Talk:Solid-state drive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:32, 24 June 2016 edit207.172.210.101 (talk) →Hard drives and altitude ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:41, 3 January 2025 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers44,956 edits rv 2024 test edit
(76 intermediate revisions by 41 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-->
	== 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">— 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.

	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.

	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.

	There is no analog to this in a normal hard drive, other than the occasional "sparing" of bad sectors.

	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)

	: 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:: 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. — ] (] \| ]) 00:12, 14 January 2015 (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)

	:::: 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. — ] (] \| ]) 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

	== 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?

			== This article desperately needs to be updated ==
	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-->

			Title.
	== External links modified ==

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

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

			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)
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}

			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)
	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 22:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

			== /r/ requesting to expose samsung 850 / 860 / 870 evo 2.5" drives' technical specs. ==
	: {{Done}}, looks good. — ] (] \| ]) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

			To the ]. ] (]) 15:23, 27 February 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)

			== photos: how big are devices ==
	: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)

			It would be nice to see at a glance how big devices in the pictures are.
	: Concur. Please give specific examples of where you think it reads "as a defense of HDD". ] (]) 15:54, 17 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 ==
	== Susceptibility to magnetic fields ==

			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)
	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)
			] (]) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

			== Tidbits eliminated in the article ==
	: 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)

			Greatest storage limit of solid-state drives.
	:: 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)

			IDE, 2.5 inch: 1 TB (Renice Technology)<br>
	== Hard drives and altitude ==
			SATA, 2.5 inch: 15.36 TB (TeamGroup)<br>
			M.2 SATA: 2 TB (Western Digital)<br>
			M.2 NVMe: 8 TB (Sabrent)

			==Misnomer?==
	] 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)
			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: