Losing a whole year

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. otter

    otter Guest

    My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4
     
    otter, Feb 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    otter Guest

    On Feb 6, 10:19 am, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    > On Feb 5, 9:46 pm, otter <> wrote:
    >
    > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy.  However, when I went to
    > > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > > - for about a year!  Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    > > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

    >
    > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

    >
    > I load the fotos up to Flickr and do not resize them, giving me an
    > online backup backup


    I have most of my good JPEGs on flickr, but not the DNGs.
    Once I get what I can restored, I will probably start using a service
    like Carbonite, and back up to the cloud.
     
    otter, Feb 7, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    Guest

    On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:46:25 -0800 (PST), otter <> wrote:

    > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4


    It won't help, but I believe important stuff should be backed up a minimum of 3 times. I
    use 2 hard drives, one of which is stored at a friend's place, and rewriteable Blu Ray
    disks. Every four years I replace the hard drives. The old ones, still working perfectly,
    are stored.
     
    , Feb 7, 2012
    #3
  4. otter

    MC Guest

    wrote:

    > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:46:25 -0800 (PST), otter
    > <> wrote:
    > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went
    > > to recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been
    > > working - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery
    > > options, but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
    > >
    > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

    >
    > It won't help, but I believe important stuff should be backed up a
    > minimum of 3 times. I use 2 hard drives, one of which is stored at a
    > friend's place, and rewriteable Blu Ray disks. Every four years I
    > replace the hard drives. The old ones, still working perfectly, are
    > stored.



    Agreed. If your photographs are important to you, one backup is just
    asking for trouble.

    MC
     
    MC, Feb 7, 2012
    #4
  5. otter

    NotMe Guest

    "otter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4


    Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio for
    a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

    As to back up best to have multiples and off site.
     
    NotMe, Feb 8, 2012
    #5
  6. otter <> wrote:
    > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > - for about a year!


    Always check your backup is working.

    Additionally, you don't want (just) backup for your photos, you
    want archival for your shots & co. Conecptually a completely
    different thing, and most backup systems don't handle that task
    well, even for non-company uses (companies need to archive data
    e.g. for legal purposes, and need to be able to efficiently search
    that data when e.g. litigated, checked for tax compliance etc.).

    Archival needs to be long-term (decades at least, better centuries)
    --- HDs aren't very good, they die, aren't shockproof, etc.
    At best you'd need multiple copies that are copied onto new HDs
    every couple of years.

    Archival should probably available on a second location (bank
    vault, the cloud, a friend's house) as well as local to survive
    local disasters --- fire, flood, theft.

    Archival needs to have a low TCO --- not only in money, but
    also in work. (Copying to new media, temperature and humidity
    controlled, space you need for it if that's a premium (e.g. in
    your bank vault), ...)

    Archival should be unalterable and hard to damage. (HDs, magnetic
    tapes, rewritable DVDs/BlueRays aren't. Far too many hazards.)

    OTOH, archival doesn't need to be a speed demon. It's not going
    over your whole HD every night, or copying everything new every
    5 minutes (at *worst* it only needs to copy specific things in
    real time: emails or new photos or new documents. Usually you
    don't even need that.)

    Efficient retrival (e.g. with a database of files/objects/
    etc. showing which medium to use) is needed, but worst case can
    be rebuild from the archive itself.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2012
    #6
  7. otter

    otter Guest

    On Feb 7, 6:10 pm, "NotMe" <> wrote:
    > "otter" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy.  However, when I went to
    > > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > > - for about a year!  Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    > > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

    >
    > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

    >
    > Proceed  very carefully with the SSD drives.  We used them in our studio for
    > a while and not one lasted over 9 months.
    >
    > As to back up best to have multiples and off site.


    Yeah, I think I finally learned the lesson about backing up.

    The SSD is so much fun, it is worth it, even if it crashes.
     
    otter, Feb 8, 2012
    #7
  8. "NotMe" <> wrote in message
    news:jgseii$3aj$...
    []
    > Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio
    > for
    > a while and not one lasted over 9 months.
    >
    > As to back up best to have multiples and off site.


    Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
    put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
    Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
    activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

    I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
    GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
    and programs).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 8, 2012
    #8
  9. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    otter <> wrote:

    > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
    > but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:


    always test your backups.
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2012
    #9
  10. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <jgtek4$t3$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
    > put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
    > Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
    > activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.


    that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
    there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
    especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
    the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
    hard drive.

    > I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    > writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
    > GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
    > and programs).


    that's also a bad idea.
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2012
    #10
  11. otter

    MC Guest

    nospam wrote:

    > In article <jgseii$3aj$>, NotMe <> wrote:
    >
    > > Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our
    > > studio for a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

    >
    > then yours were defective. nothing is perfect, but ssds are extremely
    > reliable.
    >



    At first they were unreliable but, indeed, they are now as reliable as
    any storage media.

