Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Thats actually the main point of this thread... may want to reread the highlighted portions. That sure was MY thinking too before this...
@ Pyshco - If I see SDD one more time...... SSD!
I would bet my life that most applications would open faster on an SSD vs 2 of any mechanical drive in Raid 0. :
This is exactly the right way to think about it. How often something writes to disk isn't really of concern - the primary metric is total data written per day. Since the SSD handles distributing the write load over all of the NAND cells, the only way to wear out single cells is by writing a very large volume of data to the drive.Much Ado about nothing Pyscho. What I think you are attempting to describe is normal use and would of course be included with the data written. There is no need to eliminate those types of writes (and Page File) as I believe those are small files where SSD's actually excel in.
I'll have to turn off the intake fan and build a 12v electric blanket.Also, another interesting fact: Due to the way the physics of flash wear out works the warmer the SSD is the more p/e cycles it will endure. So unlike much other hardware an SSD lasts long the warmer it is (up to a point, at least).
Don't go cooking your SSDs though, they get more volatile as they heat up, that is to say they loose the data stored on them faster.
Heat is a non issue really with these drives. Even when beating on them for hours at a time they are barely warm to the touch.
For some devices, the user has been observed complaining, that a device "Gets really hot" because they can feel it. Those devices are usually better cooled, extracting internal heat to the outside quickly.
I am of the other school, where i recognise that a Tablet with an alum back heat synced off the processor is not nessisarily "hotter" but is probably the only one that is cooled
I dont know if the controller is in there burning up, i am trying to indicate that they didnt do squat, and some failures reported are not write cycles at all, but "board" failures.
being a modder (often for stupid reasons) i would want to peek inside and see how it is doing. we have had enough failures over the ages due to them sealing up things that process a lot of data.
.
Not sure what to tell you there...Also, another interesting fact: Due to the way the physics of flash wear out works the warmer the SSD is the more p/e cycles it will endure. So unlike much other hardware an SSD lasts long the warmer it is (up to a point, at least).
Don't go cooking your SSDs though, they get more volatile as they heat up, that is to say they lose the data stored on them faster.
The warmer it is on the outside, the warmer it has to be on the inside to get that heat on the heat sink!!
What I found curios about the Tom's hardware article is the claimed 10GB/day of writes since I've been doing way more than that. Now, I know I'm not an average computer user, but I'm surprised I would be so much outside the norm.
![]()
Still, I'm not in the least bit worried. Firstly, it is a 300GB SSD, so there is a lot of flash to wear out, and secondly, what everybody forgets is that the 3000-5000 p/e cycles of modern 25nm flash is the minimum number of cycles it can handle. The average can be significantly higher than that.
Well downloads are usually a small fraction of the writes anybody actually does. A big part is various temporary data written by programs. A big culprit is Carbonite, which logs all the changes to any files it is keeping backed up, and can produce 10-20GB writes on a day I use the computer a lot. Firefox's caching, and all the rest usually does only 1-2 GB in 24h.100G a day writes is pretty high.. I don't even dowload that in a month. Where do all the writes come from?
Process Monitor has a column tracking disk writes. It only tracks from when it was started, and it is pre-write-cache so it is not perfectly accurate.Is there a way to track which programs use that much write?