If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: As nospam points out, the seek time for SSD's is close to 0 - SSD's are replacing more and more HD's or are added to HD's to store the most accessed files in hybrid setups. SSDs fail after a certain number of write operations, which is a very serious risk. it's actually fairly high number of write operations and not a significant risk. with no moving parts they are *more* reliable than hard drives. hds also fail, and it isn't necessarily due to write operations. they can fail for all sorts of reasons. i have one with a head crash in the closet and another with dozens of bad blocks. backup regularly and you won't lose anything. And they are still extremely slow compared to RAM and CPUs. so go get a terabyte of ram to store your files. let us know how well that works out for you. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
... [] Yep, SSDs are now mainline. The new peecee here has a 128 GB SSD and a 500 GB HD. I'm being a bit nervous about setting things up, and putting more program files on the HD than may be necessary. But things like Lightroom and Photoshop tend to put scratch files on "C", so I need to leave lots of free space there. Whatever, it's a new generation. Our old ideas are wrong. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan I would be careful about having too much write access going on with the SSD - try to keep it as read-only as possible. I have tended to put files with frequent write I/O on the HD rather than the SSD, as SSDs still have a limited number of write cycles. With Windows-7 it's reasonably easy to see which files have the maximum write activity. Cheers, David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
"David J Taylor" writes:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... [] Yep, SSDs are now mainline. The new peecee here has a 128 GB SSD and a 500 GB HD. I'm being a bit nervous about setting things up, and putting more program files on the HD than may be necessary. But things like Lightroom and Photoshop tend to put scratch files on "C", so I need to leave lots of free space there. Whatever, it's a new generation. Our old ideas are wrong. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan I would be careful about having too much write access going on with the SSD - try to keep it as read-only as possible. I have tended to put files with frequent write I/O on the HD rather than the SSD, as SSDs still have a limited number of write cycles. With Windows-7 it's reasonably easy to see which files have the maximum write activity. With modern life-cycles and modern wear-leveling code in the SSD, this is a non-issue for anything like a normal "temp file" or other working files. It might still be an issue for a communication file between two processes that gets heavily used, maybe (24/7, megabytes a minute, and so forth). I've had an SSD as system drive for my W7 system for several years now. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
Mxsmanic writes:
nospam writes: it's actually fairly high number of write operations and not a significant risk. with no moving parts they are *more* reliable than hard drives. With frequently rewritten files--often the very kind to which you'd want quick access--the write limit will be exhausted surprisingly fast. It's not the write limit for those particular sectors, though, it's the total write limit for the SSD drive. There's wear-leveling code that spreads the erase cycles around. Disk drives today can run for years continuously without a failure. And so can SSDs. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: it's actually fairly high number of write operations and not a significant risk. with no moving parts they are *more* reliable than hard drives. With frequently rewritten files--often the very kind to which you'd want quick access--the write limit will be exhausted surprisingly fast. nope, due to wear leveling. Disk drives today can run for years continuously without a failure. ssds for even longer. i've had a couple of drive failures in the past few years. hard drives definitely fail. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
... [] With modern life-cycles and modern wear-leveling code in the SSD, this is a non-issue for anything like a normal "temp file" or other working files. It might still be an issue for a communication file between two processes that gets heavily used, maybe (24/7, megabytes a minute, and so forth). I've had an SSD as system drive for my W7 system for several years now. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ David, You need to be careful, though. I have applications which write 5 Mb log files once a minute. OK for SSD? Those applications are handling reading, processing and writing of 60 GB of data every day. OK for SSD? As a "system drive", it's hammered a lot less than a "data" disk might be, and I'm happy to use an SSD in that case. I'm just saying that you need to have a handle on what your disk usage actually is. Cheers, David |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
"David J Taylor" writes:
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ... [] With modern life-cycles and modern wear-leveling code in the SSD, this is a non-issue for anything like a normal "temp file" or other working files. It might still be an issue for a communication file between two processes that gets heavily used, maybe (24/7, megabytes a minute, and so forth). I've had an SSD as system drive for my W7 system for several years now. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ David, You need to be careful, though. I have applications which write 5 Mb log files once a minute. OK for SSD? Those applications are handling reading, processing and writing of 60 GB of data every day. OK for SSD? That sounds rather like the specific exception I made in my second paragraph there, yes. As a "system drive", it's hammered a lot less than a "data" disk might be, and I'm happy to use an SSD in that case. I'm just saying that you need to have a handle on what your disk usage actually is. For specialized applications, sure. For a normal consumer system, any weird repeating use of a file is likely to end up on the system disk by default. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