    MC
     
    MC, Feb 8, 2012
    #11
  12. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:080220121017234903%...
    > In article <jgtek4$t3$>, David J Taylor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
    >> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
    >> Resource
    >> Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
    >> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

    >
    > that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
    > there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
    > especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
    > the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
    > hard drive.
    >
    >> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    >> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
    >> 120
    >> GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
    >> and programs).

    >
    > that's also a bad idea.


    It's the writes which kill an SSD. I am running applications with a daily
    throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
    than putting that data there. Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
    talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
    most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
    files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
    writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
    on the SSD, and data on the HD.

    Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
    more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
    much greater.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 8, 2012
    #12
  13. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <jgu8up$gfj$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > >> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
    > >> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
    > >> Resource Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
    > >> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

    > >
    > > that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
    > > there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
    > > especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
    > > the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
    > > hard drive.
    > >
    > >> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    > >> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
    > >> 120 GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
    > >> and programs).

    > >
    > > that's also a bad idea.

    >
    > It's the writes which kill an SSD.


    true, but the number of writes needed to kill it is quite high. even if
    you hammer it, it will still last a long time.

    > I am running applications with a daily
    > throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
    > than putting that data there.


    that may be an edge case. most people will find ssd to be a *huge*
    gain, and an easy way to boost an aging computer. everyone i know with
    ssd says they'll never go back to a hard drive, the difference is that
    dramatic.

    > Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
    > talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
    > most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
    > files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
    > writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
    > on the SSD, and data on the HD.


    i'm suggesting frequently accessed files go on the faster ssd, which
    typically means the system and apps. it could mean documents too.

    for less frequently used files, such as songs and photos, it will
    probably take longer to decide which one to use than it does to
    actually load the file, so any speed gain on ssd is lost.

    > Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
    > more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
    > much greater.


    you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
    get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.

    however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
    have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get. :)
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2012
    #13
  14. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:080220121158520245%...
    > In article <jgu8up$gfj$>, David J Taylor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte
    >> >> count
    >> >> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
    >> >> Resource Monitor option, to find the processes and files with
    >> >> highest disk
    >> >> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.
    >> >
    >> > that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed
    >> > gains.
    >> > there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
    >> > especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is
    >> > put
    >> > the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
    >> > hard drive.
    >> >
    >> >> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    >> >> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
    >> >> 120 GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for
    >> >> Windows
    >> >> and programs).
    >> >
    >> > that's also a bad idea.

    >>
    >> It's the writes which kill an SSD.

    >
    > true, but the number of writes needed to kill it is quite high. even if
    > you hammer it, it will still last a long time.
    >
    >> I am running applications with a daily
    >> throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
    >> than putting that data there.

    >
    > that may be an edge case. most people will find ssd to be a *huge*
    > gain, and an easy way to boost an aging computer. everyone i know with
    > ssd says they'll never go back to a hard drive, the difference is that
    > dramatic.
    >
    >> Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
    >> talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
    >> most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes
    >> or
    >> files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but
    >> keep
    >> writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system &
    >> programs
    >> on the SSD, and data on the HD.

    >
    > i'm suggesting frequently accessed files go on the faster ssd, which
    > typically means the system and apps. it could mean documents too.
    >
    > for less frequently used files, such as songs and photos, it will
    > probably take longer to decide which one to use than it does to
    > actually load the file, so any speed gain on ssd is lost.
    >
    >> Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it
    >> costs
    >> more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks
    >> is
    >> much greater.

    >
    > you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
    > get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.
    >
    > however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
    > have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get. :)


    A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
    OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".

    Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
    where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
    where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly. We
    both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
    SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
    That's just what I have in one of my PCs.

    I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
    very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
    very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
    right now.

    One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
    are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
    those?

    Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
    display. <G>

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 8, 2012
    #14
  15. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <jguc3l$43n$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > >> Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
    > >> more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks
    > >> is much greater.

    > >
    > > you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
    > > get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.
    > >
    > > however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
    > > have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get. :)

    >
    > A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
    > OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".


    no need to reinstall. just clone the existing drive to an ssd and swap
    the ssd into its place. the difference is huge.

    > Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
    > where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
    > where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly.


    agreed.

    > We both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
    > SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
    > That's just what I have in one of my PCs.


    a ssd/hd combo is a good solution for those with huge amounts of data
    because high capacity ssd is not exactly cheap. pure ssd is a good
    solution for less demanding needs, such as in a 2 pound ultrabook.
    there is no one size fits all.

    > I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
    > very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
    > very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
    > right now.


    full disks are rarely a problem unless it's the main drive and swap
    space suddenly fills it to capacity, when things start to go very
    wrong.

