Why do I feel like compact flash is more reliable than SSD ?

[UFS User]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM, UFS User <ufs.user at yahoo.com> wrote:

>But everyone I know (including me) has had an SSD fail, usually with no explanation.
>
>So is this just chance, or ... are CF cards really a lot more reliable than SSD ?



The following pages , and references in them , may be useful :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Solid-state_computer_storage_media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Solid-state_computer_storage




No, these aren't useful at all, and further, the previous response that compared SSDs to spinning disks was also irrelevant.

I am asking why compact flash cards (which are flash) seem to be much, much more reliable and durable than SSD (which is also flash).

Why do I have CF parts running for 8+ years all over the place, but everyone I know has had SSDs fail (including me) ?

There is no mention of spinning hard disks here, nor is this about *how* flash degrades in general - because in this case, they're both flash.

Further, the failures I am seeing with SSDs are not because they wore out - they just quit.

Comments ?