An Introduction to the Solid State Drive

[Lite]

If it has a re-write of 50gb per day and like you suggested say every byte can be re-written 10,000 times (i think its more like 100,000 but we can say 10,000)

50GB / 32GB = 1.5625 x 10,000 = 15625 days , then / 365 = 40 years , thats considering 10,000 bytes of data per every single byte of space being re-written , Ive done a few simple calculations that seemed to loo right , anyone wanna proove me wrong but ive worked it out to be

10,000 write/erase per fragment/ sector / whatever its called on SSD'S
50gb write/erase per day
40 years lifetime

Do remember people that they use very advanced algorithms to spread the data properly ect to get a extremly good lifetime , anyhow i think these drives have a much much longer life than hard drives ,

Also , thre is a differnace between Reading the data and writing the data , once youve written the windows files when you boot you only read the files , you wont write them again ,
So that 50gb per day is really impossible on a 32 gb SSD to write.

Edit:
Ive jsut read your post , and that last 10% would be able to be re-written alot of times still , but who actually leaves 10% on a drive and keeps writing and deleting on it over and over again Even with this into consideration do remember hard drives have a short lifetime aswell , especially with the impact damadges and genral wear eventually causing bad sectors ect...

[powerpack]

50GB / 32GB = 1.5625 x 10,000 = 15625 days , then / 365 = 40 years

Is wrong should be 10,000/1.5625=6400 days or about 17.53 years. Only time will tell but these SSD's look like they will last long enough to compete with traditional HDD's. It also apears that the failure is not likely to cause a complete loss of DATA kind of a nice feature IMOP.

[Les]

Here are the life expectency quotes from Mtron, Samsung and Super Talent in order. Both Mtron and Super Talent state 140 years with Samsung approaching it at a different angle with mean time between failure.

[Lite]

Is wrong should be 10,000/1.5625=6400 days or about 17.53 years. Only time will tell but these SSD's look like they will last long enough to compete with traditional HDD's. It also apears that the failure is not likely to cause a complete loss of DATA kind of a nice feature IMOP.

Thanks for correcting me , I guessed i would have been wrong somwhere.

By the way , at 100,000 write cycles like earlier suggested that would = 170 years which is close to the 140 prediction , so yeh 140 would be reachable quite easibly , whatever happens they will last longer than hard drives.
Dont forget , if we go back 17 years the biggest hdd was like 50mb , now who would be using a 50mb hard drive in there computer at this day and age , These parts will be replaced way befoer the 140 years is reached lol.

[ShinAkuma135]

SDD's are really only good if you are in a rough environment right? because of the no moving parts...

[Snap]

SDD's are really only good if you are in a rough environment right? because of the no moving parts...

You benefit if you would like your notebook to have a longer battery life, less heat, less noise, less vibration, & more reliability. Not to mention that Mtron's SSD is faster than WD's Raptor and eliminates seek times.

In detail, upgrading to Mtron's SSD has these incentives:
SPEED, SPEED, SPEED!!!
Totally silent (no moving parts).
Fastest access time ever: 0.1m sec (instant seeks, 150MB burst, sustained 100MB writes & 80MB reads)
Vastly superior reliability (no failing mechanical parts)
1000 - 1500g operating shock (no finicky platter head)
1/2 the power consumption of a mechanical HDD (less heat and longer battery life)

If you prefer a slower notebook in all areas, more heat, shorter battery life, noise & vibration, sensitivity to shock, and less relability, then stick with a traditional HDD.

As flamenko said, the greatest deterrents are price, capacity, and availability.

The future is now!

[computernerd]

Heh, there are way more glaring disadvantages to SSD's than you mention. It's near-impossible to recover lost data, you're screwed with a low to moderate magnetic field or static shock near it, limited writes, and more. Even when SSD's become remotely affordable, I would still go with HDD's.

Beautifully written post, though.

[Les]

Actually, there us discussion in two of the manufacturers websites that the SSD is much safer as it handles a crash in a different fashion. In a disk, a crash is a crash is a crash whereas, the controller in a SSD, should it find a bad sector, moves information from that area and the user, for the most part, will not even know it. (Im sure I would with a 32Gb SSD lol).

I can't address the magnetic field issue and, infact, myself and Trebuin were wondering if they are airport proof. As for write, there is no question of superiority any further if my tests in a few weeks show, as Mtron claims, that their new SSD pushes out 120MB/s read, 90MB/s write with a 150MB/s burst.

And thank you for the compliment.

Would I pay alot for new technology that, as of yet, cannot really be obtained much less proven successful in the long run? Absolutely not. Im just a boy fm a steel mill town that no longer has its mills.

[powerpack]

I can't address the magnetic field issue and, infact, myself and Trebuin were wondering if they are airport proof.

I can not refute this either but highly doubt. Why, well HDD use magnetism and they are fine (shielded) 2nd USB sticks do fine right? So with out any support of original comment I feel it is just a "red herring".

[Les]

I like fishing...but don't quite understand that.