Steve Litt wrote:
> The Original Linux Fan via Dng said on Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:24:24 -0800
>
>> SSD's may be much faster, but they don't have
>> the lifetime.  So, many of us consider SSD's to be
>> throw-away devices, that need the fewest writes,
>> and regular backup.
> I wouldn't be too sure of your preceding paragraph. My old computer's
> SSD lasted 4 years and then I retired the computer, so I assume it's
> still working. My current computer's NVMe is 13 months old and still
> working just fine. My rule of thumb is I expect spinning rust (or NVMe
> or SSD) to last 3 years: Anything beyond that is an unexpected goodie.
>
> I think an SSD or NVMe stands an excellent chance of lasting 5 years if
> you handle it like I do:
>
>
I know this is off-topic from merged-usr, but to add in my experience, I
usually retire a HDD due to needing more space, not due to disk
failure.  I've had only a few drives fail, ever (personal use, not
business).  I have over 10-year-old HDDs being used for backups now,
some even older IDE (P-ATA) drives that still work, but are not very
practical to use (one that is slightly over CD-capacity, at 745 MB!). 
Only made the move to SSD relatively recently; my oldest is just over 4
yrs at this point, I've had no problems with them yet (nor do I expect
to any time soon, but time will tell).