4 ms·

I don't follow, I think? The tests that you link to suggest that SSDs meet and exceed their manufacturer's durability claims as measures in petabytes written.

I don't follow, I think? The tests that you link to suggest that SSDs meet and exceed their manufacturer's durability claims as measures in petabytes written. The problem appears to be that manufacturers want to translate that number into something consumers understand, and farmers now want to take them up on that for their industrial use of the devices. Manufacturers use "lasts for 10 years" as the label for consumers. Which seems entirely reasonable - the disks really will last for 10 years in typical usage, and this phrasing seems useful for consumers. Now we could fix by either requiring that any warranty standard must hold under any imaginable usage scenario, or manufacturers could resort to a somewhat squishy "reasonable use". I think the "any use case" requirement is not practical, and we have a long history of "reasonable use" being used, eg for cars.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
The problem here IMO is that "reasonable use" is a loophole that can be used to justify anything, or at least it doesn't tell the customer how to use the device before expecting trouble. If the limitation was also expressed in objective, preferably quantitative terms, it would be clear. Internet conections usually have that: 1Tb transfer at 100Mb/s speed, then 64kb/s. 50% of the time, the speed may be limited by congestion, etc.
- Nitramp 5y ago
  I think they reference a "standard daily use"? But even if that's not strictly quantified, I think the manufacturer position is justifiable, in particular when advertising to consumers.
a1369209993 5y ago
It's perfectly fine if they want to claim: > Lasts for 10 years!* > * Based on a total lifetime of X PB and typical usage of Y GB/month. But if they claim "Lasts for 10 years.", then their implied warrantee is "Lasts for 10 years.".
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  As long as "typical usage" fits reality and is not blatant lie like "serving size" on many cookies. (lets say that there is package of snack that everyone eats at once - package label claims that it is expected to be not eaten at once, what allows them to make less horrifying nutrition label)
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    Part of the point of how I prescribed it is specifically that you can take X and divide by your own value of Y to get useful expected lifetime under more rapid writes.
    - matkoniecz 5y ago
      That is helpful, but primary visible message still should not be actively misleading.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        On further consideration, "perfectly fine" was a poor way of saying something more along the lines of "not fraudulent".
- gruez 5y ago
  AFAIK most drives have their TBW buried in the specs somewhere

rhn_mk1 5y ago

The problem here IMO is that "reasonable use" is a loophole that can be used to justify anything, or at least it doesn't tell the customer how to use the device before expecting trouble. If the limitation was also expressed in objective, preferably quantitative terms, it would be clear. Internet conections usually have that: 1Tb transfer at 100Mb/s speed, then 64kb/s. 50% of the time, the speed may be limited by congestion, etc.

Nitramp 5y ago
I think they reference a "standard daily use"? But even if that's not strictly quantified, I think the manufacturer position is justifiable, in particular when advertising to consumers.

a1369209993 5y ago

It's perfectly fine if they want to claim: > Lasts for 10 years!* > * Based on a total lifetime of X PB and typical usage of Y GB/month. But if they claim "Lasts for 10 years.", then their implied warrantee is "Lasts for 10 years.".

matkoniecz 5y ago
As long as "typical usage" fits reality and is not blatant lie like "serving size" on many cookies. (lets say that there is package of snack that everyone eats at once - package label claims that it is expected to be not eaten at once, what allows them to make less horrifying nutrition label)
- a1369209993 5y ago
  Part of the point of how I prescribed it is specifically that you can take X and divide by your own value of Y to get useful expected lifetime under more rapid writes.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    That is helpful, but primary visible message still should not be actively misleading.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      On further consideration, "perfectly fine" was a poor way of saying something more along the lines of "not fraudulent".
gruez 5y ago
AFAIK most drives have their TBW buried in the specs somewhere