ideas of SSDs, finding probably ones that are of use that reduce the issues is hard from what was in use before. When things get better for use of products is hard placed maybe. But to say there are issues is speculative, yes? Especially me not reading the whole article. But of investments and use of say "means" an idea of waste and less use for it, even if its on lesser note , is waste. In many senses to say of it though. Otherwise some ideas, within computing may be better of use with the drives to say. Of what, who knows... Otherwise again, it will be more of operation place of instances of use. Which i think will fall into order of acccess with storage, rather information is grouped or not grouped to say as well. But still. they should be usually useful without too many issues, but still maybe ideas of timiing without some places not used as much in some ways.


    Please tell me English is your 3rd language. I couldn't understand anything you said lol
  • 17 Hide
    acku , July 29, 2011 4:52 AM
    Quote:
    Endurance of floating gate transistor used in flash memories is low. The gate oxide wears out due to the tunnelling of electrons across it. Hopefully phase change memory can change things around since it offers 10^6 times more endurance for technology nodes


    As we explained in the article, write endurance is a spec'ed failure. That won't happen in the first year, even at enterprise level use. That has nothing to do with our data. We're interested in random failures. The stuff people have been complaining about... BSODs with OCZ drives, LPM stuff with m4s, the SSD 320 problem that makes capacity disappear... etc... Mostly "soft" errors. Any hard error that occurs is subject to the "defective parts per million" problem that any electrical component also suffers from.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
Other Comments
  • 3 Hide
    hardcore_gamer , July 29, 2011 4:50 AM
    Endurance of floating gate transistor used in flash memories is low. The gate oxide wears out due to the tunnelling of electrons across it. Hopefully phase change memory can change things around since it offers 10^6 times more endurance for technology nodes
  • 17 Hide
    acku , July 29, 2011 4:52 AM
    Quote:
    Endurance of floating gate transistor used in flash memories is low. The gate oxide wears out due to the tunnelling of electrons across it. Hopefully phase change memory can change things around since it offers 10^6 times more endurance for technology nodes


    As we explained in the article, write endurance is a spec'ed failure. That won't happen in the first year, even at enterprise level use. That has nothing to do with our data. We're interested in random failures. The stuff people have been complaining about... BSODs with OCZ drives, LPM stuff with m4s, the SSD 320 problem that makes capacity disappear... etc... Mostly "soft" errors. Any hard error that occurs is subject to the "defective parts per million" problem that any electrical component also suffers from.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
  • 16 Hide
    slicedtoad , July 29, 2011 5:18 AM
    hacker groups like lulsec should do something useful and get this kind of internal data from major companies.
  • -1 Hide
    jobz000 , July 29, 2011 5:31 AM
    Great article. Personally, I find myself spending more and more time on a smartphone and/or tablet, so I feel ambivalent about spending so much on a ssd so I can boot 1 sec faster.
  • 23 Hide
    Anonymous , July 29, 2011 5:52 AM
    You guys do the most comprehensive research I have ever seen. If I ever have a question about anything computer related, this is the first place I go to. Without a doubt the most knowledgeable site out there. Excellent article and keep up the good work.
  • 10 Hide
    acku , July 29, 2011 5:55 AM
    slicedtoadhacker groups like lulsec should do something useful and get this kind of internal data from major companies.


    All of the data is so fragmented... I doubt that would help. You still need to take a fine toothcomb to figure out how the numbers were calculated.

    gpm23You guys do the most comprehensive research I have ever seen. If I ever have a question about anything computer related, this is the first place I go to. Without a doubt the most knowledgeable site out there. Excellent article and keep up the good work.


    Thank you. I personally love these type of articles.. very reminiscent of academia. :) 

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
  • 9 Hide
    cangelini , July 29, 2011 6:51 AM


    To the contrary! We noticed that readers were looking to see OWC's drives in our round-ups. I made sure they were invited to our most recent 120 GB SF-2200-based story, and they chose not to participate (this after their rep jumped on the public forums to ask why OWC wasn't being covered; go figure).

