|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Why I am staying *AWAY* from SSDs! | by jaqie | 2009-03-31 01:22:40 |
| Nothing to see here. Move along. |
by AndyA |
2009-03-31 10:29:02 |
It all looked fairly obvious to me, it's only a shocking revelation if you though that two fundamentally different things could be considered equivalent.
Flash drives are different to spinning lumps of rust, you are going to see some weird performance quirks if the OS and file system tries to treat the two identically. This is normal and to be expected.
This is also why there are file systems designed specifically for NAND flash chips, unfortunately windows doesn't support them.
As for life expectancy issues...
Let's take some worst case numbers:
Let's say our sequential write speed is 100 MB/s and we have a 160GB drive.
All you do is write to the drive constantly, no reading. In other words we are doing our best to kill the drive as quickly as possible.
Assuming you are using ECC (and no real world NAND system doesn't) NAND flash is good for 100,000 cycles, FLASH manufacturers have been guaranteeing that number for almost 10 years.
Filling 160GB at 100MB/s will take ~27 minutes.
Filling it 100,000 times will take ~5 years.
So absolute worst case, thrashing the drive as hard as you can 24/7 it should last 5 years. That sounds like a reasonable life to me.
Once you allow for anything even remotely close to real world use the life expectancy is plenty.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
One nit to pick | by DesiredUsername | 2009-03-31 10:43:19 |
|
It's a difference between typical and minimum. | by AndyA | 2009-03-31 11:03:57 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
