Re: SSD vs HDD

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.