Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:57, 24 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.

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)

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? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hard drives and altitude

This portion 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. 207.172.210.101 (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As always, we'd need references that helium-filled drives can also work properly on high altitudes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:57, 24 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