On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:21 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 19:37, Peter Johansson wrote:
> > I am also surprised at the lack of discussion of the high failure
> > rates of the early SSD drives.  The personal reports I have heard are
> > far greater than the media coverage would lead one to believe.  I am
> > certainly not going to drop for an SSD until there is greater proof of
> > long-term reliability.
> They don't just fail "Read only" that only applies if writes are=20
> exhusted.=20

That's exactly the specific case of "fail" that we're talking about: a
drive that has exhausted it's write count will still be 100% readable.

Obviously, there are tons of other ways that SSDs can fail, but that is
no different then any other mass storage device and isn't applicable.

> The ones with the cheap 9" netbooks do seem to be more power=20
> hungry and slower on sequential writes than a 60Gbyte Toshiba 1.8" HDD

We're not talking really about those drives either, they are very old
technologically and are obviously designed for price beyond anything
else.

We are talking about high performance SSDs.

Very few SSDs you buy on the shelf are anything but high performance.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.