[General] Samsung develops 256GB solid state drive

[bashar abdullah]

Something not less than 1 TB.

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Burhan Khalid <burhan at kuwaitnet.net> wrote:

> bashar abdullah wrote:
>
>> Good point majed. I was planning to wait a bit before getting a NAS
>> solution. But if it's 25 writes only, it's not worth the wait I guess.
>>
>
> Uh, it bears mentioning here that not all devices are created the same,
> just like all disk drives don't have the same MTBF.
>
> There are devices available with more than 100,000 write cycles. Also,
> these disks have tech in them that makes sure you are not burning out one
> sector all the time -- a process called "wear leveling".
>
> Finally in case you have this notion that slapping a SSD in your laptop
> will somehow inject it with turbo powers to make Vista actually run fast --
> then it bears keeping in mind that not all devices have the same read/write
> speeds.
>
>
>  Speaking of which, anyone know a good, quite NAS product?
>>
>
> What capacity?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Majed B. <majedb at gmail.com <mailto:
>> majedb at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    I read the news summary over /. and I found the last part funny:
>>    "A 256GB capacity is getting large enough to replace hard-drives for
>>    good — now just the prices just need to come down further for large
>>    capacity SSDs."
>>
>>    They forgot something more important than price: Reliability!
>>    SSDs are like USB memory sticks, suffer from a major reliability issue
>>    which is the limited number of writes on a block. The article mentions
>>    no improvement on that side, so I'm assuming the recent figures still
>>    stand: 25 writes per block, and after that, *poof* the block is no
>>    longer usable.
>>
>>    Even with smart controllers that distribute data randomly or
>>    selectively over blocks, people would want fast disks for fast
>>    operations, and most likely to read & write a lot, not just to "store
>>    fast," which means that the wear factor is very high.
>>
>>    Unless they get another technology to replace the existing one causing
>>    such reliability issues, it's not worth the money, in my opinion.
>>
>>    On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
>>    <bashar at kuwaitnet.net <mailto:bashar at kuwaitnet.net>> wrote:
>>     > i wonder how much it will cost if 64GB is 600ish-800ish
>>     >
>>     > http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9952007-1.html
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > General mailing list
>>     > General at oskw.org <mailto:General at oskw.org>
>>     > http://mail.oskw.org/mailman/listinfo/general_oskw.org
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>>    --
>>     Majed B.
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    General mailing list
>>    General at oskw.org <mailto:General at oskw.org>
>>    http://mail.oskw.org/mailman/listinfo/general_oskw.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> General mailing list
>> General at oskw.org
>> http://mail.oskw.org/mailman/listinfo/general_oskw.org
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at oskw.org
> http://mail.oskw.org/mailman/listinfo/general_oskw.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oskw.org/pipermail/general_oskw.org/attachments/20080527/edda69b7/attachment.html>