Joseph Terner wrote:
> Noob wrote:
>> Arno wrote:
>
>>> [...] Also, some SSDs start
>>> to limit the write speed to very low speeds at some point in order
>>> to reach their promised lifetimes.
> [...]
>>
>> Isn't this the problem that TRIM is supposed to solve?
>
> TRIM doesn't solve the problem with limited write cycles of flash memory.
> As SSD manufacturer you have two options:
>
> 1. Allow the maximum write speed and the drive dies within weeks.

Meh... too much hyperbole.

cf. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/6

Naive calculation (assuming perfect wear-leveling, no write amplification,
and 5k erase cycles) one can write ~1 PB to a 256-GB SSD.

(That's 275 GB per day over 10 years.)

More on so-called "High Endurance" cells:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4807/i...the-enterprise
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-e,3038-4.html

Regards.

On 12/03/2012 7:14 PM, Daniel Prince wrote:
> a1pcfixer<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>>> Do any of the current laptop computers allow the user to install a
>>> HD and a SSD simultaneously?
>>
>> Not exactly as you worded it, but yes you can order some that way new.
>> I'd then put ONLY the OS on the SSD/boot drive, and EVERYTHING else on
>> the HDD.
>
> What about the EXE files of programs that you use frequently?
>
> What size of SSD would you order if you used Windows 7 64 bit?
>
> What size of SSD would you order if you used Windows 7 64 bit and
> Linux?


SSD only come in limited sizes - large 240Gb

Cost a bit under $1 /GB

HDD cost about 7c /Gb

your choice

The slowest part of a PC now within an average system is the HDD.

What advantages do SSD have within the system as a whole are they worth
the extra cost for a faster boot time?

On 12/03/2012 5:57 PM, Daniel Prince wrote:
> Arno<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It depends on your usage patterns. If you do not write a lot
>> (normal usage), an SSD should be fine for 3-10 years, difficult
>> to say exactly at this time.
>
> Do any of the current laptop computers allow the user to install a
> HD and a SSD simultaneously? If some did, that would allow the user
> to use a SSD where speed is really needed and use a HD for files
> that are written to frequently.

My 5+ year old Toshiba Qosmio has provision for two hard drives. It was
originally equipped with 2 x 160 GB Toshiba drives. I have since
replaced them with 2 500 GB units from Western Digital. The interesting
point is that the new drives are faster, use half the current and
(obviously) have 3 times the capacity. Battery life has been noticeably
extended. I don't know if the all the SSDs are of the same form factor
or if they have the same interface but it should be possible to do as
you request. The only SSD I have seen was in a netbook and that seemed
to be nothing more than a tiny circuit board.

Don't know if the new Qosmio laptops (more a desktop replacement really)
are similarly equipped. It is the only laptop I know of with provision
for two internal drives though I have no doubt there may be others.

--

Krypsis

I had another thought/question...

If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. If this is so,
it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.

Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
new laptop is concerned). And I continue to be grateful for all the
previous info. So thanks again on that.

But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
the info shared previously.

Regards,
--Thri

On Mar 12, 1:46*am, thricipio <thrici...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To one and all who replied. *Thank you so much. *Abundantly helpful.
> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
> stick with HDD's.
> :
> [snip]
> :

I *am* curious about one thing, though: what are the implications of
what's been discussed for the many mobile devices (e.g., smartphones
and tablets) currently in use? That is, I believe their memory uses
the same underlying solid-state technology; yet, I haven't heard of
any memory-related problems. I wonder why not!

Thanks again for all your help.
—Thri

On Mar 12, 1:46*am, thricipio <thrici...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To one and all who replied. *Thank you so much. *Abundantly helpful.
> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
> stick with HDD's.
> :
> [snip]
> :

Group Admin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I had another thought/question...

> If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
> would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. If this is so,
> it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
> especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
> Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.

Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
management or wear-leveling.

> Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
> forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
> new laptop is concerned). And I continue to be grateful for all the
> previous info. So thanks again on that.

> But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
> the info shared previously.

There are none.

Arno




> Regards,
> --Thri

> On Mar 12, 1:46?am, thricipio <thrici...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To one and all who replied. ?Thank you so much. ?Abundantly helpful.
>> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
>> stick with HDD's.
>> :
>> [snip]
>> :

--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

Okay, thanks. I sort of see what you're saying.

Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
however long I'd like to use the device.

It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?

Anyway, thanks again. --Thri


On Mar 15, 3:17*am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Group Admin <ohs70....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I had another thought/question...
> > If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
> > would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. *If this is so,
> > it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
> > especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
> > Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.
>
> Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
> much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
> possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
> then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
> management or wear-leveling.
>
> > Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
> > forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
> > new laptop is concerned). *And I continue to be grateful for all the
> > previous info. *So thanks again on that.
> > But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
> > the info shared previously.
>
> There are none.
>
> Arno

thricipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Okay, thanks. I sort of see what you're saying.

> Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
> based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
> correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
> the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
> other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
> however long I'd like to use the device.

This should not be a problem, yes.

> It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
> the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
> limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
> period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?

Depends. It may also be that some devices do it better than others.
However I would expect that basically all will have wear-leveling
and some kind of defect management.

5 years is the usual device lifetime for nomal usage.

That said, it may well be possible to write an App that
does destroy your storage a lot faster, but it would
have to be intention or a high level of stupidity. Which
can be observed in the wild. This still is new technology
and cannot be expected to be completely reliable.

Arno



> Anyway, thanks again. --Thri


> On Mar 15, 3:17?am, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Group Admin <ohs70....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I had another thought/question...
>> > If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
>> > would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. ?If this is so,
>> > it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
>> > especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
>> > Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.
>>
>> Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
>> much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
>> possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
>> then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
>> management or wear-leveling.
>>
>> > Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
>> > forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
>> > new laptop is concerned). ?And I continue to be grateful for all the
>> > previous info. ?So thanks again on that.
>> > But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
>> > the info shared previously.
>>
>> There are none.
>>
>> Arno

--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

thricipio wrote:

> Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
> based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
> correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
> the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
> other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
> however long I'd like to use the device.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
> the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
> limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
> period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?

On a related note, you may enjoy reading about file systems designed
specifically to deal with flash memory, such as UBIFS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...id_state_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBIFS

Regards.

Thank you. I'll check this out.

And thanks to Arno for his last reply (Mar 16). --Thri

On Mar 19, 5:25*am, Noob <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On a related note, you may enjoy reading about file systems designed
> specifically to deal with flash memory, such as UBIFS.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...systems_optimi...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBIFS
>
> Regards.