Why so much fear of writes on a ssd? Ramdisk?

I just got my samsung 64gb 470 series for my dell xps 1645 and runs great performs exact to specs. I have been reading tons of threads on all the tips and I have disabled pretty much as much as I can for the os to not write to it. Not that I care since this has a three year warranty but reading these threads is scaring people. Why would anybody make a hard drive that you have to be afraid to write to it. It's like driving a fast car but being afraid to touch the brakes.

Now my drive has a three year warranty and if it lasts or dies in that years really doesn't make a difference as long as I get another. I only trust samsung, intel, and crucial for ssd's. My last tweak is to do a ramdisk or not since I have 8gb of ram 4gb of it is almost never used. Now can somebody tell me who really knows what the downside to a ramdisk is. I have a second hdd 7200rpm for temp files so to me a ramdisk doesn't make sense.

I think the whole ssd wear thing is overblown as most peolpe buying them don't even know about these issues or do any tweaks. So unless a mass amount of hard drives are going to die sometime soon I don't see how this could be a problem.

 

SSD performance wears down gradually, just like your flash drives. You can always do secure erase to gain back some performance.

 

I 100% agree with the overblown SSD wear business.
There is a thread where a group of people are writing to their SSDs as fast as they can and continuously and actively reporting back to this thread!
SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm - Page 49
So far a MLC Intel G2 has had over 150TiB written to it, no problem!

I have about 5TiB on mine

 

Nand willl eventually wear out. 34nm has about 5000 write cycles to it, but most of us have never hit that, since for most of us SSD's are still fairly new, I have had my first one for about a year and a half. So it is really uncharted waters for most of us. That is where all the tips and tweaks came from and are for, saving un needed writes to the drive.

However, here is a very interesting thread testing the longevity of quite a few different drives. It is long, so you may want to go to the end, and then backtrack for anything you want to get more info for. In a nutshell, almost every drive tested FAR surpassed it's expected life of writes.

I no longer worry about the life, I just keep regular backups, so if (when) any of my drives do fail, I will not lose my data. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just enjoy it.
SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm - Page 34

 

LOL, you posted as I was writing about it.

 

Same reason why I made myself a tin hat and wear it ever since I use wifi about 10 years ago in my house.

 

With SSDs, just treat them like a HDD, meaning make backups but otherwise just use them as they were meant to be used.

I think a lot of the "fear" may have to do with how much they cost. While that is understandable to some degree, people are forgetting that the most expensive computer parts loses the most value over time (for equivalent item). For instance the original Intel G1 80GB launched at $363. The latest iteration Intel 320 80GB launched at $190.

Other FUD is because they are new and people don't understand them, or because of information propagated about the earliest consumer SSDs based on the crappy Jmicron controller way back before Intel G1 and Indilinx. Seriously how many "SSD optimization" articles are out there with a laundry list of all the stuff you HAVE to do or else your shiny expensive new SSD will suffer a fiery death? Really? With a modern computer using a current gen SSD and running Windows 7, you don't have to do anything to "optimize" it for it to work properly.

 

so while you think it's overblown and all, you did tons of tweaks and put temps onto the hdd and all without even thinking about it? all that stuff you've done is useless. your ssd won't die in the next YEARS because of writes. reverse all tweaks, put temps where they belong (where they're fast to load so they're a great cache), etc. you gained NOTHING.

 

I am personally much more worried about another related issue.

what happens when SSD's start replacing hard-drives as standard storage in pre-built machines? I have no confidence in everyday users understanding the issue of limited writes(I expect alot of car mileage analogies to be made - unsuccessfully). Considering how long some of these people keep their computers for(up to 5+ years), what will happen when, one day, their computers stop working because the system can't write to the disk?

I know there will be a ton of other reasons why their computer would fail, but I have the inkling that SSDs will fail more often(relatively speaking) than any other subsystem in the computer.

ps, keep in mind, when SSDs become this popular, the NAND node size will be much much smaller.

with that in my mind, will SSDs EVER become as mainstream as HDDs?

 

For most people who tend to keep their computers for 5+ years, it is usually lightly used ones(as far as write is concerned) so not a problem.

SSD failure is not due to the NAND but firmware bugs which is just because they are not matured enough yet.

If you believe some said that tablet is going to replace PC, naturally flash media(not even SSD) would become mainstream. By then, there is no PC, everyone is using iPad X

 

The writes are not limited for the average user. Only enterprise and real hardcore users will hit the limit, but they already have their own special NANDs, MLC.

 

Here's a few posts I've made in regards to ramdisks. Extremely fast(faster than SSD), no wear & tear on components, and next to zero power consumption, since this is all done within the memory on your pc.

