Solid-state drives

[Perfection]

So how viable are they in terms of using them as the c: of a windows box? At what point will you start to degrade things and have corrupted data?

@Aimee, your obsession with the click of death is unhealthy. Seek therapy.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

So how viable are they in terms of using them as the c: of a windows box? At what point will you start to degrade things and have corrupted data?

I think they'd need a bit more development first, or a version of the OS specially tailored to it (e.g. not writing so much to logs, as there's limited write cycles). I imagine degradation depends on the amount used the computer. IIRC, there's maybe 1-5 million write cycles, if that helps any.

I did some more googling and came up with this, which says a SSD should last for 50 years, but I dunno if the math is right. It seems more for people who run servers.
This one says anywhere from 1 - 25 years. It's for one brand of computer, though.

@Aimee, your obsession with the click of death is unhealthy. Seek therapy.

You're not the first one to say I'm a loony.... It's all a huge conspiracy against me!! (J/K, actually, I'm on antipsychotics.)

 

[Aramazd]

I think they'd need a bit more development first, or a version of the OS specially tailored to it (e.g. not writing so much to logs, as there's limited write cycles).

Quite honestly it's already pretty viable. The real issue is size and reliability where it's an issue.

You're not the first one to say I'm a loony.... It's all a huge conspiracy against me!! (J/K, actually, I'm on antipsychotics.)

You're insane.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Yeah, I am insane. But usually only act really crazy when I forget my meds. Or something really stresses me out.

 

[Perfection]

Quite honestly it's already pretty viable. The real issue is size and reliability where it's an issue.

You have any experience with this Abgar?

I'm considering putting together a computer with one, getting a lightning fast OS would be pretty nice but if it would cost me in future breakdowns or other problems, or if it's painful to configure (keep in mind I'm generally an idiot when it comes to computers), I'd have to look at something else.

 

[Zelig]

You'll get far better performance returns for your money by upgrading RAM or processor speed, in that order, than by getting a SSD instead of a traditional drive.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Or if it's speed in the drive you want, you can get this!.

 

[Aramazd]

You have any experience with this Abgar?

I'm considering putting together a computer with one, getting a lightning fast OS would be pretty nice but if it would cost me in future breakdowns or other problems, or if it's painful to configure (keep in mind I'm generally an idiot when it comes to computers), I'd have to look at something else.

Unfortunately, price is also a big issue unless your going for very small sizes. I'm going to agree with Zelig, a RAM upgrade is probably the way to go.

Or if it's speed in the drive you want, you can get this!.

Would be more interesting if they compared some 15k SAS drives as well.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I think if you are willing to deal with lower life expectancy, a 64GB SSD is fairly viable. it really does depend on your budget though. I think if you want faster HDD performance, you can shell out for a VelociRaptor and get a RAM upgrade. The $/GB is much better even on a VelociRaptor.

 

[Perfection]

You'll get far better performance returns for your money by upgrading RAM or processor speed, in that order, than by getting a SSD instead of a traditional drive.

What about boot times?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Are you willing to spend 4x the amount of a traditional HDD for the decrease in boot times? There are many other considerations, like for instance, the write speed on lower end, cheaper SSD's is lower than some traditional HDD's. So running apps will be nice, but installing them will become even more of a PITA.

 

[Perfection]

Are you willing to spend 4x the amount of a traditional HDD for the decrease in boot times?

If it's very substantial, I'd be pretty tempted. And really if it's in the one hundred range to put on a decent OS and I see performance gains too, I might consider it.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Honestly, for very impressive results you have to go with the High-end ones which are 300+ USD for a 64GB version.
Give it a year, by then the market will be very different.

 

[Hakim]

An interesting article about SSDs:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531

If I got it right, it seems the issue with SSDs will be the fact that while they can write small amounts of data, only large chunks can be deleted. Over time, write operations will require more and more overhead as data will have to be read, temporarily stored elsewhere (cache), combined with new data to be written and then put back into the disk. So Anandtech predicts a trim operation similar to defragmentation where data is moved around to enable direct write operations.

 

[lndm]

Good article (long read, though)

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Another thing I've thought of, but haven't seen anything about. Flash memory can get corrupted if the power's knocked out abruptly, and I think SSDs are the same type. If a computer has a SSD, and the power goes out and there's no battery backup, wouldn't that ruin it? Tried googling and got some stuff but I'm not sure exactly what they mean.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

The stuff that's being written/ is in cache, but the same thing can happen to HDD's.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

But if the cache got corrupted, wouldn't that make the SSD useless? Or does the cache information just vanish into thin air?

 

[lndm]

Yes, it vanishes into thin air

The cache is just a stepthrough on the road to fast transfers. If the data there becomes corrupted then you may have a few files out of place, so to speak. Afterwards, everything will be back to normal.

As we know, sometimes the odd bad file or filesystem error causes no ill effects and sometimes it brings the whole system down.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

But if the cache got corrupted, wouldn't that make the SSD useless? Or does the cache information just vanish into thin air?

Cache on SSD does the same thing as on an HDD, for the most part. Save for maybe the SSD's erase algorithm, which uses the SSD to store parts of a block ( I think its a block ) that are to not be erased while the parts that are do.