Is keeping a SSD powered on enough to prevent bit rot?
It should be enough because the SSD will schedule a periodic "fsck" equivalent and check for degraded bits to repair.
SSD Prices in a Free Fall
131–140 of 336 posts
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm probably explaining something most everyone here already knows, but: I don't know what Glacier uses, but the "offline" storage is much the same how mainframes use tape - disk based files (datasets in mainframe speak) are migrated to tape after a given amount of time to decrease storage costs. These datasets needs to be recalled back to disk to be used again. This is nearly identical to how Glacier operates with S…
You're referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_storage_managem... . AFAIK, most systems work at the file level, but if you address space is large enough, you could implement this as a virtual memory system that swaps RAM to disk, disk to slower disk, slower disk to tape, tapes to tapes stored offline, etc. I don't know what Amazon uses, either, but I expect Glacier data to be pushed out to some laye…
if you address space is large enough, you could implement this as a virtual memory system that swaps RAM to disk, disk to slower disk, slower disk to tape, tapes to tapes stored offline, etc.
Funny to imagine,
- My program has been stuck copying a variable for over half an hour!
- Yeah, there was a page fault and the tape loading guy still hasn't come from lunchRe: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, what kind of SSDs are you buying that you're having that kind of failure rate (god please don't say OCZ). I've been using Samsung and Intel SSDs for years now with failure rates below the failure rates of WD drives (and well below Seagate failure rates).
SanDisk . They have always been quick to replace them. The last one they even upgraded to a much more expensive model which makes me think the issue was being widely experienced. If I were to buy today I would buy Samsung as I have heard they are much more durable. Incidentally it was a Samsung phone that died though I don't know who made the memory for that.
Same issue here with a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 whose flash memory died. Luckily (or was it luck...) it died about a month before the 2-year warranty ran out and I had it replaced within a week for free. Pretty unheard of service, but still, I've always wondered why that thing died.
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, what kind of SSDs are you buying that you're having that kind of failure rate (god please don't say OCZ). I've been using Samsung and Intel SSDs for years now with failure rates below the failure rates of WD drives (and well below Seagate failure rates).
SanDisk . They have always been quick to replace them. The last one they even upgraded to a much more expensive model which makes me think the issue was being widely experienced. If I were to buy today I would buy Samsung as I have heard they are much more durable. Incidentally it was a Samsung phone that died though I don't know who made the memory for that.
There was a review of SSD lifespan a while back, they found the samsung 840 pro was able to survive something to the effect of 2 petabytes of wear before failing. The worst of them all started to fail at 100TB, and failed at 900TB. Unless you're running something with crazy IO, I can't imagine ever practically running into that limit.
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Additionally, wear-out isn’t an issue with SSDs. Those two node uplifts in the manufacturing process add literally years to the device life, and the economics of 3D NAND allow for extra over-provisioning, making the write life of the drive well beyond its time in a data center. This is especially true for archived storage, where writing is at a much lower rate.
I seem to remember SSD manufacturers rolling out similar perks in their marketing spiel years ago. It would be great if this is for real. The drives I have had issues with have been high write drives and I knew they wouldn't last for ever but they lasted an incredibly short time even when taking this into consideration.
Did they fail as in "some/all data lost", or did they switch to RO and you could at least get your data off them? Thinking of replacing my current home server HDs with SSD but worried about robustness...
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper Don't be sure about that. Remember that the Thai floods setback HDD prices and made them more expensive for years; they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked. With SSDs dropping, that might deter much more investment into HDDs (and with less demand from HDDs in the first place, there will be fewer of the economies of scale & learning curv…
backblaze (who uses desktop hdds) says they paid $0.044/gb in sept 2011: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/farming-hard-drives-2-years-a... Today on newegg it's about $0.03/gb.
That statement neither disputes nor supports the statement you made it in reply to. The statement you were replying to was referring to the trend line. That is to say it was referring to the line representing the rate at which the price was changing, not the price itself. You would need significantly more than two data points to make an argument for or against that assertion. As you would need enough enough points to show what the trend was both before the flood and currently.
I only point this out because I assume you misunderstood what was said about the trend line, if you had another purpose for pointing this out which I am missing I would be interested in knowing it.
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#137Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $350 Cheapest 1 TB HDD on Amazon: $40 Expecting a 10x drop in prices in 1 year is ludicrous. Even if the prices follow a pseudo Moore's law and fall by half every 18 months, you're looking at at least 5 years before they reach parity. And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper; so expect even more time for parity. In other words: ain't happenin' in 2016.
Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted. I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies. When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all…
I agree to a large extent but I think 80GB is an extreme on the low end. Many modern games (especially MMOs) are 20GB+. Windows 7 alone requires a huge amount of storage. I have a 120GB partition at home (just for OS+programs, not data) and I'm constantly uninstalling steam games in order to install others. If you want a modicum of breathing room, I'd say minimum 200GB.
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked. They have. I remember buying 2TB drives a year before (2010). I paid about $200 each. Last year (2014), I bought 4TB drives for $130 each. That's about 3x improvement over 4 years, right?
The prices may not be falling at the same rate as they were before the floods, though.
That's likely the case, since a lot of industry consolidation has happened since (5 to 3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_Hard_Disk_Driv...
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted. I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies. When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all…
I agree to a large extent but I think 80GB is an extreme on the low end. Many modern games (especially MMOs) are 20GB+. Windows 7 alone requires a huge amount of storage. I have a 120GB partition at home (just for OS+programs, not data) and I'm constantly uninstalling steam games in order to install others. If you want a modicum of breathing room, I'd say minimum 200GB.
IIRC, Assassin Creed Unity required 50GB by itself.
If Windows takes up 30GB, you pretty much need to wipe out everything just to play Unity on 80GB. I think 256GB to 512GB is the best bet for the standard consumer.
Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, pretty much. The only bit of news is that SSDs can achieve hard drive densities with 3D NAND, but like the early calls for the demise of all lighting other than LED. That was 10 years ago, its getting closer now. I'm putting in LED can lights in my living room for example. So at some point ...
To your LED point, I'm unaware of anyone not putting LED if cost of electricity or labor is of any importance. Consumers may not have gotten the message yet, but anyone running the numbers is going LED or nothing at all (small exceptions for grow operations or theater lightening).
LED fixtures are worth it, LED edison base bulbs (replacement bulbs) are not.
So new installations get LED, but old ones are not retrofitted.