Talk:Solid-state drive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:19, 28 September 2019 editGuy Macon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,290 edits →Psion MC 400?: I agree with Tom94022. Good call.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:41, 3 January 2025 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers44,698 edits rv 2024 test edit
(38 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{Vital article\|topic=Technology\|level=5\|class=C}}
			{{WikiProject Computing \|importance=High\|hardware=true\|hardware-importance=top}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing \|class=C~~\|importance=High~~\|hardware=true\|hardware-importance=top~~}}		{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Electronics\|class=C~~\|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Engineering\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Engineering\|class=C~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Invention\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Invention\|class=C~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Systems\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Systems\|class=C\|importance=Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Technology}}
⚫	{{WikiProject ~~Technology~~\|class=C}}
	}}		}}

Line 13:		Line 12:
	\|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-->
	== Susceptibility to magnetic fields ==

			== This article desperately needs to be updated ==
	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)

			Title.
	: 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)

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

			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)
	:::: 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)

			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)
	Soppprt versi.9.0 ] (]) 14:52, 23 February 2019 (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)
	== This article confuses the M.2 form factor (family of form factors) with the NVMe protocol ==

			== /r/ requesting to expose samsung 850 / 860 / 870 evo 2.5" drives' technical specs. ==
	There are statements regarding, e.g., the speed of ] drives, which are only true when the M.2 drive uses the ] protocol, while overlooking the fact that other M.2 drives use the ] protocol. (I believe the term "protocol" is more appropriate than "interface" here, and ] is something else again.)

			I cannot find microcontroller, cache memory and NAND litography information from the internet.
	I'm having a first pass at correcting the issue, but someone else who's more informed on the subject should improve the article further. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			To the ]. ] (]) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
	== 64GB SATA SSD from 1978; 41 years ago?!? ==

			== photos: how big are devices ==

			It would be nice to see at a glance how big devices in the pictures are.
	SATA was created in the year 2000 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Serial_ATA ).
			Eg include one inch ruler, or USA dime.
	And in 1978 the best hard disks were in the megabyte range...
			Bill ] (]) 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
	So please consider the following image caption in the article as maybe not fully correct:
			: 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 ==
	A Super Talent Technology 2.5" Serial ATA solid-state drive
	Date invented 1978; 41 years ago
	Invented by Storage Technology Corporation <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:It was correct but misleading, better now. ] (]) 19:48, 27 March 2019 (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)
	== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
			] (]) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
	The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
	* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2019-04-05T14:51:51.030833 \| Mtron SSD.jpg -->
	Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

