PDA

View Full Version : Some info on SSD Solid State hard-drives



braindead
03-05-2011, 06:28 PM
May 2, 2011 - Scary, expensive stuff (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html)

SolMiester
04-05-2011, 09:54 AM
No complaints with my Force 120!

johnd
04-05-2011, 08:32 PM
There is no doubt that SSDs are more durable in terms of in terms of physical shock. There is also no doubt that they will sustain less write cycles than a hard disk. The point of argument seems to be about how many fewer writes - I have seen a web site that suggests if you were to write continuously to a SSD it would last 40 years! This however does not seem to be the reality with SSD hard drives (or pen drives for that matter).

nmercer
05-05-2011, 05:55 PM
simple, just use the Intel SSDs, they have the lowest MTBF of all the SSD manufacturers, they are reliable

you get what you pay for

Erayd
05-05-2011, 06:49 PM
simple, just use the Intel SSDs, they have the lowest MTBF of all the SSD manufacturersEr... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right?

MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around.

Agent_24
06-05-2011, 01:22 AM
Er... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right?

MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around.

:lol:

I thought it was Mean Time Between Failures? (or maybe that was some Chinglish I picked up from a CD-RW drive install guide)

Then there's MTTF which must be a little different...


That article seems to confirm what I've always said....

Erayd
06-05-2011, 05:41 AM
Oops, you're right - I was thinking of MTTF, my apologies! :blush:

Edit: Although my point still stands, a low MTBF isn't exactly desirable.

Agent_24
06-05-2011, 12:30 PM
Oops, you're right - I was thinking of MTTF, my apologies! :blush:

Edit: Although my point still stands, a low MTBF isn't exactly desirable.

I know your point stands, no need to apologize for getting the acronym wrong... it was obvious what you meant. I was just giving the correct one for the purposes of information

Erayd
06-05-2011, 01:58 PM
I know your point stands, no need to apologize for getting the acronym wrong... it was obvious what you meant. I was just giving the correct one for the purposes of informationMmm, I hate getting stuff wrong though, even if it makes no material difference. I value accuracy, so if you ever see me state something that is incorrect, please feel free to point it out. I'd far rather be called out on something rather than just leaving it there to mislead anyone who stumbles across it.

:pf1mobmini:

nmercer
06-05-2011, 05:46 PM
Er... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right?

MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around.

whoops, wrong way around, but you know what I mean

The intel drives are very realiable in my experience