I use mechanicals in my server rack for bulk storage because it's way cheaper per TB, even factoring in power usage for 5+ years, but they do have higher failure rates. Most people with failing SSDs are either buying the cheapest pieces of garbage they can find, or have other problems on their systems like PSUs that have voltage sags.
For enterprise type usage in datacenters in major cities, SSDs can actually be cheaper over their lifespan than mechanicals because of the combination of lower failure rates, lower power consumption, and higher density. You don't need as much power going into legacy data racks that can't handle the heat generation, and in some place like downtown new york, physical space is millions of dollars for 10,000 square feet. It's only when space and total power budgets aren't concerns that mechanicals consistently win for "total cost of ownership" or TCO.
>>106385720
A lot of AI workloads involve multi petabyte data dumps, and that's slowing down the rate at which prices are coming down. If you need to store a quarter of an exabyte in a datacenter doing protein simulations, you're buying drives quite literally by the pallet. Volume purchasers get priority because it's less logistical bullshit for a manufacturer to deal with, and it's much more consistent revenue.
>>106396598
A lot of "AAA" slop has so many enormous textures that get dynamically streamed in and then unloaded when you look away that you aren't going to physically have enough ram to properly cache everything. Nobody is buying 128 or 192 or 256 GB of ram outside of people running legitimate workstation systems. For that money you could buy more than a few TB of nvme space.
