Misplaced Pages

Talk:Solid-state drive: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:25, 30 October 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,698 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive 4) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:41, 3 January 2025 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers44,842 edits rv 2024 test edit 
(92 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} {{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{WikiProject Computing|class=C|importance=High|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=High|hardware=true|hardware-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Engineering|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Invention|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Systems|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive_index |target=Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive_index
|mask=Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive <#> |mask=Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive <#>
|indexhere=yes}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |indexhere=yes}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Solid-state drive/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(99d) |algo = old(99d)
|counter = 4 |counter = 5
|maxarchivesize = 33K |maxarchivesize = 33K
|minthreadsleft=7 |minthreadsleft=7
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
}} }}
{{Merged from|Disk on module|July 21, 2014‎}} {{Merged from|Disk on module|July 21, 2014}}
{{Merged from|History of solid state drives|August 5, 2015}} {{Merged from|History of solid state drives|August 5, 2015}}
{{archives|index=/Archive index|age=90|collapsible=yes|search=yes|collapsed=no|bot=MiszaBot I| {{archives|index=/Archive index|age=90|collapsible=yes|search=yes|collapsed=no|bot=MiszaBot I|auto=long|
<center>See old talk page ]</center> <center>See old talk page ]</center>
}} }}
== No a constructive use of language. ==


The sentence "Now a days are also available in the market to make sure it's availability for all PC/Laptop users." is not a constructive use of English as a language... Nowadays, its, dubious reference unclear what the message of this statement should be, if any. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== ...and lower power ==

I suggest adding something about SSD being lower power than spinning drives, in the excellent phrase:

Compared with electromechanical disks, SSDs are typically more resistant to physical shock, run silently, have lower access time, and less latency.

Suggested change: add "require less power"

Compared with electromechanical disks, SSDs are typically more resistant to physical shock, run silently, require less power, have lower access time, and less latency.

Also, since there is an SLC vs MLC table, and now TLC is out, TLC should at least be introduced, perhaps with a reference to:
]

which has been updated to TLC.

] (]) 23:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

: Hello! Hm, when compared to HDDs, not all SSDs require less power to operate. Just have a look at those power-hungry SSDs in form of PCI Express expansion cards{{snd}} some older models needed additional power on top of what PCI Express provides, and even required active cooling. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]) 10:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

==] vs SSDs==
says that eMMC is different from SSD, I am a bit confused and was wondering if both this and the other article could explain the distinction.

The SSD article is in the ] while the MCC article is in ], so my best guess is that SSD is the hardware while MCCs (cards) are software? But "card" sounds more like hardware to me... why would a card be called a media? --] (]) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:I'm unable to find the Misplaced Pages article for eMCC as your wikilink was a disambiguation page. Can you provide a link please? --] ] 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::Sorry, wrong consonant-doubling, I screwed up and wrote EMCC by mistake, fixed link to ], embedded-multimedia, C is either card or controller, or possibly both. Right now ] redirects to this article but perhaps that is wrong and I am misled by that? Is there any kind of SSS besides drives? For example would a ] be described as a "solid state card" with cards being smaller/slower than drives? --] (]) 00:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::No, ] doesn't redirect to ]. Those are two different articles about two different storage medias. And you asked whether why ] falls into ]. Actually the word ''media'' doesn't mean software, it stands for a particular form of storage material for computer files, for example magnetic tape or discs. In other words it's a physical media. eMMCs are memory cards and it is also known/used as non-traditional SSDs. You can describe it as a "solid state card" if you like because it is a solid state storage media. Like hard drives SSD technology has improved a lot. You can consider ] as a basic step/version of SSDs available now.--] ] 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, beginning to clear up a bit. Based on MMCs being solid-stage storage but NOT a solid-state drive, I am going to change the ] redirect to this article into a disambig and use this SSC term. I also need to amend that edit based on misunderstanding to the MMC intro. --] (]) 01:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Sales section (More information suggested) ==

Hi,
can u please give us any information about the percentage of how many notebooks and desktop systems have those SSDs integrated? And how many computers will have them in future?
--Martin <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== SSD automatically fragments everything to avoid hot spots? ==

{{user|Pink love 1998}} added this to the SSD/HD comparison table, in the row about fragmentation:

The critical purpose of the SSD algorithm is to distribute the data to various
locations to prevent heat build up on a particular spot, so SSD's are typically
always fragmented.

with edit comment:

Added info, please don't delete I don't know how to insert references and
advise you to read about SSD's

Inserting references is only barely more complicated than just typing the reference info in prose. Just add <nowiki><ref> (your reference) </ref></nowiki> following your text. If you want to be precise about location, the ref goes before any immediately following space, but after any immediately following punctuation.(like here) Others will improve the formatting by using a cite template. Eventually you'll pick up on that.