If you have an app or situation that does a LOT of write I/O, then a ramdisk can make sense. For R/O or anything less than massive I/O, I'd suggest you just go with a good SSD. SSDs handle read I/O extremely well; write I/O, not so well.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/len...aid0-worlds-fastest-laptop-3.html#post7575831

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...579985-ssd-ram-drive-worth-2.html#post7551526

http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...emp-files-off-ssd-os-drive-2.html#post7708574

http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/592671-x220-ram-disk-battery-life.html#post7693841

 

I remember reading somewhere that to "wear out" the NAND in 5 YEARS you have to do like 50GB of writes PER DAY. Only in enterprise situations where databases are running off said SSDs are you going to see such routine poundage. Yes, you might hit that on a day or so here and there, but the only time you are really going to do a lot of writing is on a fresh install when you install Windows, programs, and all kinds of crap. That's what, 80-150GB? But you aren't doing that every day, for just general usage and whatever your writes are in the couple hundred MB per day I'd say.

Me, I don't do much tweaking to mine. I install Windows and whatever else, run the Windows Experience thingy and then verify TRIM was turned on and defrag was disabled. I disable search indexing on the C drive and that's it. All the other stuff is optional and honestly the indexing is too. Turning off hibernate and such like that that saves several GB of space is worthwhile for those with smaller drives, but isn't necessary if the space isn't a concern.

 

If people use their computers so long that their system stops writing to the disk due to SSD failure, as Generic User #2 states, they buy a new computer.

There's many things that can fail on a PC over time, and "Joe User" usually goes out and buys a new PC if it does. I don't know how many people have told me that Windows XP has slowed down on their computer over time so they're going to buy a new computer with Windows 7 when all they do is surf the web.

I tell them I can set their computer up like new (for $50 ) but instead they go out and buy a new laptop for $700 with Windows 7 loaded with so much shovelware that it runs slower than the laptop it replaced!

 

You should tell them that you may buy their laptop for 50$

 

yes there's a problem regarding the wear issue. That's why servers still only use SSD's for acceleration or only use high performance SLC SSD's.
Any SSD has a LIMITED lifetime. An HDD doesn't have any limitation whatsoever. They only fail due to mechanical problems.
It all depends on how much are you planning to write on a SSD.
Also different SSD's have very different write longevities.
An average user will not have any problem.

 

i repeat myself: it's not a problem. it's a FACT. one can compute it. and yes, it's irrelevant for end users. everything else will die before the ssd writes are over.

it's like the fact that we all will die. except, for the ssd, we know when. and maybe that's the problem. people are not used to that. so they suddenly fear it'll die soon.

 

Even with SSD's aren't those MINIMUM write cycles to failure so it could run well beyond that.

 

has anyone done the calculations for write cycles at MUCH SMALLER nodes than we're using right now? that was kinda the point of my earlier thoughts.

NAND is at 20nm right now with 5 thousand cycles? feel free to correct, i really don't remember anymore.

as well, I was talking about if SSDs REPLACED HDDs in every category, not just as boot drives. that includes scenarios where you're storing vast quantities of movies on large internal and external SSDs.

 

if you use it for storage, that means you write much less to it. you typically write a movie onto it ONCE, and then let it be. so it's even LESS of an issue that it allready isn't..

and yes to HTWingNut. they're MINIMUM numbers. well, estimated minimum numbers, of course.

the only issue would be if you would not store them, but restore them all the time. copy, delete the old. copy, delete the old. do that all the time and you get somewhere where it MIGHT start to matter in some form.

 

the best way to see how long it will last is to make calculations for each SSD model.
for example an intel x-25m1 80GB will last for 36TB for writes (intel data). that's about 100gb per day for 1year. or about 20gb per day for 5years. or about 1gb per day for 36years.
it is a problem. it's a fact.
it just depends on how much are you going to write and what SSD will you use. a server might last way longer then an SSD. it's not true that all hardware becomes absolute before the SSD wears out.
it cannot be calculated in that way because it DEPENDS ENTIRELY on how much it will be written on it!
ofc for the average user that's not a problem. but that's for the AVERAGE for every single user in the world. an average user writes about 3gb to 10gb of data per day. I write a LOT more then that. but that's me.

 

Intel vastly underestimated these numbers. In the SSD endurance topic already mentioned in this thread, the same X25-M G1 has gone for 277tb. It has already exceeded its rated lifetime, which "ended" at 147tb. An X25-V, with only 40gb (half the available NAND to spread writes) has gone for over 600tb of writes and is still alive. The take-home point is that you don't need to worry about SSD writes. I still move my users folder off the SSDs in both my desktops, but that's purely a space-saving measure.

EDIT: 277tb is 75gb/day for 10 years. No, an "average user" will not kill an SSD before upgrading. I've never even heard of anyone killing a flash drive or SD card, which don't have any type of wear leveling.

