4 ms·
This is pretty cool, especially since the data is persistent. You could put an entire data warehouse onto one or of a couple of these things, update it once a
by snake_plissken 12y ago
This is pretty cool, especially since the data is persistent. You could put an entire data warehouse onto one or of a couple of these things, update it once a week and get amazing response time.
But I thought the main drawback of SSDs was that eventually the individual memory cells will degrade and lose the ability to write new data. I don't see anything about endurance other than a MTBF of 2.5 million hours and the disk-writes-per-day (DWPD), which I had to look up. I have no idea if these are good or bad. I feel like these things will be great if you didn't write new data a lot, or you have deep pockets to replace them when you need to.
- Filligree 12y ago2.5 Mhours MTBF equates to 285 years. That's a long time. On any kind of large-scale installation you need redundancy, but if those numbers pan out then you could expect any single SSD to outlast your organisation. Take backups anyway.
- tw04 12y agoAt what duty cycle? The MTBF rating means literally nothing without that detail.
- _dark_matter_ 12y agoI just want to point out that is not how MTBF works. MTBF (and MTTF) are used in a group of components, and cannot be used to estimate lifetime of a single component. This does not say that, on average, each component will last 285 years. This says that, given a group of components (if you bought 2.5M of them, for example) there will be a failure every 2.5 Mhours of operating time (so for 2.5M components, every hour one will fail).