I have an old sata SSD that's been my write cache and transcoding drive for 8 years. Will check the tbw
16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
11–20 of 21 posts
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#12[dead]
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#13I have an old sata SSD that's been my write cache and transcoding drive for 8 years. Will check the tbw
Post what cell tech do it have
Probability SLC drives are better in that regard
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the firmware on the drive typically ensure that it's written to evenly regardless of write pattern? If you repeatedly delete/update the 'same' logical block address on the drive, that won't actually correspond to the same physical location.
It will try to do that yes, but there are consequences, drawbacks and imperfections. You can only cheaply do so with free blocks, and if 70% is occupied you can only spread it out over the remaining 30%. After you've done that for a while you'll have to rearrange existing data which incurs more writes and less performance. And fragmentation is still an issue. There are tons of tradeoffs - which will be better or wors…
That’s why SSDs have overprovisioning, more so for enterprise drives. And why TRIM is important. That being said most workloads are sequential, particularly retail usage. Much easier to deal with for the controller than enterprise workload ratings that assume 4k random writes
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#15I have an old sata SSD that's been my write cache and transcoding drive for 8 years. Will check the tbw
Sequential vs random writes make a world of difference.
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#16For more serious information, in my work PC I have a cache SSD which is a 2009 Intel 32GB, it got more than 46 TB of writes over 67000 hours of uptime, and is still working fine.
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will try to do that yes, but there are consequences, drawbacks and imperfections. You can only cheaply do so with free blocks, and if 70% is occupied you can only spread it out over the remaining 30%. After you've done that for a while you'll have to rearrange existing data which incurs more writes and less performance. And fragmentation is still an issue. There are tons of tradeoffs - which will be better or wors…
That’s why SSDs have overprovisioning, more so for enterprise drives. And why TRIM is important. That being said most workloads are sequential, particularly retail usage. Much easier to deal with for the controller than enterprise workload ratings that assume 4k random writes
Yes? Not sure what your point is.
Sequential workloads and just filling the drive over and over are very different still.
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#18Bogus article. They didn't write anything to the drive, they faked writes to run up the drive's write counter to test whether the controller would declare the drive worn out despite the flash not being touched.
Yes, even the video's thumbnail explains this, I'm not sure how the article author managed to get it so badly wrong. (Although I'm not sure why it would need a windows bug, surely it's more of a drive firmware bug?)
The article was written, from soup to nuts, by AI. I suspect the person who threw his byline on it barely glanced at the text.
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s why SSDs have overprovisioning, more so for enterprise drives. And why TRIM is important. That being said most workloads are sequential, particularly retail usage. Much easier to deal with for the controller than enterprise workload ratings that assume 4k random writes
Yes? Not sure what your point is. Sequential workloads and just filling the drive over and over are very different still.
The drive internally usually stores data in blocks larger than the 4k blocks it pretends to use to the OS (say it uses 16k blocks internally). So if your writes are sequential, it will most likely write the same 16k block in one go. If you write random 4k blocks, it will have to rewrite a full 16k block for every 4k block you write, hence write amplification.
So if you fill the drive over and over using sequential writes you can expect way more endurance than if you write random blocks.
Re: 16-year-old SATA II SSD survives 1 petabyte of writes, 25x the drive's rating
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? Not sure what your point is. Sequential workloads and just filling the drive over and over are very different still.
The drive internally usually stores data in blocks larger than the 4k blocks it pretends to use to the OS (say it uses 16k blocks internally). So if your writes are sequential, it will most likely write the same 16k block in one go. If you write random 4k blocks, it will have to rewrite a full 16k block for every 4k block you write, hence write amplification. So if you fill the drive over and over using sequential wr…
Yes, that was one of my points in my first post...