Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 21 June 2016

Computing C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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 High-importance).

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 Error: Invalid time. 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

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.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47w0rmh0le (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SSD automatically fragments everything to avoid hot spots?

Pink love 1998 (talk · contribs) 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 <ref> (your reference) </ref> 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 WP:RS, 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. Jeh (talk) 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) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink love 1998 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 January 2015 (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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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. Jeh (talk) 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. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Over provisioning

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

Maximize SSD Lifetime and Performance With Over-Provisioning

Hello! Over-provisioning is already mentioned a few times in the article, linking the term to the Flash over-provisioning article (better said, a redirect), which provides a rather good description. Repeating that in greater detail might be pretty much redundant, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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 Amdahl's law)." 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 WP:OR? Note, I didn't find the law in the ref (the first page, there are 17..). comp.arch (talk) 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 Amdahl's law)" wording anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.36.212 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Solid-state drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, looks good. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Contentious

This page is very contentious. Could it be made to read less as a defense of HDD and more informative. That'd be great.2602:304:B0D8:6220:C5B4:6BAA:AC2F:43B7 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Contentious? The article states SSDs are way faster, but way more expensive than HDDs. Can you give examples of what needs improving? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Please give specific examples of where you think it reads "as a defense of HDD". Jeh (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Susceptibility to magnetic fields

This section 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). 207.172.210.101 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! You're right, thank you for pointing it out! The reference was a low-quality one, so I went ahead and made the changes that provided accurate information and much better references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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"? 207.172.210.101 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• C-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• C-Class Computer hardware articles
• High-importance Computer hardware articles
• C-Class Computer hardware articles of High-importance
• All Computing articles