Re: SSD vs HDD

My understanding.

IBM's 146GB Enterprise SSDs actually have 256GB of space. So there's
110GB there to take up the slack as the cells die. Actually in
practice the "wear-leveling" logic of the means all 256GB of space are
in use, it's not like a dead sector list on a standard HHD.

Bottom line, IBM expects at least a 5 year life out of the drives in a
standard enterprise environment of 30% write 70% read.

Charles

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM, <daparnin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, they are faster.  Yes, you might be able to justify the cost with the
increased speed.  The problem that I have with SSD drives in situations
like this is the fixed number of writes before they go read-only.  That
might not be a problem for a PC, iPhone, or non-write-intensive
application.  Since the i tends to like to page things in and out of
memory to disk wouldn't that "use up" you number of writes a lot more
quickly.  That would seem to tend to diminish the cost-justification of
the speed.  A raid environment could probably handle the more frequent
drive "failures".


Dave Parnin
--
Nishikawa Standard Company
Topeka, IN  46571
daparnin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.