Talk:Solid-state drive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:23, 25 June 2016 edit207.172.210.101 (talk) →Susceptibility to magnetic fields ← 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
(72 intermediate revisions by 39 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Over provisioning ==

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



	: 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. — ] (] \| ]) 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

	== Amdahl's law ==

	"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)

	: 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. — ] (] \| ]) 12:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

	== conventional hard drives ==

	Congratulations, now most web pages and government documentation refer to Conventional Hard Drives (instead of Magnetic Hard Drives, etc ).
	Is it possible to state that Conventional means the majority of the mechanical/magnetic hard drives at the time of writing?

	10 years time, conventional may mean a completely new type of Hard Drive. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			== This article desperately needs to be updated ==
	I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120203173241/http://blog.2ndquadrant.com:80/en/2011/04/intel-ssd-now-off-the-sherr-sh.html to http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2011/04/intel-ssd-now-off-the-sherr-sh.html

			Title.
	When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

			From what I've seen, here are a few things that have changed since 2017/18:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}
			* 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)
	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 22:38, 17 January 2016 (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)
	: {{Done}}, looks good. — ] (] \| ]) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (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. ] (]) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
	== Contentious ==

			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)
	This page is very contentious. Could it be made to read less as a defense of HDD and more informative. That'd be great.] (]) 19:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

			== /r/ requesting to expose samsung 850 / 860 / 870 evo 2.5" drives' technical specs. ==
	:Contentious? The article states SSDs are way faster, but way more expensive than HDDs. Can you give examples of what needs improving? --] (]) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

			I cannot find microcontroller, cache memory and NAND litography information from the internet.
	: Concur. Please give specific examples of where you think it reads "as a defense of HDD". ] (]) 15:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

			To the ]. ] (]) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
	== Susceptibility to magnetic fields ==

			== photos: how big are devices ==
	is bad. The cited reference includes some talk on the subject, but lacks any expert statements. At best it includes a few people who ''claim'' hard drives were damaged by magnets, but I doubt many of the individuals are experts. The magnetic fields required for writing to a modern hard drive are ''very'' intense. My understanding is you could put a rare earth magnet directly onto a modern disk platter and the magnetic field of the magnet would ''fail'' to damage any data (instead dust and tiny scratches from the contact might well damage the platter). ] (]) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

			It would be nice to see at a glance how big devices in the pictures are.
	: Hello! You're right, thank you for pointing it out! The reference was a low-quality one, so I went ahead and {{Diff\|Solid-state drive\|726298485\|726255617\|made the changes}} that provided accurate information and much better references. — ] (] \| ]) 08:42, 21 June 2016 (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 ==
	:: Those are decent, but this these mean that portion of the article needs fixing. Ideally I'd link to sections 4 and the epilogues of the first link (Peter Gutmann paper), which effectively say modern disks (>1GB) are essentially immune to external magnetic fields. The kjmagnetics reads like an amateur experiment (not necessarily bad, but be careful of conclusions!) and says the same thing, their report of mechanical scrapping could well have been due to distorting the case of the drive rather than anything having to do with properties of the magnetic field. "Very old hard drives (less than a gigabyte) may have been at some risk from external magnetic fields, but any drive larger than a gigabyte is essentially immune to external magnetic fields"? ] (]) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (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)
	::: Hm, I'm not sure that 1 GB is specified in references as a clear capacity-based division between susceptible and resistant drives... Am I missing something? — ] (] \| ]) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

			== Tidbits eliminated in the article ==
	:::: Indeed, 'tis not. The reference was stating post-1990 hard drives were pretty well immune. Bit more recollection, I think 100MB drives were coming out around then, so that may be a better rough guide. The real issue is larger drives have to be less susceptible otherwise the write process would corrupt nearby bits (therefore storage size is a better guide than manufacture date). I don't have any references other than my memory. ] (]) 22:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

			Greatest storage limit of solid-state drives.
	== Hard drives and altitude ==

			IDE, 2.5 inch: 1 TB (Renice Technology)<br>
	] needs a substantial adjustment. As the cited source notes, ''many'' hard drives have an altitude limit of 12000 meters above sea level, '''but''' drives designed for high-altitude operation are readily available from manufacturers. This is also becoming less true, helium-filled hard drives are taking over for large capacity hard drives and if they're impervious to helium, high-altitudes are unlikely to be an issue. The mention of the breather hole should be merged with this. ] (]) 01:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			SATA, 2.5 inch: 15.36 TB (TeamGroup)<br>
			M.2 SATA: 2 TB (Western Digital)<br>
			M.2 NVMe: 8 TB (Sabrent)

			==Misnomer?==
	: As always, we'd need references that helium-filled drives can also work properly on high altitudes. — ] (] \| ]) 13:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
			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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Computing High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Invention Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Technology

This 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.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 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

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: