On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:32:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:28:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:04:51 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:45:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:32:21 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:04:06 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:55:08 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:18:42 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:44:01 -0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:35:33 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote:

Intel are supposed to make the most reliable ones.

Citation?

A few years ago I read a review which simply counted RMA return percentages, finding OCZ to be pitiful, and Crucial to be 5 times more reliable.

A few months ago I searched for more tests when I got annoyed with my Crucial SSDs failing. I'm 99% sure this was the article I read about Intel being even better: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...e-manufacturer

Very limited subset of devices in your cited article.

Samsung provides a 5 year warranty on the EVO 850 and so far, we have had
EXCELLENT success with the several we have purchased. To date, the return on
investment has been excellent.

Several isn't enough of a data set. I bought 10 OCZ drives which were fine, then got 3 in a row that failed in 2 months.

Not really sure why anyone would buy OCZ SSDs........... Maybe do a little more
research before-hand in the future. ;-)

Someone recommended them to me as fast and/or cheap or something.

I've changed my mind again, I'm sticking to this graph and buying Crucial: http://petersphotos.com/temp/SSD%20r...0by%20make.png

In the USA, Crucial's SSD warranty is only three years. Samsung and Intel's
warranty are both five years.

The major parameters I use to evaluate drive type storage, including SSDs a

1. Reliability
2. Overall speed
3. Cost per MB/GB/TB
4. Warranty period and terms.

A lengthy, full warranty from a reputable company with advance replacement,
coverage for all shipping costs and no receipt requirements is a tremendous
enticement.

With drive storage, as long as one establishes and maintains a reasonable
back-up routine the only loss one should incur during the reasonable life of the
product is the time expended in exercising the warranty and the time for
replacing and restoring the drive. Losing a drive is never any fun, but it is a
lot less distasteful when the manufacturer stands behind their product.

I put your number 1. as the only thing to look at. I'd rather have a reliable slow drive than a broken fast one, I mirror my drives as restoring from backup is never 100% no matter how well you do it.

All of my in-house systems store user data to the servers which employ redundant
protective measures.

Even if you back up every day, you can lose a day's work.

Our portable systems all utilize continuous cloud backup for user data.

As for returning them, I don't like sending back drives with my data on them. You never know what a technician might look at. I only send them back if I can persuade the drive to do a secure wipe, otherwise they get hit with a sledgehammer and binned.

All of our drives utilize encryption. If you are not the NSA or US Air Force,
you are not accessing data on one of our drives.

I am confused, yesterday you were telling me that Intel drives are the most
reliable, now you have said you are going to purchase Crucial drives and that
you are only concerned with reliability. This seems a little paradoxical if not
fickle. Why today are you now promoting Crucial over yesterday's Intel?

Because of the RMA return rate in the graph I showed, I believe Crucial to be the most reliable. The Intel reliability was based on some strange non-real-world tests designed to cause the drive to fail or throw up recoverable errors.

You forgot to type something.

--
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives.