<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Life and Death of SSDs and HDDs: Similarities, Differences, and Prediction Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2012.12373/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2012.12373/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Life and Death of SSDs and HDDs: Similarities, Differences, and Prediction Models — mentioned by strogonoff</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27077010</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2012.12373:27077010</guid><pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2021 15:33:56 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;An SSD may be more reliable than an HDD, but when a drive does fail during normal operation[0] it appears that data recovery is usually significantly more feasible/cheaper with an HDD. I’d be glad to be proven wrong. See also Google’s paper[1]. It doesn’t seem to be especially black-and-white. [0] This excludes cases such as e.g. dropping an HDD during operation and ruining large plate areas, of course. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.12373.pdf&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2012.12373/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
