| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 117746 | 2011-05-03 06:28:00 | Some info on SSD Solid State hard-drives | braindead (1685) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1199110 | 2011-05-03 06:28:00 | May 2, 2011 - Scary, expensive stuff (www.codinghorror.com) | braindead (1685) | ||
| 1199111 | 2011-05-03 21:54:00 | No complaints with my Force 120! | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1199112 | 2011-05-04 08:32:00 | There is no doubt that SSDs are more durable in terms of in terms of physical shock. There is also no doubt that they will sustain less write cycles than a hard disk. The point of argument seems to be about how many fewer writes - I have seen a web site that suggests if you were to write continuously to a SSD it would last 40 years! This however does not seem to be the reality with SSD hard drives (or pen drives for that matter). | johnd (85) | ||
| 1199113 | 2011-05-05 05:55:00 | simple, just use the Intel SSDs, they have the lowest MTBF of all the SSD manufacturers, they are reliable you get what you pay for |
nmercer (3899) | ||
| 1199114 | 2011-05-05 06:49:00 | simple, just use the Intel SSDs, they have the lowest MTBF of all the SSD manufacturersEr... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right? MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1199115 | 2011-05-05 13:22:00 | Er... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right? MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around. :lol: I thought it was Mean Time Between Failures? (or maybe that was some Chinglish I picked up from a CD-RW drive install guide) Then there's MTTF which must be a little different... That article seems to confirm what I've always said.... |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1199116 | 2011-05-05 17:41:00 | Oops, you're right - I was thinking of MTTF, my apologies! :blush: Edit: Although my point still stands, a low MTBF isn't exactly desirable. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1199117 | 2011-05-06 00:30:00 | Oops, you're right - I was thinking of MTTF, my apologies! :blush: Edit: Although my point still stands, a low MTBF isn't exactly desirable. I know your point stands, no need to apologize for getting the acronym wrong... it was obvious what you meant. I was just giving the correct one for the purposes of information |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1199118 | 2011-05-06 01:58:00 | I know your point stands, no need to apologize for getting the acronym wrong... it was obvious what you meant. I was just giving the correct one for the purposes of informationMmm, I hate getting stuff wrong though, even if it makes no material difference. I value accuracy, so if you ever see me state something that is incorrect, please feel free to point it out. I'd far rather be called out on something rather than just leaving it there to mislead anyone who stumbles across it. :pf1mobmini: |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1199119 | 2011-05-06 05:46:00 | Er... you realise that having the lowest MTBF is *not* a good thing, right? MTBF == Mean Time Before Failure, or in other words the average time before the drive fails. You want this number to be as *high* as possible, not the other way around. whoops, wrong way around, but you know what I mean The intel drives are very realiable in my experience |
nmercer (3899) | ||
| 1 | |||||