 

I don't have actual data, but most users probably swap out their system and hard drive after 5-6 years at worse case, and pretty much any SSD will meet that life expectancy. Expecting any more and you're risking failure of the drive or PC for any other number of reasons. I don't know why people expect their computer hardware to last forever. There has to be some finite life to it, and extending too far will cost more money.

And that's 270TB written, not 270 thousand. In any case, that's still a lot of writes. My 80GB that I use dailly only has 1.88TB writes. I'll stay with my X25-M 80GB and two 120GB's.

 

intel stated, for laws reason, 5 years. internally, they documented, their estimated lifetime with SAME values: 80 years. they just don't guarantee that to make their lawyers not go crazy. just in case.

so multiply all by 16 to get their real minimum.

 

Yes, 270,000 gb not tb, sorry. But 270,000gb / 10 years / 365 days = 73.9 gb/day, so that one's right. I used to worry about writes to my SSDs, but after reading that entire thread, I don't anymore.

To put "upgrades" in perspective, I just pulled the data off my 80gb HDD from 2001 and junked it a few weeks ago. Before that point, it sat on the shelf for years since I last used it. I wouldn't dream of using this slow, small, 10-year-old drive as a system drive, and neither would you. Today's SSDs won't even be relevant when they finally wear out (controller failure aside). And by that time, you'll be able to replace your 80gb SSD with a 1TB one for the fraction of the cost.

 

That's my point. In 5-6 years' time let alone 10 the technology will be so outdated and very unlikely to be put to any kind of serious use if at all.

 

yes an AVERAGE user will not have a single problem, even with older and low performance SSD's. I've seen dead SSD's in my university in some special computation projects that required insane amounts of data to be written. I've also known a couple server owners that had write endurance problems with SSD's, but not with new ones.
I've killed some SD cards and I've known some professional photographers that had the same problem. That's why lifetime warranty in SD cards is important and it's offered, specially in high end expensive ones.

About companies stating lower write endurances then is expected it's always a russian roulette, we can never predict exactly how longer it will work. Some SSD's will definitely die before the estimated writes. the majority of course will last longer.

yes but what fraction? according to moore's law that has been valid until today it decreases costs in half in 18months (chip density doubles in 18 months).
so considering that today 256gb costs about 700$ in 5 years 1tb ssd will cost around 250$.

 

Where are you getting $700 for 256 gb from? I purchased a 240gb and a 256gb drive in the last few months, both for less than $1/gb.

 

well, prove it was a write problem and not some firmware issue that just failed at big workloads first. and even then, as said, it's not a problem. you might just have choosen the wrong tool for the job. my phone is bad at playing crysis. phone's fault? not really. if i want to play crysis, i'm expected to get some good gamer hardware.

ssd livetime is not an issue exactly BECAUSE one can compute it. that's the best thing ever. a hdd can die anytime. that's much worse to work with (and on average, they die more quickly and more often than ssds, esp in the mobile sector (notebookreview it is)).

in the end, stuff dies, always. rely on something to not die, thus, always stupid and wrong. no matter what. making the whole (really, the WHOLE) write endurance issue mood.

there are less WAYS in which an ssd can die than a hdd. thus they're more reliable and the better choice if you need reliability. other than that, everything can die. if that matters, fallbacks HAVE to be there. ALWAYS.


and yes, 1:1 here, too, just checked the prices. 240gb starting at 240 swiss franks, which is close to the dollar.

 

sorry. miss calculated. 512gb @ about $700. in 5years 1TB will cost around $120.


SSD's do fail less then some HDD's.

- 5,76% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B
- 5,20% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C
- 3,68% : Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
- 3,37% : Samsung SpinPoint F1
- 2,51% : Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
- 2,37% : WD Caviar Green WD10EARS
- 2,10% : Seagate Barracuda LP
- 1,57% : Samsung SpinPoint F3
- 1,55% : WD Caviar Green WD10EADS
- 1,35% : WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS
- 1,24% : Maxtor DiamondMax 23
- 9,71% : WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS
- 6,87% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000
- 4,83% : WD Caviar Green WD20EARS
- 4,35% : Seagate Barracuda LP
- 4,17% : Samsung EcoGreen F3
- 2,90% : WD Caviar Green WD20EADS
- Intel 0,59%
- Corsair 2,17%
- Crucial 2,25%
- Kingston 2,39%
- OCZ 2,93%


problem is HDD data is relatively easy to recover (with more or less expensive methods). when a SSD loses the data usually it can't be recovered.

imo the fear is overhyped because people don't talk about HDD's like they talk about SSD's. if it were the other way around people would have even more fear since failure rate in HDD's are much higher. imagine a world full of SSD's and then HDD's start to appear, a slower method of storage but way more cheaper and with a failure rate way higher too. we would even have an HDD only subforum.