On 2012-04-17 21:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes: You're ignoring that file systems write large file blocks sequentially over many sectors rather than filling in nearest available sectors. Most disk I/Os are extremely small, around 1000 bytes. And they typically are randomly distributed over the disk. "Most" are not that small. And, regardless, small files do need to be accessed, read and written. When files are saved, the entire file is typically rewritten (exception is indexed files). But photos, audio, web pages and so on (and the exploding XML content) are re-written entirely. Further, in well designed OS' writes do not occur on post but when the OS determines the optimal time to do so. As far as an app (or higher layer in the OS) is concerned, the file was written and can be read as if written. Where it actually is is transparent to higher levels in the system. The vast majority of files on a system lie in a contiguous block ... Well, they are near each other but not contiguous, since that increases fragmentation if they grow. Re-written files are typically re-written entirely, not appended and linked. Simply because it's simpler and changes to a file are usually somewhere "in" the file, not simply appended. But either way, a new disk access is required for each physical I/O. Not when the file is sequential. There is no need other than to wait for the sector to come - and occasionally move by one cylinder. Clarification, very large files may indeed be segmented but the segments are huge (hundred MB level). Since PC memories of 2, 4 , 8 GB and so on are more and more common, the amount of disk cache allocated to system memory has risen (and is flexible in size). Recently read/written files are often already in memory when needed. This reduces seek times dramatically. If the RAM size is not a substantial fraction of the total used disk space, and access is random, disk cache may buy nothing at all. But in practice there are some files that are usually at least partially in cache. The problem is that many are not, and so very large numbers of physical disk I/Os are still required. It's not about all being available but many being available. All such approaches take bites out of the issue - not solve it entirely. As nospam points out, the seek time for SSD's is close to 0 - SSD's are replacing more and more HD's or are added to HD's to store the most accessed files in hybrid setups. SSDs fail after a certain number of write operations, which is a very serious risk. And they are still extremely slow compared to RAM and CPUs. Flash memory continues to push the write limit. "Wear leveling" spreads out the effect as well. Do you know of any first flight MacBook Air's that have failed for this reason? (And they didn't have the best wear leveling strategy). The fact that RAM and CPU's are quicker is irrelevant. The file system is not intended to be used in real time computation. Most files being "worked on" can fit in memory when needed. The transfer time is what it is. You could build a disk system entirely of powered static or dynamic ram. It would be very fast and very expensive and would require a permanent power source (and backup to disk) and a special i/o channel to move the data quickly. Your choice. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
"Alan Browne" wrote: SSDs fail after a certain number of write operations, which is a very serious risk. And they are still extremely slow compared to RAM and CPUs. Flash memory continues to push the write limit. "Wear leveling" spreads out the effect as well. Do you know of any first flight MacBook Air's that have failed for this reason? (And they didn't have the best wear leveling strategy). The fact that RAM and CPU's are quicker is irrelevant. The file system is not intended to be used in real time computation. Most files being "worked on" can fit in memory when needed. The transfer time is what it is. You could build a disk system entirely of powered static or dynamic ram. It would be very fast and very expensive and would require a permanent power source (and backup to disk) and a special i/o channel to move the data quickly. Your choice. Just having bought a peecee with an SSD as it's main disk, I should have looked into thisg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-s..._disk_drive s Looking around, it seems that the current state of things is that SSDs are seen as having significantly longer expected operating lifetimes than HDs for normal PC usage. It's multiple decades for SDDs vs. 3 to 6 years for HDs. HDs have mechanical parts that wear. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: It's multiple decades for SDDs vs. 3 to 6 years for HDs. That depends on the number of writes, not the total operating time. A file that is regularly written can go through a SSD much more quickly. you'll probably want to replace it because of wanting more capacity, not because it failed. HDs have mechanical parts that wear. So do SSDs. Every write damages the SSDs slightly, until eventually it stops working. there are no mechanical parts in an ssd. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters) | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 2 | April 11th 12 05:11 AM |
Online Jobs.Earn $500 or more per month.Part time Data Entry Jobs.No | nario | Digital Photography | 1 | March 14th 08 01:54 AM |
How did Reuters know Beirut IDF attack photos were doctored? | barb | Digital Photography | 99 | September 5th 06 10:50 AM |
Reuters drops Beirut photographer | Celcius | Digital Photography | 28 | August 20th 06 03:36 AM |