Me:

This YT short claims that a SSD might lose information over time if unplugged. It’s not like it’s RAM, but still electrons move around. However, even if plugged in, the written info isn’t rewritten unless it’s new data, so there’s no “reinforcement” of what’s written. Pretty much the same goes for HDDs: unless you specifically overwrite the files with themselves, the risk of corruption over years is not eliminated by powering on the device. Am I right? Explaining the dangers of leaving an SSD unplugged.

Grok:

Yes, you’re largely right, but with some important nuances—especially the part about no automatic “reinforcement” just from powering on the device.

The YouTube Short claims that SSDs (using NAND flash) store data as trapped electrons/charges in tiny structures. When unplugged for a long time (e.g., years), those electrons can leak or drift, causing bits to flip and data to corrupt or fade. It contrasts this with HDDs (magnetic storage), which don’t suffer the same charge-leak issue when unpowered. The advice is basically: don’t leave an SSD forgotten in a drawer for 10 years.

That’s a fair summary of real NAND flash behavior. Unlike RAM (which loses data instantly without power), SSDs are non-volatile, but charge leakage over extended unpowered periods is a known limitation.

SSD data retention when unpowered

Consumer SSDs (mostly TLC or QLC NAND) typically retain data reliably for 1–5 years unpowered at room temperature (~25–30°C), depending on:

  • NAND type (QLC is worst, often ~1–3 years; TLC better at ~3+ years; older/enterprise MLC/SLC can hit 5–10+ years).
  • Temperature (higher temp = faster leakage).
  • Wear level (heavily used drives near their endurance limit retain data much shorter—JEDEC specs guarantee only 1 year at 30°C for client/consumer SSDs after they’ve reached end-of-life endurance).

New/freshly written SSDs often hold data much longer than the worst-case spec (sometimes 10+ years in ideal conditions), but the risk grows over time, and real-world tests (e.g., multi-year unpowered experiments) show corruption can appear after ~2 years on worn consumer TLC drives.

Powering the SSD on does not automatically recharge or refresh the charge in the cells for most consumer drives. Simply plugging it in and letting it sit powered (without activity) doesn’t help much—the leakage is physical, and there’s no passive “top-up.” Some enterprise SSDs do background refresh tasks when powered, but typical consumer ones don’t rewrite/refresh static data automatically.

To actually mitigate leakage and “refresh” the data:

  • You need to read the data (which can trigger error correction and sometimes internal refresh in modern controllers) or, better yet, rewrite it (e.g., copy files off and back on, or run a full secure erase + restore).
  • Periodic power-on (e.g., once a year or two) + a full read/verify helps catch errors early via ECC, but doesn’t truly recharge weak cells without rewrite.

So your point holds: leaving it plugged in long-term without new writes or active maintenance doesn’t eliminate the long-term risk—there’s no ongoing “reinforcement” of existing data.

HDD comparison

You’re correct here too. HDDs store data magnetically on platters, not as electric charges. Magnetic domains are far more stable over time when unpowered—data can last decades (50–100+ years in theory under ideal conditions, though practical archival is more like 10–30 years before other factors like lubricant drying or mechanical issues kick in).

Powering on an old HDD doesn’t “refresh” the magnetic bits either—unless the drive’s firmware detects weak sectors during read and rewrites them (which happens on modern drives). But overall, unpowered storage is much safer for HDDs than for SSDs over very long periods. The main risks for HDDs are mechanical (seizing up after years unused, head crashes on spin-up) rather than bit rot from lack of power.

Bottom line

  • The YT Short is mostly accurate for SSDs: unpowered long-term storage (especially 5–10+ years) carries real risk of data loss due to charge leakage—worse than people often assume.
  • Your reasoning is spot-on: no magic reinforcement happens just from being plugged in without writes/reads.
  • For archival/cold storage lasting many years: HDDs (or tape/optical) are generally better choices than consumer SSDs. If using SSDs, power them on periodically (e.g., every 1–2 years), verify/rewrite data, and keep them cool.

If you’re archiving important data, the 3-2-1 backup rule (3 copies, 2 media types, 1 offsite) still applies—no single drive type is forever-proof.

Another note for this planet’s retards: Only use encryption when it is really needed:

While you might consider doing a full encryption for both your personal laptop and/or desktop, in case one of these gets stolen, you should avoid encryption on backup and storage when it really isn’t needed because encryption adds yet another layer of complexity.

Not only does encryption during data recovery make everything much more difficult, but should you pass away, your family members might not have the skills required to access the data.

When you do utilize encryption, consider the difference between encrypting each file individually and then putting a lot of files into a single archive which you then encrypt. When everything is stored in a single encrypted archive, you risk losing more data should something go wrong with the encryption. Always validate your data using something like a checksum or other similar utilities.

There is one other major difference between SSDs and HDDs. Even when unencrypted, when an SSD’s controller fails, data is usually unrecoverable from the intact chips that hold it. In contrast, should an HDD’s controller fail, data can typically be recovered.