Tom's Hardware says SSDs are relaible... but!

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Just read a review on reliablility of current generation SSDs at Tom's. One
    thing I found interesting, and I quote:

    "You shouldn't have to worry about the number of P/E cycles that your SSD
    can sustain. The previous generation of consumer-oriented SSDs used 3x nm
    MLC NAND generally rated for 5000 cycles. In other words, you could write to
    and then erase data 5000 times before the NAND cells started losing their
    ability to retain data. On an 80 GB drive, that translated into writing 114
    TB before conceivably starting to experience the effects of write
    exhaustion. Considering that the average desktop user writes, at most, 10 GB
    a day, it would take about 31 years to completely wear the drive out. With
    25 nm NAND, this figure drops down to 18 years. Of course, we're
    oversimplifying a complex calculation. Issues like write amplification,
    compression, and garbage collection can affect those estimates. But overall,
    there is no reason you should have to monitor write endurance like some sort
    of doomsday clock on your desktop."

    (Sorry for the length. LOL, first time I've said that!)

    Anyway, they're basing their calculations on writing 10GB/day and saying
    that the current 25nm NAND based SSDs should be good for 18 years at that.
    that sounds great!

    Then I remembered that I have Harddisk Sentinel installed and it records all
    sorts of things. I checked the data and yes, it records total data written
    (and read, about 1.2x written). It tells me that, in the 503 (running) days
    since I installed this 7.2Krpm HDD in my T60 laptop it's had 45,708.45 GB
    written to it. That's *90* GB/day written, not the 10GB/day that Tom's talks
    about.

    That means that, going by their projections, a new 25nm SSD would only last
    me 2 years? Shite!

    (The article also says that data recovery from a failed SSD is more
    difficult than a failed HDD.)

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Aug 4, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    Gordon Guest

    On 2011-08-04, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    > Just read a review on reliablility of current generation SSDs at Tom's. One
    > thing I found interesting, and I quote:
    >
    > "You shouldn't have to worry about the number of P/E cycles that your SSD
    > can sustain. The previous generation of consumer-oriented SSDs used 3x nm
    > MLC NAND generally rated for 5000 cycles. In other words, you could write to
    > and then erase data 5000 times before the NAND cells started losing their
    > ability to retain data. On an 80 GB drive, that translated into writing 114
    > TB before conceivably starting to experience the effects of write
    > exhaustion. Considering that the average desktop user writes, at most, 10 GB
    > a day, it would take about 31 years to completely wear the drive out. With
    > 25 nm NAND, this figure drops down to 18 years. Of course, we're
    > oversimplifying a complex calculation. Issues like write amplification,
    > compression, and garbage collection can affect those estimates. But overall,
    > there is no reason you should have to monitor write endurance like some sort
    > of doomsday clock on your desktop."
    >
    > (Sorry for the length. LOL, first time I've said that!)
    >
    > Anyway, they're basing their calculations on writing 10GB/day and saying
    > that the current 25nm NAND based SSDs should be good for 18 years at that.
    > that sounds great!
    >
    > Then I remembered that I have Harddisk Sentinel installed and it records all
    > sorts of things. I checked the data and yes, it records total data written
    > (and read, about 1.2x written). It tells me that, in the 503 (running) days
    > since I installed this 7.2Krpm HDD in my T60 laptop it's had 45,708.45 GB
    > written to it. That's *90* GB/day written, not the 10GB/day that Tom's talks
    > about.
    >
    > That means that, going by their projections, a new 25nm SSD would only last
    > me 2 years? Shite!
    >
    > (The article also says that data recovery from a failed SSD is more
    > difficult than a failed HDD.)
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html
    >

    Thanks for the posting.

    For what I have read it seems that SSDs are sort of on the playing field but
    not really winning the game. They are more rugged, and can speed up boot up
    time, and some other activities but overall the price is still too high. The
    advice seems to be stick with the good old HDD technology for now
     
    Gordon, Aug 4, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    Enkidu Guest