    They will continue to receive invites for our stories, and hopefully we can do more with OWC in the future!

    Best,
    Chris Angelini
  • 8 Hide
    ikyung , July 29, 2011 7:03 AM
    Once you go SSD, you can't go back. I jumped on the SSD wagon about a year ago and I just can't seem to go back to HDD computers =[. Of course I only use SSDs for certain programs and HDD for storage.
  • 6 Hide
    Pyree , July 29, 2011 7:37 AM
    SSD may not be more reliable but I think they are still physically more durable. I have yet to see a mechanical drive that will survive free fall onto a hard surface.
  • -2 Hide
    iamtheking123 , July 29, 2011 7:43 AM
    PyreeSSD may not be more reliable but I think they are still physically more durable. I have yet to see a mechanical drive that will survive free fall onto a hard surface.

    I've yet to see a hard drive free fall period. It's just a "feature" people spout to justify paying waaaaayyyy too much per gb.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , July 29, 2011 7:45 AM
    Nice to see an article like this but if i would have made it i would have tested 2.5" normal harddrives. Atleast when comparing the return rates since those kind of drives normally is fitted into laptops wich are moved around alot, causing them to be more in a danger of faults.
    I work in a PC store and we see a great deal more 2.5" drives from laptop with bad sectors than we do 3.5" from stationary PC's
  • 4 Hide
    whysobluepandabear , July 29, 2011 8:37 AM
    I could've summarized this entire article up in 1 page. I actually would've preferred it that way.


    A.) They (SSD and HDD companies) lie to us, and the figures and statistics are not reliable, nor paint an accurate picture of their reliability/performance.

    B.) The slowest SSD rapes the fastest HDD by a significant margin.

    C.) SSDs are no more reliable than HDDs - lack of moving parts does not necessarily mean lack of failure.

    D.) Failure is a bit misused, as it's a term used to describe the progressive failing of a drive, and not the sudden.

    E.) Rather than performance, many companies (and consumers) are more concerned about reliability, as like said, even the slowest SSD is MUCH faster than the fastest HDD.



    And that's it in a nut shell.
  • 0 Hide
    flong , July 29, 2011 9:47 AM
    Superb article - this kind of review has long been overdue.

    For those posters to impatient to actually read the article - it is not disjointed, you have to carefully put all the pieces together.

    The simple conclusion is that AFR (annual failure rates) are slightly greater for SSDs than HDDs for the first 3 years or so. After that, based on the graph provided, HDD failure appears to be much greater than SSD. That is based on the slopes of the failure rates, but this conclusion is only as reliable as the data points on that graph.

    Neither failure rate of either SSDs or HDDs categorically proves one is more reliable than the other. They are roughly equal in reliability.

    SSD reliability appears to be relegated to the manufacturer's quality control. In the various reports from industry users, Intel SSDs virtually did not fail - while other manufacturers appear to be having quality control issues (OCZ perhaps, but it is hard to tell without reliable data).

    It appears that Intel has mastered the art of making a reliable SSD. Now when their next generation of SSDs come out that actually can compete speedwise with the third generation Sandforce drives, we may have a real winner depending on cost. Their next set of SSDs coming out is rumored to push the 1 GB/s threshold (though that would have to be over a PCIE slot as SATA 3 only allows 600 mb/s).

    SSDs are inherently more reliable than HDDs and as demand rises, it is likely that SSD reliability will surpass HDD reliability. They are only separated by 1-2% now in this article.

