Author Topic: SSD's - How They Work Plus Tips (Read 43,368 times)

johnk · « **Reply #25 on:** May 29, 2013, 01:47 PM »

Thanks for that, pilgrim. I'm also surprised at the level of reservations about SSD in this thread. From everything I've read, I think Mark0 is right in that most problems are down to faulty controllers/firmware. You need to do your research and buy with care.

It's common for people who have switched to SSD to say that it's the biggest single performance improvement they have made to their computer. I'd agree with that. To me, any marginal increase in the risk of disk death is more than worth it. But of course I never encourage anyone to switch, because if you did and they subsequently lost any data...

PS: just upgraded my main PC from a 64GB SSD system disk to a 250GB SSD. I will move the 64GB disk to one of my other systems.

pilgrim · « **Reply #26 on:** May 29, 2013, 02:25 PM »

Quote

You need to do your research and buy with care.

I spent nearly 2 months looking into parts for my newest PC before I ordered anything.
I wasn't certain to begin with that I would get an SSD, in the end it came down to Corsair or Crucial, as I was going for their RAM I settled for Corsair.

f0dder · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2013, 12:10 PM »

Quote from: johnk on May 29, 2013, 01:47 PM

From everything I've read, I think Mark0 is right in that most problems are down to faulty controllers/firmware.

That's my experience as well, from my limited sampling size (two SSDs of my own, and a friends).

Quote from: johnk on May 29, 2013, 01:47 PM

You need to do your research and buy with care.

What's even more important is a solid backup plan. Even enterprise-grade drives fail without notice (my X25-E certainly did).

It's common for people who have switched to SSD to say that it's the biggest single performance improvement they have made to their computer. I'd agree with that. To me, any marginal increase in the risk of disk death is more than worth it. But of course I never encourage anyone to switch, because if you did and they subsequently lost any data...

PS: just upgraded my main PC from a 64GB SSD system disk to a 250GB SSD. I will move the 64GB disk to one of my other systems.

Dormouse · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2013, 12:35 PM »

My 64GB SSD is getting fairly full - so I'm looking at 256GB(ish) and like others will use the old one elsewhere.
There's no question that it is the biggest performance improvement I have ever made. Also the problems with length of life are irrelevant since they last long enough for my upgrade cycle to kick in (I admit that has got quite lengthy now for other components though - long gone are the days when a new computer was needed every 3 years). Agree with the need for a good backup strategy.

Jibz · « **Reply #29 on:** May 31, 2013, 06:07 AM »

I agree with what f0dder and others have said. I think perhaps the first generations of SSD had issues with wear, but the current ones (third generation I think?) have things in place to handle that and usually break other places.

And the performance gain is big, just make sure you backup.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 01, 2013, 10:08 PM »

Quote from: Jibz on May 31, 2013, 06:07 AM

I agree with what f0dder and others have said. I think perhaps the first generations of SSD had issues with wear, but the current ones (third generation I think?) have things in place to handle that and usually break other places.

And the performance gain is big, just make sure you backup.

Whether the SSD breaks, or the controller breaks, BROKE IS BROKE!

Isn't the controller built into the SSD? Can the built-in controller be swapped out without having to send it to the factory? Can you even find a replacement built-in controller?

[Inquiring minds want to know...]

Mark0 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 01, 2013, 10:11 PM »

I think the main difference is that problems arise not because of some intrinsics problems of the technology, but more as an effect of some not very good implementations.

f0dder · « **Reply #32 on:** June 02, 2013, 09:09 PM »

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 01, 2013, 10:08 PM

Whether the SSD breaks, or the controller breaks, BROKE IS BROKE!

Sure - but the distinction is important nonetheless; if the drives died from erase-cycle wear & tear, you'd have a decent idea when you could expect the drive to die... heck, you should be able to get a pretty precise idea from looking at SMART data. But when it's a firmware bug or a controller that fries without warning?

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 01, 2013, 10:08 PM

Isn't the controller built into the SSD? Can the built-in controller be swapped out without having to send it to the factory? Can you even find a replacement built-in controller?

Probably not - here's a few snaps of my dead X25-E SSD.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 03, 2013, 12:25 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on June 02, 2013, 09:09 PM

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 01, 2013, 10:08 PM
Whether the SSD breaks, or the controller breaks, BROKE IS BROKE!
Sure - but the distinction is important nonetheless; if the drives died from erase-cycle wear & tear, you'd have a decent idea when you could expect the drive to die... heck, you should be able to get a pretty precise idea from looking at SMART data. But when it's a firmware bug or a controller that fries without warning?

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 01, 2013, 10:08 PM
Isn't the controller built into the SSD? Can the built-in controller be swapped out without having to send it to the factory? Can you even find a replacement built-in controller?
Probably not - here's a few snaps of my dead X25-E SSD.