Or, you could add a section to the talk page here, giving your refs. Someone else will pick them up and put them in the article.


== This article desperately needs to be updated ==
However, even if referenced, this claim raises an issue, and this is the real reason I deleted it. When most people speak of "fragmentation" on a hard drive, we're talking about the fact that large (and sometimes small) files do not occupy contiguous ranges of LBAs. This fragmentation is visible to a file system from the outside of the drive, can be corrected by defragmenters, etc. This has well-known impact on HD performance. It even impacts SSDs, although minimally: to access a part of the file that crosses an extent boundary, two different I/O requests must be issued by the FSD and implemented by the disk driver and other drivers in the stack.


Title.
The... call it ''distribution'' of content from sequential LBAs to different areas of the chips in an SSD is different. It is not visible to e.g. file system drivers, and a defragmentation run would not "fix" it. To the host speaking to the drive through its SATA connector, a file that occupies sequential LBAs still appears to be contiguous even though those LBAs might not be physically contiguous on the chips.


From what I've seen, here are a few things that have changed since 2017/18:
There is no analog to this in a normal hard drive, other than the occasional "sparing" of bad sectors.
* Average SSD price is usually about 25c per gigabyte or even less on cheaper models, like QLC or SATA drives
* 120GB SSDs are practically impossible to find today. The minimum size that can be easily found today is 256GB, which itself has become increasingly rare
* SSDs can commonly be found up to 8TB, or in rare cases 16TB
* No modern consumer SSD has a data throughput of 200MB/s, where'd that come from? Typically, the minimum is 600MB/s (for SATA drives). As for the maximum, that's hard to say. My drive reaches 6-10GB/s write speeds often, and read speeds are nearly double that, sometimes hitting 16GB/s which is the maximum throughput for the modern NVMe standard if I'm not mistaken. On average, however, it seems that the max write speed is 4-6GB/s. Unsure about read speeds
* Fragmentation is a problem on basically every single modern FS. However, NTFS is just an extreme case. All filesystems fragment, but usually aren't as bad as NTFS


Well there it is. This is, of course, only my personal findings, but I can try and find actual sources for these if necessary. Some stuff could also have better clarification and wording but that's unrelated I guess. ] (]) 20:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If this point can be referenced to a ], it certainly belongs in the article. But I don't think it belongs in the table row that discusses file system fragmentation, certainly not as the first sentence in the entry for SSDs. That table row is just not talking about this sort of thing. Wherever it goes, it needs to be described so as to distinguish it from the non-contiguous-LBA sort of fragmentation. ] (]) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


I've seen some drives cost less than 10 cents per gigabyte. Still, the thing about 30 cents per gigabyte on average is definitely inaccurate. ] (]) 19:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
: Yes, isn't heat the reasonable cause for the fragmentation. The SSD keep track of the next memory location using a link pointer. With the argument of latency (very low latency consider it as RAM in RAM the access speed of all locations is the same) it doesn't matter where the data is stored and because of the higher latency compared to that of HDD, defragmentation is needed because it takes longer to access data from random location(it's funny do you know that ssd uses DDR2 ram technology) . <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I think the Linux section might be outdated as well, since on my modern installation the default scheduler is one optimized for SSD usage. ] (]) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
:: Hello! As Jeh already explained it very well, fragmentation pretty much doesn't exist in the context of SSDs. Pink love 1998, your post seems highly confused, as I simply don't understand what heat, link pointers, and DDR2-related technology you refer to? Again, defragmenting an SSD can't do anything but shorten its life by wearing out underlying flash memory. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]) 00:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


I absolutely agree that this article needs to be updated. From my point of view, for example, the missing developments since 2017/18 and the years before in the field of SSDs can be added for example as follows: Actual replacement of HDDs by SSDs started maybe in 2010, when at the same time HDD unit shipments peaked at about 650m units. By 2014 roughly 40m SSDs where sold compared to about 550m HDDs. Over the next years, serious volume replacement took place and by 2020/2021 there were more SSD units sold than HDDs. ] (]) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
::: Oh, fragmentation still exists. It just doesn't matter (except only just barely due to increased numbers of I/O requests to the drive).
::: No, SSDs don't use DDR2 technology. DDR means "dual data rate", which describes the bus the DIMMs plug into, not the memory cell structure. ] (]) 02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


== /r/ requesting to expose samsung 850 / 860 / 870 evo 2.5" drives' technical specs. ==
:::: Right, thanks for the correction. I didn't express myself clearly enough, it should've been something like "fragmentation pretty much doesn't matter in the context of SSDs, compared to the way it affects the operation of HDDs". At the same time, SSDs might use DDR2 memory for their buffers or storage of in-memory metadata structures, but that has nothing to do with the fragmentation of stored data. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]) 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


I cannot find microcontroller, cache memory and NAND litography information from the internet.
== Over provisioning ==


A section on over provisioning would be useful imo. Its a popular issue is discussed alot. ] (]) 14:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC) To the ]. ] (]) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


== photos: how big are devices ==


It would be nice to see at a glance how big devices in the pictures are.
: Hello! Over-provisioning is already mentioned a few times in the article, linking the term to the ] article (better said, a redirect), which provides a rather good description. Repeating that in greater detail might be pretty much redundant, if you agree. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]) 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Eg include one inch ruler, or USA dime.
Bill ] (]) 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
: A familiar object would be good. Inches and dimes are unfamiliar to most readers of English Misplaced Pages. Centimetres (or even centimeters) would work just fine. ] (]) 20:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
:We could start by adding dimensions to captions. ~] (]) 13:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
::If dimensions are added then in conformance with the state of this art, I suggest dimensions be given in mm and converted to inches. I suspect most readers are familiar with both sets but I guess there are far more inch-only than mm-only readers of this English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


== Linux Buy Telegram members zosmm.com ==
== Amdahl's law ==


I absolutely agree that this article needs to be updated. From my point of view, for example, the missing developments since 2017/18 and the years before in the field of SSDs can be added for example as follows: Actual replacement of HDDs by SSDs started maybe in 2010, when at the same time HDD unit shipments peaked at about 650m units. By 2014 roughly 40m SSDs where sold compared to about 550m HDDs. Over the next years, serious volume replacement took place and by 2020/2021 there were more SSD units sold than HDDs. BenediktKlaas (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"In applications where hard disk seeks are the limiting factor, this results in faster boot and application launch times (see ])." I know the law and that SSDs are better under parallel I/O load, but is the law applicable here? Is it immediately obvious to people why or is this ]? Note, I didn't find the law in the ref (the first page, there are 17..). ] (]) 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


== Tidbits eliminated in the article ==
: Hello! Well, Amdahl's law is "used to find the maximum expected improvement to an overall system when only part of the system is improved". SSDs are obviously only one part of a computer system, but I'd remove the "(see ])" wording anyway. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]) 12:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Greatest storage limit of solid-state drives.
== conventional hard drives ==


IDE, 2.5 inch: 1 TB (Renice Technology)<br>
Congratulations, now most web pages and government documentation refer to Conventional Hard Drives (instead of Magnetic Hard Drives, etc ).
SATA, 2.5 inch: 15.36 TB (TeamGroup)<br>
Is it possible to state that Conventional means the majority of the mechanical/magnetic hard drives at the time of writing?
M.2 SATA: 2 TB (Western Digital)<br>
M.2 NVMe: 8 TB (Sabrent)


==Misnomer?==
10 years time, conventional may mean a completely new type of Hard Drive. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Isn’t the very term “solid-state drive” an oxymoron; I mean isn’t the distinguishing characteristic of solid-state storage devices that they got rid of the mechanical drive mechanism altogether..  —] (]) 02:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:41, 3 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solid-state drive article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconComputing High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconElectronics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEngineering Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInvention Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSystems Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

The contents of the Disk on module page were merged into Solid-state drive on July 21, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the History of solid state drives page were merged into Solid-state drive on August 5, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5
See old talk page here

This page has archives. Sections older than 99 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

No a constructive use of language.

The sentence "Now a days external SSD drives are also available in the market to make sure it's availability for all PC/Laptop users." is not a constructive use of English as a language... Nowadays, its, dubious reference unclear what the message of this statement should be, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.78.249 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This article desperately needs to be updated

Title.

From what I've seen, here are a few things that have changed since 2017/18:

  • Average SSD price is usually about 25c per gigabyte or even less on cheaper models, like QLC or SATA drives
  • 120GB SSDs are practically impossible to find today. The minimum size that can be easily found today is 256GB, which itself has become increasingly rare
  • SSDs can commonly be found up to 8TB, or in rare cases 16TB
  • No modern consumer SSD has a data throughput of 200MB/s, where'd that come from? Typically, the minimum is 600MB/s (for SATA drives). As for the maximum, that's hard to say. My drive reaches 6-10GB/s write speeds often, and read speeds are nearly double that, sometimes hitting 16GB/s which is the maximum throughput for the modern NVMe standard if I'm not mistaken. On average, however, it seems that the max write speed is 4-6GB/s. Unsure about read speeds
  • Fragmentation is a problem on basically every single modern FS. However, NTFS is just an extreme case. All filesystems fragment, but usually aren't as bad as NTFS

Well there it is. This is, of course, only my personal findings, but I can try and find actual sources for these if necessary. Some stuff could also have better clarification and wording but that's unrelated I guess. Swirl0 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some drives cost less than 10 cents per gigabyte. Still, the thing about 30 cents per gigabyte on average is definitely inaccurate. Swirl0 (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the Linux section might be outdated as well, since on my modern installation the default scheduler is one optimized for SSD usage. 46.142.185.73 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this article needs to be updated. From my point of view, for example, the missing developments since 2017/18 and the years before in the field of SSDs can be added for example as follows: Actual replacement of HDDs by SSDs started maybe in 2010, when at the same time HDD unit shipments peaked at about 650m units. By 2014 roughly 40m SSDs where sold compared to about 550m HDDs. Over the next years, serious volume replacement took place and by 2020/2021 there were more SSD units sold than HDDs. BenediktKlaas (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

/r/ requesting to expose samsung 850 / 860 / 870 evo 2.5" drives' technical specs.

I cannot find microcontroller, cache memory and NAND litography information from the internet.

To the List of Samsung Solid-State-Drives. 0dorkmann (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

photos: how big are devices

It would be nice to see at a glance how big devices in the pictures are. Eg include one inch ruler, or USA dime. Bill W102102 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A familiar object would be good. Inches and dimes are unfamiliar to most readers of English Misplaced Pages. Centimetres (or even centimeters) would work just fine. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We could start by adding dimensions to captions. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
If dimensions are added then in conformance with the state of this art, I suggest dimensions be given in mm and converted to inches. I suspect most readers are familiar with both sets but I guess there are far more inch-only than mm-only readers of this English Misplaced Pages. Tom94022 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Linux Buy Telegram members zosmm.com

I absolutely agree that this article needs to be updated. From my point of view, for example, the missing developments since 2017/18 and the years before in the field of SSDs can be added for example as follows: Actual replacement of HDDs by SSDs started maybe in 2010, when at the same time HDD unit shipments peaked at about 650m units. By 2014 roughly 40m SSDs where sold compared to about 550m HDDs. Over the next years, serious volume replacement took place and by 2020/2021 there were more SSD units sold than HDDs. BenediktKlaas (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Buy Telegram members 2A02:E0:8738:7900:1DB0:F151:816E:4762 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Tidbits eliminated in the article

Greatest storage limit of solid-state drives.

IDE, 2.5 inch: 1 TB (Renice Technology)
SATA, 2.5 inch: 15.36 TB (TeamGroup)
M.2 SATA: 2 TB (Western Digital)
M.2 NVMe: 8 TB (Sabrent)

Misnomer?

Isn’t the very term “solid-state drive” an oxymoron; I mean isn’t the distinguishing characteristic of solid-state storage devices that they got rid of the mechanical drive mechanism altogether..  —Arrandale Westmere (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: