ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:44:38 -0500, Kevin <rkstover@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>SSD's are not without their own unique problems.
>They are based on NAND Gate Flash and will eventually "wear out" from
>continued program/erase cycles, 1 to 2M per device. MTBF doesn't apply
>in the traditional sense. The fuller an SSD gets the slower the read
>write access times. Same thing applies to traditional drives but I've
>never seen anyone fill up a 500GB hard drive. I could fill half your
>SSD with the music on my IPod.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Disadvantages
REPLY:
Interesting article. I was surprised to learn SSDs do not need
defragmenting, in fact it can actually be bad for them.
Time will tell which drive is best. If SSDs come down in price as much
as HDs have over the last decade. they should be a bargain.
At the request of another group member, I just did a test of write
speed compared to a mechanical HD. Copying a 6.038 GB file from
another HD, the mechanical drive took 4 minutes 48 seconds, while the
SSD took 5 minutes 7 seconds. The mechanical HD was faster by about
7%.
I also tested the bootup time from power on to logon sound. I
re-imaged both the mechanical HD and the SSD so they would have
identical software and partition size on both.
The mechanical HD took 51 seconds vs 40 seconds for the SSD. The SSD
was faster by about 28%.
Hope this info is useful.
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|