Well then, that pretty much sums it up for me, SSD's ain't worth the risk. I'll wait until they get all the bugs worked out and make advancements in the technology. I never really liked being a beta tester, especially for hardware....

f0dder · « **Reply #34 on:** June 03, 2013, 12:48 PM »

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 03, 2013, 12:25 AM

SSD's ain't worth the risk.

Oh, but they are - they definitely are. I'm not going back to HDDs for my OS+Applications drive. And you ought to have a working backup setup anyway, so...

barney · « **Reply #35 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:26 PM »

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 03, 2013, 12:25 AM

I'll wait until they get all the bugs worked out

Gonna be a looooonnngg wait. Bugs exist. Period. Most every bug fix I've ever seen had its own crop of [new] bugs.

Quote from: Tinman57 on June 03, 2013, 12:25 AM

I never really liked being a beta tester, especially for hardware....

Sorry, but you don that mantle every time you power up a PC or a mobile phone, start a vehicle, use an appliance, ...,

.

Mark0 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 03, 2013, 09:27 PM »

I too would never go back to not having an SSD. There's simply no comparision.

phitsc · « **Reply #37 on:** June 07, 2013, 06:44 AM »

There's another related article in one of the more recent editions of Communication of the ACM:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2463636

The author postulates that SSDs could both be made more reliable and more performant (*) if there was a file system specifically targeting the characteristics of SSDs. The only SSD-related command current file systems support is TRIM, which marks a region as 'no longer in use', and which looses its effectiveness as an SSD gets near to full.

It seems to be a chicken-and-egg problem though: no one will make an SSD-specific file systems because current SSDs don't offer an SSD-related API (appart from TRIM). And no one will make an SSD-specific API because there are no file systems that would make use of it.

(*) that doesn't seem to be an English word?

wraith808 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2013, 02:19 PM »

Performant is not an old word. So until it is included in the standard staid record of the English (and there is a periodic time that the dictionaries update), you won't find it in standard dictionaries. A good blog post on this is here. However, it is in our vernacular. Our language just has to catch up.

phitsc · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2013, 02:28 PM »

Ah, that's interesting. Thanks wraith808! (thanks also for vernacular: never heard that one before

)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2013, 04:51 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on June 07, 2013, 02:19 PM

A good blog post on this is here.

Just wanted to mention that it's well worth the time to read the comments at that link. The discussion is intelligent, informative, and at times hilarious.

wraith808 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2013, 06:51 PM »

I liked this one...

Quote

For the people asking for succinct alternatives, here you go:

most performant = fastest
more performant = faster
performant = fast
less performant = slower
least performant = slowest

My 3rd grade son came up with those.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #42 on:** June 07, 2013, 07:23 PM »

I liked this one:

Quote

Bryan

4/27/2007 at 8:12 am

I don’t buy the “makes sense in context” business.

I ended up at this page because I came across the following:

“ScrewTurn Wiki is a performant and simple Wiki engine, written in C# and based on the ASP.NET 2.0 platform.”

The “ant” suffix converts a verb to an adjective. Defy -> defiant. Comply -> compliant. I my mind’s context, the sentence “wiki is a performant … engine” translates to “the wiki engine performs”. Then I must assume the author’s intent is “performs well”. I’m still left wondering “performs what well”?

I need a metric. That metric varies depending on the requirements specification. What is the implied metric for a “performant wiki engine”?

While were at it, why not the following?

“This software is the shiznitz with egregious bling. It’s da bomb.”

wraith808 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 07, 2013, 08:02 PM »

I guess my basic thing is both have a point. The current terms are not sufficient to adequately communicate what needs to be understood. However, the solution does leave some things to be desired. That's why the English language is so overloaded with synonymous terms. And that's also the reason that being a consultant is a lot about choosing the terms that help you communicate with the client. Effective business communication is a skill and an art form, and is all about choice of terminology and recognition of the audience. And I think that's why buzzwords come into play, and why they become so useless by the time they reach the end of their cycle... because they are to an extent necessary in the beginning, then their use becomes watered down and in the end they add to the noise because people concentrate on the use of them and how intelligent/knowledgeable it makes them seem rather than if their use is warranted, and what the term actually communicates.

Oooh. That was quite the rant, wasn't it?

As a writer, and someone that is also technical, this is one of the things I hate about where the two come into contact with each other, and one of those things that frustrates me.

barney · « **Reply #44 on:** June 07, 2013, 11:40 PM »

Hm-m-m ... performant isn't even on my list, as yet

. I'm still stewing/struggling over conversate

!
Edit: add curate.

pilgrim · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2013, 10:17 AM »

Quote from: barney on June 07, 2013, 11:40 PM

Edit: add curate.

I've known several of those, they're all vicars now.