On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:08:26 PM Colin Fee wrote:
http://etbe.coker.com.au/2014/04/27/swap-breaking-ssd/
Last year I blogged about the amount of writes performed by workstations I run. The most was 128G in a day for atypical use (torrent download and filesystem balance) and the most for typical use was 24G in a day. If the SSDs I'm using are only capable of 61TB of writes then that would be 7 years of typical use or 1.3 years of atypical use before they have problems.
What kind of lame SSD can only cope with 60TB of writes?
We should make conservative assumptions. If the conservative assumptions are correct and a SSD lasts for 7 years then that's acceptable. If it lasts for more than 7 years then that's great!
By all accounts it sounds like you should get far, far more than that out of the decent ones! See previous post linking to people getting a couple of petabytes per drive :) True, not all will go that far, but in the endurance test that seemed the most thorough, even the earliest-to-die drive made it to 750TB. (And that was an Intel that had a set lifespan; it would probably have gone on a lot further otherwise)
Serendipitously an article on this subject has appeared in the latest edition of APC in the news section.
They report that the TechReport have been testing a batch of SSDs for over a year. Using disks from Corsair, Intel's 335 series, Kingston HyperX 3K and Samsung's 840 series they've been hitting them with 24/7 reads and writes. The two left standing (Kingston and Samsung) have passed 2 *petabytes* of writes and are still going strong. The 2PB is apparently equivalent to 1000 years of real-world use. The article does say that luck of the draw maybe be factor with the first HyperX 3K dying after 720TB
2PB would be ~230 years for my usage patterns. 720TB just over 80 years for my usage, that's still adequate. Really you should assume that "luck of the draw" won't be in your favor and plan to have SSDs fail after 720TB. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/