    > One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
    > are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
    > those?


    yes and it's a nice compromise.

    > Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
    > display. <G>


    for your ipad? :)
     
    nospam, Feb 8, 2012
    #15
  16. otter <> writes:

    > My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
    > upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
    > recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
    > - for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,


    A friend of mine made this discovery about the backup tapes on a
    mainframe computer he wsa running for his employer once. Must have been
    kind of a nasty shock.

    I *think* I'm testing my backups adequately (one big benefit of my
    scheme is I can access the backup volume as its own filesystem and just
    go look at random things).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 9, 2012
    #16
  17. "David J Taylor" <> writes:

    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:080220121017234903%...
    >> In article <jgtek4$t3$>, David J Taylor
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
    >>> put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
    >>> Resource
    >>> Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
    >>> activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

    >>
    >> that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
    >> there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
    >> especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
    >> the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
    >> hard drive.
    >>
    >>> I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
    >>> writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get
    >>> a 120
    >>> GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
    >>> and programs).

    >>
    >> that's also a bad idea.

    >
    > It's the writes which kill an SSD. I am running applications with a
    > daily throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing
    > an SSD than putting that data there. Perhaps I should clarify I am,
    > of course, talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is
    > writing the most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look
    > for processes or files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as
    > you like, but keep writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest
    > with system & programs on the SSD, and data on the HD.


    You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
    they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
    home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.

    People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
    reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

    > Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it
    > costs more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare
    > blocks is much greater.


    Sure, that's a clear win.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 9, 2012
    #17
  18. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message news:...
    []
    > You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
    > they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
    > home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.
    >
    > People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
    > reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

    []
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/


    Not weird, but unusual. Data coming in at 60 GB/day, which is compressed
    and expands to perhaps 80 GB/day. So even if the compressed data is held
    transiently in RAMdisk, that's still 80 GB/day being written to the SSD.
    That data is processed by my software, and results in a further write rate
    for the processed data of, say, 2 GB/day. Plus the writes for deleting
    the raw data, and regular deletes of the processed data - which may be
    some tens of thousands of files per day.

    What life expectancy for an SSD with this usage?

    Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O you
    have, and organise your disks accordingly.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 10, 2012
    #18
  19. "David J Taylor" <> writes:

    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message news:...
    > []
    >> You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
    >> they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
    >> home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.
    >>
    >> People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
    >> reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.


    > Not weird, but unusual. Data coming in at 60 GB/day, which is
    > compressed and expands to perhaps 80 GB/day. So even if the
    > compressed data is held transiently in RAMdisk, that's still 80 GB/day
    > being written to the SSD. That data is processed by my software, and
    > results in a further write rate for the processed data of, say, 2
    > GB/day. Plus the writes for deleting the raw data, and regular
    > deletes of the processed data - which may be some tens of thousands of
    > files per day.
    >
    > What life expectancy for an SSD with this usage?


    What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
    drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
    Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
    think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.

    > Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
    > you have, and organise your disks accordingly.


    Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
    realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
    disk to SSD).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 10, 2012
    #19
  20. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > What's the spec, 10k writes to a cell? So the naive number for a 120GB
    > drive is 1200TB total writes (that assumes perfect wear leveling).
    > Realistic numbers would be considerably lower, but better than half I
    > think. So taking .5 efficiency, that's 1200TB / 2 / 82GB = 7492 days.
    >
    >> Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O
    >> you have, and organise your disks accordingly.

    >
    > Always a good idea, and especially a good idea when you're moving into a
    > realm you're not so familiar with (like when first moving from rotating
    > disk to SSD).
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/


    You might be right if every write were just one event, but it's not.
    Unless the file size is /exactly/ a certain size depending on the drive,
    and on /exactly/ the correct boundary, writing will be split across more
    than one block of cells. Don't forget all the directory writes as well -
    at create, when my software sets the file modification date, and at erase.

    I recall read (but please don't ask where) that a life of a few years
    could be expected from and SSD in a read-mostly file server application.
    I won't be recommending my users to go SSD for an application writing and
    deleting tens of thousands of files per day with an 80 GB daily
    throughput. As folk like to store the weather data for a few days at
    least, they will have to go to something like one or more 2 TB HDDs in any
    case.

    I don't know whether SSDs deserve their reputation for poor reliability,
    or whether its just that we only hear about the failures, or whether some
    folk use them in completely inappropriate ways.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 10, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JimD
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    6,766
    ßnôtråg
    May 11, 2005
  2. Syn
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,081
  3. Jon Doe
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    578
    Martin Bilgrav
    Sep 6, 2005
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    718
  5. smolderingwick

    2 year AAS degree (w/certs) vs. 4 year CIS degree

    smolderingwick, Feb 6, 2011, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,878
    smolderingwick
    Feb 6, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page