Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1786 mails)

[Roger Luedecke <roger.luedecke@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:32:08 PM Smartysmart34 wrote:
> Am 23.11.2011 16:38, schrieb C:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 15:57,  smartysmart34 wrote:
> > > I do not know where you got this info from but the opposite is the
> > > case. With shrinking structure sizes to around 25 nm (and less in the
> > > near future) the amount of write cycles dropped drastically to
> > > approximately 3.000 to 5.000 write cycles. The manufacturers often
> > > give a number called Total Bytes Written and for a current Crucial M4
> > > this is somewhere around 72 TB. This represents 40 GB/day over 5
> > > years.
> > > For a normal system this may still be plenty, BUT: If you have a
> > > SWAP-Partition or the pagefile on that SSD and are hibernating a 24
> > > GB Workstation twice a day this may surely affect your SSD at some
> > > point.> 
> > Also, look at the specs of the Intel 710... how do those specs relate?
> > (20% over provisioning, 2million hrs MTBF, 1PB of 8k writes over
> > lifetime.. the 720 is claimed to have 36PB).
> >
> > Look at the data here
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.ht
> > ml> 
> >  Which interestingly states 3000 - 5000 writes... even at that, doing
> >
> > continuous writes, you're looking at (as you pointed out) 20 to 60
> > years (depending on the model) of sustained writes at an average of
> > 10GB/day.
> >
> > Regardless of 5000 or 5000000 (depending on who you believe and how
> > you calculate it) panicking about write management on an SSD is really
> > over the top isn't it?  Seriously we are looking at read/write
> > lifetimes equal or exceeding what we see on magnetic media...
>
> First of all: The Intel SSDs 710/720 are quite slow compared to other
> current MLC-SSD. I assume that the electrical parameters might be
> different and the controller handels the chips differently. So this may
> lead to more durability.
> Second: The price is about four times that of other regular SSDs (while
> it still is MLCs, no SLC). So i expect the chips to meet higher quality
> criteria and as a consequence longer lifetime.
>
> All consumer SSDs (Crucial M4, OCZ Vertex 3 and alike) come with the
> same range of durability by means of TBW or write-cycles.
>
> MTBF just means nothing at all as it does not take into account the
> actual usage scenario.
>
> As I mentioned in my last post:
> For a normal system this may still be plenty (TBW of 72 TB).
> But hibernating a 24 GB RAM Machine twice a day may face you with a
> damaged SSD after about 3-4 years. For me this is just too fast to fail
> and therefor I try to avoid unnecessary writes to my ssd.
One thing I most certainly do gather from all this, is that all the monkeying 
around is clearly unneccesary for the average desktop user. And it really is 
that user who is the primary user of an SSD. If you want some schnazziness 
what I could recommend plainly is using btrfs with the LZO compression... 
though this may not be advised on lowend netbooks that might feel the slight 
processing overhead.
-- 
Roger Luedecke
openSUSE Ambassador
Ind. Repairs and Consulting
**Looking for a C++ etc. mentor***
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx