POST A COMMENT

5 Comments

Back to Article

  • alpha754293 - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    That sucks! Reply
  • havoti97 - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    "Specced"? How about "specified"? Reply
  • MarkLuvsCS - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    That chart seems to be seriously conservative for the amount of writes the drives can take.

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...

    40gb intel 320 ~ 370 TB still chugging but its wearout indicator has bottomed out at 1. It hit 1 around 190 TB.

    There was someone with an 32gb Intel x25-E sitting at 90% for wear with 580 TB written.

    Not to mention an increase in size should scale linearly with total writes possible. These people have been hammering writes to their SSDs for what amounts to months of time. Will be cool to see when the newest drives die write wise! maybe 1.5 PB with 25nm MLC.
    Reply
  • NandFlashGuy - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Hi Mark,

    The chart isn't conservative -- it is based on an enterprise workload where the write amplification can be pretty nasty.

    You quoted sources doing a purely sequential workload where the write amplification is approximately 1.

    You can imagine how long it will take to kill one of these 710 Series SSDs with sequential writes.
    Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    After they were last refreshed? Is that what it's saying? Does the drive somehow (until it's worn out) refresh every location in the flash to keep the data there stored?

    And what does this mean for the Vita that's supposedly storing games on flash instead of ROMs?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now