> For the Intel SSD one must also consider:
>
> > 3.5.4 Write Endurance
> > 32 GB drive supports 1 petabyte of lifetime random writes and 64 GB drive
> > supports 2 petabyte of lifetime random writes.
> That is equivalent to writing the capacity of the SSD 31250 times. At
> the specified random
erik quanstrom wrote:
> just looking at the intel x25-e datasheet, the URE rate
> (unrecoverable read error) is the same as enterprise sata
> drives at 1e-15, but the mtbf is higher, but within a factor
> of two.
>
> assuming honest mtbf numbers, one would expect similar
> ures for the same io wor
> 2009/8/2 erik quanstrom :
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/143558/laptop_flash_drives_hit_by_high_failure_rates.html
> >
> > surprising, no? there are still plenty of reasons to want an
> > ssd. it just seems that reliablity isn't one of those reasons yet.
>
> The big one for me has always b
2009/8/2 erik quanstrom :
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/143558/laptop_flash_drives_hit_by_high_failure_rates.html
>
> surprising, no? there are still plenty of reasons to want an
> ssd. it just seems that reliablity isn't one of those reasons yet.
The big one for me has always been that I ten
> > assuming honest mtbf numbers, one would expect similar
> > ures for the same io workload on the same size data set
> > as mechanical disks. since flash drives are much smaller,
> > there would obviously be fewer ures per drive. but needing
> > 10x more drives, the mtbf would be worse per byte
> Erik,
>
> Thanks for your speedy assistance! I think the two things are closely
> interrrelated via the global variable hardscreen. Reverting this file
> solved the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were something
> weird about Parallels' MTRR support, and since this isn't the curr
> Also, are the old sources available online somewhere so I can do this
> kind of diff in the future on my own?
you can use history(1) and yesterday(1) against sources.
9fs sources
history -D sourcesdump /n/sources/plan9/sys/src/9/pc/vgavesa.c
-Steve
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 14:17, erik quanstrom wrote:
> assuming honest mtbf numbers, one would expect similar
> ures for the same io workload on the same size data set
> as mechanical disks. since flash drives are much smaller,
> there would obviously be fewer ures per drive. but needing
> 10x mo
Erik,
Thanks for your speedy assistance! I think the two things are closely
interrrelated via the global variable hardscreen. Reverting this file
solved the problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were something
weird about Parallels' MTRR support, and since this isn't the current
versi
it's in COLOR !!! :)
2009/8/2 Russ Cox
> http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Comedy/RiffTrax.aspx
>
> Russ
>
>
--
С наилучшими пожеланиями
Жилкин Сергей
With best regards
Zhilkin Sergey
> Ron, have you researched any long-term wear studies on these flash
> drives? I've heard a lot of good things,
> but I'm really put off by terms like "wear levelling", filesystems
> optimized to work around flash's delicateness,
> etc.
>
> I'm really interested in any numbers anyone has.
just lo
On Sun Aug 2 05:39:10 EDT 2009, fus...@storytotell.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I installed Plan 9 under Parallels 3 back in November of last year and
> it worked without a hitch. I tried to install another copy tonight and
> the bitmapped display isn't working in the new one, I just get a pure
> b
Hi,
I installed Plan 9 under Parallels 3 back in November of last year and
it worked without a hitch. I tried to install another copy tonight and
the bitmapped display isn't working in the new one, I just get a pure
black screen after any aux/vga command that it thinks will succeed. I
fou
13 matches
Mail list logo