			== Tidbits eliminated in the article ==
	== Lede image ==

			Greatest storage limit of solid-state drives.
	I restored the image of Sandisk's 2.5 and 3.5-inch SSDs to the lede replacing a rather undistiguished image of a minor participant. As noted in the LEDE, SanDisk was the first to promulgate Flash based storage. It was also first to introduce in 2.5 and 3.5-inch form factor SSDs which continue to be the major market segment. If other editors think the current image is inappropriate then it should be replaced by a state-of the art SSD from one of the top three vendors. ] (]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
	:] and ] state that the lead image should be ''technically well-produced'' and ''representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page''. The current lead image is neither well-produced nor does it serve the main purpose of a lead image.
	:While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think most people can see the huge difference in quality between ] and ]. One is not only technically higher quality but also has better composition, lighting, color balance, and is focused clearly on a single subject, making it easy to recognise what is being depicted even from a 250px thumbnail. As for the subjects depicted, I think it's rather obvious that a picture of a 20-year-old piece of technology that differs quite a bit from the average SSD of today doesn't help most readers recognise what the article is about. Which manufacturer did what and at what time is completely irrelevant.
	:Brands are also not relevant for the aforementioned reasons, and therefore the notion that the lead image needs to be from a specific brand or one of an arbitrary number of financially succesful brands can be dismissed out of hand. The large majority of modern SSDs come in the same form factor, that being the 2.5-inch HDD size with minor differences in height, and choosing an image that depicts such an SSD will help the reader to recognise the subject.
	:If there is a problem with the image I added, then ] could be used as a replacement. While it's not quite as a high quality as my first choice, it does clearly show the SATA and power pins, which in that regard is more illustrative than either of the previous images.
	:Also note that ] explicitly states in the opening paragraph that lead sections of Misplaced Pages articles are lead paragraphs, not lede paragraphs.
	:Regarding the other images that were in the lead section and not in the body for no apparent benefit. While I've not seen it explicitly stated that the lead should only have one image, the fact that the Manual of Style and all the help pages I've found talk about ''a'' lead image, singular, implies that there should only be a single image in the lead. Unless specifically placed inside an infobox, the lead is supposed to have only one image. I've never seen a Good or Featured article with multiple lead images in the manner of this article. However, I'm going to ask for clarification to this at the ] and leave the other images in the lead intact while I replace the clearly inferior main lead image with a more illustrative one.
	:I'm not quite sure what you were referring to with the words "minor participant", so I'll just ignore it and assume good faith from you. --] 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
	::"]." SanDisk now a WD brand is one of the five so I suggest a representative image would be from one of the five current vendors of SSDs who also make Flash. The other vendors proposed are not representative.
	::Your admission that "While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think ..." is just another way of saying ] which is not a valid reason for the change or for the subsequent re-revert. Same thing for one image having multiple objects in the lede; it's one image which BTW might be more representative since it shows the two predominant form factors rather than just the one you propose
	::The subsequent re-revert is a violation of ] which clearly states, "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." For this reason I am reverting and we shall see what other editors have to say. If you again revert I suggest that is approaching edit warring - why don't you wait and see what others have to say. ] (]) 21:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::Thank you, Guy Macon, for restoring the page. The infobox looked a bit weird to me in more ways than one but I was unaware there had previously been a sane version of the infobox.
	:::Now, for the discussion on improvements to the infobox. Tom94022, you keep bringing up brands and manufacturers as if that somehow makes a huge difference to the quality of the lead image, quality of the lead image being defined in ] and ]. How will a logo or a specifically stylised string of characters affect a reader's ability to quickly recognise whether an image is of an SSD or not? We could take one of the better SSD images to the ] and ask someone with image editing skills to remove the branding or replace it with GENERIC SSD and it wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't matter whose name is printed on the thing, what matters is that it's an enclosure of a certain proportions, some connectors, and perhaps some relevant technical information like "SATA III 2.5" SOLID STATE DRIVE".
	:::I won't put much effort into contesting your claim about form factor representation since it frankly isn't worth my – or in fact anyone's – time. 3.5" isn't an SSD form factor that most readers will be familiar with. 2.5" is the overwhelmingly predominant form factor, and is therefore what a reader expects to see as the lead image.
	:::I will quote WP:LEADIMAGE, possibly in vain since you seemed to ignore my previous references to it, but here goes: ''"...but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."'' Are you going to argue that a reader of an encyclopedia or an expensive, printed hardcover book on computer components is expecting to see a blurry, low-quality picture of two 20-year-old components with outdated interfaces on an orange background? No, the expectation is a technically highly produced image of more modern component with interfaces that are still widely used, preferably on a white background.
	:::Lastly, I'd like to remind you that ]. Your previous comment about "a minor participant" and your subsequent reverts of clearly helpful edits to the article would seem to imply that you've assumed some amount of ownership over the content and that simply removing the improvements of "lesser contributors" without discussing things first is therefore justified. This, combined with your gaps of knowledge on how Misplaced Pages articles are structured, is what lead to the need for a third party to step in, not anyone else's lack of knowledge or basic courtesy.
	:::Please think about what I said in this and my previous comment, and have a look at the relevant sections of the Manual of Style. --] 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

			IDE, 2.5 inch: 1 TB (Renice Technology)<br>
	* Per ], I have restored the last stable infobox (It has been there since at least January 1) from before the current edit war. Please discuss on talk page instead of engaging in further edit warring. --] (]) 23:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
			SATA, 2.5 inch: 15.36 TB (TeamGroup)<br>
			M.2 SATA: 2 TB (Western Digital)<br>
			M.2 NVMe: 8 TB (Sabrent)

	== ~~Weasel Words~~? ==		==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.. —] (]) 02:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

	After an IP tagged the article for ] I scanned the article for same and did not find any such enumerated words that were not appropriate so I removed the tag. ] (]) 17:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

	== Psion MC 400? ==

	https://aliennerd.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/20120327-_1020719.jpg

	https://jbmorley.co.uk/posts/2017-07-04-psion-mc-400/ says "The MC 400 even sported Psion’s own ‘SSD’ external media, which could be found in both a write-once flash version, and the a expensive read-write battery-backed form."

	"write-once" and "battery-backed" appear to contradict our ] article. I can find plenty of sources where Psion called it a SSD, but it might be that "flash" is a claim added later by non-technical people describing the Psion. Does anyone have a source where Psion called it flash? --] (]) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
	:Regardless of what it was called, it doesn't meet the definition of an SSD in terms of form factor and interface. Maybe it is appropriate for the Early SSD Section but not as added. I'm going to revert the addition until this discussion is resolved. ] (]) 22:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
	: states "The MC uses solid-state disks (SSDs), which are really just memory but which emulate disks. The MC accepts up to four SSDs at once, available in several styles and sizes: Flash EPROM and RAM (each up to 512K) and ROM (2MB). Psion offers an SSD drive for a PC." This sounds like a RAM/WORM/ROM disk and not an HDD interface so it probably doesn't belong in the article such devices are already mentioned and were much earlier. The fact that the Psion used the term SSD is IMO not worth a footnote. ] (]) 06:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
	::I agree with Tom94022. Good call. --] (]) 14:18, 28 September 2019 (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: