Talk:Hybrid drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).


Concerning "Lower recoverability" of Hybrid drive - not true

"What happens if the SSD portion of the drive fails?" Everyone with important documents and photos does not want to be left fighting for our data. The engineers assured me that in the unlikely event the SSD fails, then the algorithm accounts for the loss and it only stores the data on the physical drive. They also commented that the information stored on the SSD portion is mirrored on the physical drive as well, so no data will be lost with a failure of the SSD. In essence the device would act just like any other mechanical drive from that point forward. - source .wayfarer (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question that should be asked here is what happens to data that was written to the cache but not mirrored to the platter before the error occurred? This is the same read/write vulnerability found on high-performance cached RAID arrays. The comment above addresses what happens to subsequent write operations after the drive loses confidence in the SSD--but what mechanisms are in place to verify the data in the cache, or vice-versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lower performance for small disk writes[edit]

Marked the claim that flash has lower performance than disk for small writes as dubious -- this does not seem to be consistent with benchmarking like the following: (where the two non-SSD's bottom out the chart for 4KB random writes as they do for small random reads, and in general the SSD's write as fast or faster than they read).

Is this claim obsolete or does it mean something different than I think? Willhsmit (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The key is probably with the random writes: the straight hard drives might write faster when at the correct position, but then need to mechanically move to the next place, while the SSDs and hybrids take longer for each write but have no seek time. Where the SSD's poor write hurts would probably be with small sequential writes, but that is rarely seen unless one intentionally disables output buffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the drive implement caching. In the AnandTech review ( it suggested that the flash is a read only cache and it has the same poor small random write performance like traditional hard drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Inherent Flaws[edit]

The claim that these drives (or any failed hard-drive) can be "recovered" using destructive mechanical means such as freezing or hitting with a hammer is dubious at best. I've seen the anecdotal reports before, but I've NEVER been able to quote a source as saying that subjecting a failed drive to further mechanical stress will somehow magically fix it long enough to get the data off of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Freezing actually works I have used it by myself but I doubt about hiting it was hammer for what purpose? -- (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tapping with the hammer is one I've heard but never used myself. Freezing is one I've done on a few occasions. Shove it in a closed bag in the freezer and get it out, copy over all the data, done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

   From Scott Greving: I've run into this scenario numerous times. One time it involved the main Novell SYS 
  volume on our HP File Server. I was really sweating as the server would not boot. I took the drive out and put it in 
  a freezer for 30 minutes. I then reinstalled it into the file server and Presto! I was up and running. Needless to say 
 I quickly mirrored the drive onto another and got rid of the bad drive.
 In stand alone client systems, the method I've had the most luck with reviving drives from death has been 
 removing the drive, firmly tapping the top of its case several times, and then re-installing it making sure 
  all cables are secure. I've had a better than 60 percent success rate with this method.

As you can see this will make the dead walk but only for so long, and not always. My question is: does this info really belong on the Hybrid Drive page? Kotika98 (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC) has many, many discussions about this, if you really want to avoid OR. It's considered a last resort and mostly for very old drives. Better to leave such methods in the talk section as it's risky and kind of obsolete. Let people read the cautions here or hire someone from that site. It's visited by pretty much all the recovery professionals. Also: The orientation, beefier power supply, swapping boards. 2 of those are pretty safe, guess which.  :P Make backups automatically and your biggest worry will be trying to get secure erase to work. Use encryption and even that won't matter much! 2601:1:9500:6D5:5823:6C07:9896:4969 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


As of 2013, SSHD seems to be the most common term:

"SSHD: Fast, big and easy on your budget
The emergence of solid state hybrid drive (SSHD) technology provides a way for users to get more performance from their machines, run richer applications, and make stronger contributions to the organization—all in a price that works."
WD shows off its first hybrid drive, the WD Black SSHD
"The major storage vendor for the first time showed off its very first solid-state hybrid hard drive, the WD Black SSHD. This is the final working product that's being sampled to OEM manufacturers. And it's WD's answer to Seagate's hybrid drives, not only the existing Momentus XT, but also the prototypes it showcased at CES 2013.
SSHD is the new name, used across the industry, for a hybrid drive that uses both platter-based storage and solid-state storage in one standard form."

- (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Been trying to find/create a list of software implementations[edit]

Open source:
Manual linking (symlinks for example)

EliteBytes VeloSSD (limited space/volumes)
Romex PrimoCache(formerly FancyCache)

IBM FlashCache Storage Accelerator
OCZ ZD-XL SQL Accelerator
Intel iSRT
NVELO Dataplex

Free but non-open:

Commercial(available for direct purchase):
SanDisk FlashSoft Cache
VeloBit HyperCache
sTec EnhanceIO SSD Cache (Now HGST)

Proximal Data AutoCache

Not sure where to put this list. Will add more as I find them. 2601:1:9500:6D5:5823:6C07:9896:4969 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be the best to create an expandable list/overview template for that purpose, like the two of those already placed at the bottom of Hybrid drive article (for example). — Dsimic (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Non HDD hybrid drives?[edit]

There's been repeated attempts to widen the definition of hybrid to include things that don't use HDDs. If someone has a source for something called a Hybrid drive that doesn't include any HDD, I'd be interested. Until then, let's not confuse readers by making such things up. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)