    It is likely that in 10 years, HDDs may not exist in their present form and SSDs will dominate the storage market.
  • 21 Hide
    Device Unknown , July 29, 2011 10:26 AM
    K-zonI will say that i didn't read the article word for word. But of it seems that when someone would change over from hard drive to SSD, those numbers might be of interest. Of the sealed issue of return, if by the time you check that you had been using something different and something said something else different, what you bought that was different might not be of useful use of the same thing. Otherwise just ideas of working with more are hard said for what not to be using that was used before. Yes? But for alot of interest into it maybe is still that of rather for the performance is there anything of actual use of it, yes? To say the smaller amounts of information lost to say for the use of SSDs if so, makes a difference as probably are found. But of Writing order in which i think they might work with at times given them the benefit of use for it. Since they seem to be faster. Or are. Temperature doesn't seem to be much help for many things are times for some reason. For ideas of SSDs, finding probably ones that are of use that reduce the issues is hard from what was in use before. When things get better for use of products is hard placed maybe. But to say there are issues is speculative, yes? Especially me not reading the whole article. But of investments and use of say "means" an idea of waste and less use for it, even if its on lesser note , is waste. In many senses to say of it though. Otherwise some ideas, within computing may be better of use with the drives to say. Of what, who knows... Otherwise again, it will be more of operation place of instances of use. Which i think will fall into order of acccess with storage, rather information is grouped or not grouped to say as well. But still. they should be usually useful without too many issues, but still maybe ideas of timiing without some places not used as much in some ways.


    Please tell me English is your 3rd language. I couldn't understand anything you said lol
  • 3 Hide
    dimar , July 29, 2011 11:14 AM
    My 5 months old Corsair Performance 3 failed few weeks ago. I did all I could not to abulse it. Temp, swap, progarm files, user profile files setup on HDD. Performance was still super fast. Started getting BSODs, and then the system wouldn't start. Checking SSD using checkdisk would freeze. Corsair exchanged it with a new one, with a new firmware, which they haven't posted online yet. Lost my windows data. This time I made a backup partition on the HDD, where I backup windows SSD partition every week.
  • 3 Hide
    tehcheeze , July 29, 2011 11:53 AM
    I am now on my 3rd OCZ Agility 2 120gig SSD. The problem I've had with it both times is that after a while it just would not be recognized by the OS or BIOS. That and waking from sleep, the systems was really unstable/slow.
  • 4 Hide
    acku , July 29, 2011 11:56 AM
    flongSuperb article - this kind of review has long been overdue. For those posters to impatient to actually read the article - it is not disjointed, you have to carefully put all the pieces together. The simple conclusion is that AFR (annual failure rates) are slightly greater for SSDs than HDDs for the first 3 years or so. After that, based on the graph provided, HDD failure appears to be much greater than SSD. That is based on the slopes of the failure rates, but this conclusion is only as reliable as the data points on that graph.Neither failure rate of either SSDs or HDDs categorically proves one is more reliable than the other. They are roughly equal in reliability. SSD reliability appears to be relegated to the manufacturer's quality control. In the various reports from industry users, Intel SSDs virtually did not fail - while other manufacturers appear to be having quality control issues (OCZ perhaps, but it is hard to tell without reliable data). It appears that Intel has mastered the art of making a reliable SSD. Now when their next generation of SSDs come out that actually can compete speedwise with the third generation Sandforce drives, we may have a real winner depending on cost. Their next set of SSDs coming out is rumored to push the 1 GB/s threshold (though that would have to be over a PCIE slot as SATA 3 only allows 600 mb/s).SSDs are inherently more reliable than HDDs and as demand rises, it is likely that SSD reliability will surpass HDD reliability. They are only separated by 1-2% now in this article.It is likely that in 10 years, HDDs may not exist in their present form and SSDs will dominate the storage market.


    Actually that SSD 320 problem would have counted as a failure. When you can't accesses data, that's a big no no.

    Thanks for the kudos. But a few corrections. There is no data to suggest that hdd failures are greater than ssds. The projections in the graph assume a constant failure rate, which never occurs. I just put it in so that people could see how it relates to a AFR of 1%. For the moment, it's unclear if SSDs are more reliable. The initial 2 year data suggests otherwise.
  • 4 Hide
    acku , July 29, 2011 12:03 PM
    Quote:
    SSD may not be more reliable but I think they are still physically more durable. I have yet to see a mechanical drive that will survive free fall onto a hard surface.

    I completely agree. But think that information on reliability is important in the face of all the marketing that suggests otherwise.
Display more comments