Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:44:51 +0100 > Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz> wrote: > >> On Nov 30 12:32:16, Kevin Chadwick wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:17:17 -0500 >>> Brad Tilley <b...@16systems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Do they really fail that often? >>> My current understanding is that a mostly empty SSDS electronics will >>> fail before it forgets what it's written but a mostly full and busy SSD >>> may start forgeting fairly soon, unless it shuffles data which would >>> slow it down considerably. >> My current understanding is that you treat a SSD as any other disk and >> never even notice that your wd0/sd0 is not a piece of metal rotating >> at 7200RPM, unless you read/write huge amounts of data, which you don't. >> >> Let's not get into that again. >> > > I almost completely agree, but also disagree and yes I'd say it's not > worth getting into again. I would have to check the latest developments > as I can imagine an algorithm which solved the problem during idle > periods or didn't use it's full capacity but currently I don't agree > fully with "huge amounts of data". The problem was reduced immensely by > spreading writes across all free sectors rather than sequentially but I > believe? the problem re-appears on a busy nearly full disk. I would also > hope/imagine the only affect would be getting bad sectors in that area > but I haven't looked into it very far as I currently have no need to > and so maybe I should shut up untill I do. However, I for one will not > be treating SSDs like HDDs in all applications of disks untill after I > learn more.
I've been treating my SSD like any other hard disk during the last year. It is still working fine. The specs say it has a MTBF of 1,000,000 hours and I've only used it for about 10,000 hours so far. I've been at 60% capacity since day one. If it fails before meeting the MTBF, I'll send it back for a refund. If it lasts as long as they claim it will (about a hundred years), then I'll be dead before it stops working. :) Brad
