Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425
in [Storage]
|
From: David Brown on 11 Aug 2010 12:45 On 11/08/2010 18:09, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> It was suggested to me recently that, because of the finite number of >> writes that SSDs will survive, the only thing for which they >> are really suitable is something that will seldom be written but >> frequently read -- i.e., the OS itself. > > And that number of finite writes is ? > For a modern SSD disk, more writes than you could get through in years of continuous writing. In other words, unless you are working with very old SSDs (or perhaps very cheapo devices), or continuously (24 hours a day) writing at high speed, then flash wearout is a thing of the past.
From: DevilsPGD on 11 Aug 2010 14:29 In message <i3uci3$fdt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody(a)NotMyISP.com> was claimed to have wrote: >On 08/05/10 01:32 pm, Timothy Daniels wrote: > >>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 >>> >>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. > >> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) > >It was suggested to me recently that, because of the finite number of >writes that SSDs will survive, the only thing for which they are really >suitable is something that will seldom be written but frequently read -- >i.e., the OS itself. You probably should stop listening to whoever made that suggestion. Modern SSDs have write cycles measured in the millions of writes. http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html gives a good breakdown, but to save you some reading: | 2 million (write endurance) x 64G (capacity) divided by 80M bytes / sec gives the endurance limited life in seconds. Or to phrase that in a form that Google Calculator or Wolfram|Alpha can understand: 2 million * 64GB / (80MB/s) <http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=2+million+*+64GB+%2F+(80MB%2Fs)> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+million+*+64GB+%2F+%2880MB%2Fs%29> Assuming you write to your SSD 24/7 continually, without pause for any reason, and without taking time to wipe into consideration, you'll want to start stressing out in 40 years or so. In practice, most SSDs have some form of wear leveling in play too, either out of a desire to wear level or alternatively just a desire to optimize writes to avoid having to flush blocks prematurely due to the fact that blocks can only be flushed in larger chunks. SSDs have their issues (mainly in the $/GB area, although the sector alignment issue is a bit annoying on out of date operating systems, but you can work around it), but write cycles isn't one of them unless you have very early generation gear, or very very cheap parts. In practice, most SSDs that I've seriously considered have had 3-5 year warranties, which probably covers their useful life anyway.
From: Rod Speed on 11 Aug 2010 16:26 Timothy Daniels wrote > Lynn McGuire wrote >> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 >> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. > Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) Thats the last thing you should put on one unless you plan on replacing it often. And it makes a lot more sense to replace the use of the page file with more system ram anyway.
From: Lynn McGuire on 11 Aug 2010 17:21 > For a modern SSD disk, more writes than you could get through in years of continuous writing. > > In other words, unless you are working with very old SSDs (or perhaps very cheapo devices), or continuously (24 hours a day) writing > at high speed, then flash wearout is a thing of the past. That is what I thought. Thanks, Lynn
From: DevilsPGD on 11 Aug 2010 17:50
In message <8cgfd8F3elU1(a)mid.individual.net> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote: >Timothy Daniels wrote >> Lynn McGuire wrote > >>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 > >>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. > >> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) > >Thats the last thing you should put on one unless you plan on replacing it often. Why? The pagefile is a perfect example of something that can and should be placed on a modern SSD. Pagefile performance is critical when you're in a low-memory situation, and an SSD will help speed things up sigificantly. >And it makes a lot more sense to replace the use of the page file >with more system ram anyway. True, to a point. If you've maxed out your hardware's capabilities or only need to catch rare/occasional edge cases, a pagefile will do the job nicely. If you're talking day to day in-use application memory being paged out, you really need more RAM before bandaiding over the problem. |