    On 04/08/11 12:14, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Just read a review on reliablility of current generation SSDs at Tom's. One
    > thing I found interesting, and I quote:
    >
    > "You shouldn't have to worry about the number of P/E cycles that your SSD
    > can sustain. The previous generation of consumer-oriented SSDs used 3x nm
    > MLC NAND generally rated for 5000 cycles. In other words, you could write to
    > and then erase data 5000 times before the NAND cells started losing their
    > ability to retain data. On an 80 GB drive, that translated into writing 114
    > TB before conceivably starting to experience the effects of write
    > exhaustion. Considering that the average desktop user writes, at most, 10 GB
    > a day, it would take about 31 years to completely wear the drive out. With
    > 25 nm NAND, this figure drops down to 18 years. Of course, we're
    > oversimplifying a complex calculation. Issues like write amplification,
    > compression, and garbage collection can affect those estimates. But overall,
    > there is no reason you should have to monitor write endurance like some sort
    > of doomsday clock on your desktop."
    >
    > (Sorry for the length. LOL, first time I've said that!)
    >
    > Anyway, they're basing their calculations on writing 10GB/day and saying
    > that the current 25nm NAND based SSDs should be good for 18 years at that.
    > that sounds great!
    >
    > Then I remembered that I have Harddisk Sentinel installed and it records all
    > sorts of things. I checked the data and yes, it records total data written
    > (and read, about 1.2x written). It tells me that, in the 503 (running) days
    > since I installed this 7.2Krpm HDD in my T60 laptop it's had 45,708.45 GB
    > written to it. That's *90* GB/day written, not the 10GB/day that Tom's talks
    > about.
    >
    > That means that, going by their projections, a new 25nm SSD would only last
    > me 2 years? Shite!
    >
    > (The article also says that data recovery from a failed SSD is more
    > difficult than a failed HDD.)
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html
    >

    It reminds me of when hard disks were new. A friend bought a new hard
    drive for his computer. I believe it was a C64 computer and drive was
    connected by one or more connectors, but I'm not sure. The capacity was
    a whole 5MB, but he hardly ever used it because he'd read that it was
    good for x million writes and he didn't want to wear it out too soon
    after he'd paid all that money!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Aug 4, 2011
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    Richard Guest

    On 8/4/2011 12:14 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Then I remembered that I have Harddisk Sentinel installed and it records all
    > sorts of things. I checked the data and yes, it records total data written
    > (and read, about 1.2x written). It tells me that, in the 503 (running) days
    > since I installed this 7.2Krpm HDD in my T60 laptop it's had 45,708.45 GB
    > written to it. That's *90* GB/day written, not the 10GB/day that Tom's talks
    > about.


    Probably because you are thrashing the swap on your old underspecced
    computers. Try again with 8 or 12 gigs and see how it goes.

    > That means that, going by their projections, a new 25nm SSD would only last
    > me 2 years? Shite!
    >
    > (The article also says that data recovery from a failed SSD is more
    > difficult than a failed HDD.)
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html
    >
     
    Richard, Aug 4, 2011
    #4
  5. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Richard wrote:
    > On 8/4/2011 12:14 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Then I remembered that I have Harddisk Sentinel installed and it
    >> records all sorts of things. I checked the data and yes, it records
    >> total data written (and read, about 1.2x written). It tells me that,
    >> in the 503 (running) days since I installed this 7.2Krpm HDD in my
    >> T60 laptop it's had 45,708.45 GB written to it. That's *90* GB/day
    >> written, not the 10GB/day that Tom's talks about.

    >
    > Probably because you are thrashing the swap on your old underspecced
    > computers. Try again with 8 or 12 gigs and see how it goes.


    This machine has 3GB RAM (the chipset limit), running XP Pro 32-bit on a
    T7400 2.16GHz Core2Duo CPU with 4MB of L2 cache. It is better specced than
    quite a few new machines on the shelves and in TV ads. I have run it with no
    swap and it runs just fine. Currently, after a bunch of research, I have it
    set to 256MB swap. I run a little applet that shows free RAM in systray
    (checked against Task Manager's Performance tab) and it has never gone below
    1,300MB. It is plenty fast enough for my day-to-day needs.

    LOL @ "old underspecced computers". My main desktop has 4 cores @ 3GHz+,
    12MB L2, 8GB RAM and 6TB of storage.

    Yeah, my hobby is refurbishing classic ThinkPads and I have a few here with
    single-core CPUs. However I don't run machines with less than 1.5GB RAM
    (preferably 2GB but 1GB DDR[1] SODIMMs are getting more expensive by the day
    so some make do with 1 x 1GB and 1 x 512) and most of the CPUs would
    out-perform an old space-heater Prescott P4.

    However I wouldn't consider putting an SSD in any of those (perhaps as a
    boot drive in the heavy iron...) but I would consider putting one in this
    T60 if the price was right and I'd just 'had a windfall'. I'd use an SSD in
    the primary HDD slot for OS and programmes and a mechanical drive in the
    ultrabay for data, forgoing an optical drive. Therefore this is the machine
    I used data from.
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Aug 7, 2011
    #5
    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. Sass
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,543
  2. Wilbert

    gratis Tom Tom 700 of Laptop

    Wilbert, Feb 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    614
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    696
    ~misfit~
    Mar 6, 2008
  4. Matty F

    Finding location with Tom Tom XL

    Matty F, Dec 29, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    889
    Simon
    Dec 29, 2010
  5. ~misfit~

    More from Tom's about SSDs.....

    ~misfit~, Aug 11, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    848
    Richard
    Aug 11, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page