Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dsimic (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 17 February 2015 (→Over provisioning: Replied). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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.

Proposal to merge "Disk on module" with "Solid-state drive"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the article Disk on module be merged with this article. The former is a stub article and might benefit from being merged into a new section on the SSD page.Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Makes sense to me. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is SSD = Solid State Disk a mistake?

There's been a minor edit skirmish (not up to war levels) on the "correct" definition of the acronym for SSD – Solid State Drive or Solid State Disk. I think we agree most sources say Drive, but can we state that saying Disk is "mistaken"? SSDs have neither disks nor drives; I think both are equally "wrong". We'd need more than our own opinions to declare one as a mistake; we'd need a source, and I don't think any respected source could claim either is right or wrong; at most one might be "preferred". So, I've removed any right/wrong indication, and added this per WP:BRD. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Anon's addition is grammatically incorrect and redundant, since the same parenthetical text already points out that they contain no actual disk. The introductory sentence should keep things simple. Save the nitpicking for later once the basics have been established. --Imroy (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why SSDs are not drives?! Its the same as in HDD = hard disk drive. You wouldn't say hard disk disk, would you? Look at: http://en.wiktionary.org/drive#Noun "(computing) A mass storage device in which the mechanism for reading and writing data is integrated with the mechanism for storing data, as a hard drive, a flash drive.". So as you can see Drive is correct. And Disk is wrong, obviously.

First, Anon IP, just to answer your question, HDDs have a "drive" -- the spindle motor; SSDs do not. So, yeah, SSDs aren't "disks", but they also aren't "drives", technically.

But that really doesn't matter. Some people call SSDs "disks"; that's just a fact. Maybe they "shouldn't", but stating that here won't change that. Even if it could change people's minds, we Misplaced Pages editors aren't allowed to even attempt to do that. Misplaced Pages collects, not corrects information. See Misplaced Pages's core sourcing policy WP:Verifiability, not truth. If you can find a reliable source that states "disk" is "wrong", then we can state that; in fact, must state that. Without such a source, we must just inform readers of the existing situation, however much we might like to wish it were otherwise. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say "they also aren't "drives""??? Have you read what I wrote?! Look at: http://en.wiktionary.org/drive#Noun "(computing) A mass storage device in which the mechanism for reading and writing data is integrated with the mechanism for storing data, as a hard drive, a flash drive." So there you have the prove that Drive is correct and no one says Disk is correct. Why don't you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.55.218 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Anon, I did indeed read your source. It definitely implies that an SSD can be called a drive. It does not say it cannot be called anything else. (And it's a tertiary source; Misplaced Pages relies on WP:secondary sources.)

Misplaced Pages policy forbids the change you suggest. Misplaced Pages editors cannot pass judgment on the correctness of commonly-held information, only report it. (For example, the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, was not Roman, and was not an empire, but that's what everyone calls it, so we call it that too.)

There is no source given that actually states "Solid State Disk" is "wrong", so we can't say it is.

Note that even though we state SSD is sometimes called "Solid State Disk", as we must, we currently quickly follow this with "though it contains no actual disk". That's as far as we can go. Please let us preserve this existing compromise. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

...and lower power

I suggest adding something about SSD being lower power than spinning drives, in the excellent phrase:

Compared with electromechanical disks, SSDs are typically more resistant to physical shock, run silently, have lower access time, and less latency.

Suggested change: add "require less power"

Compared with electromechanical disks, SSDs are typically more resistant to physical shock, run silently, require less power, have lower access time, and less latency.

Also, since there is an SLC vs MLC table, and now TLC is out, TLC should at least be introduced, perhaps with a reference to: Multi-level_cell

which has been updated to TLC.

WardXmodem (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Hm, when compared to HDDs, not all SSDs require less power to operate. Just have a look at those power-hungry SSDs in form of PCI Express expansion cards – some older models needed additional power on top of what PCI Express provides, and even required active cooling. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

eMMC vs SSDs

This HowToGeek article says that eMMC is different from SSD, I am a bit confused and was wondering if both this and the other article could explain the distinction.

The SSD article is in the Category:Solid-state_computer_storage while the MCC article is in Category:Solid-state_computer_storage_media, so my best guess is that SSD is the hardware while MCCs (cards) are software? But "card" sounds more like hardware to me... why would a card be called a media? --64.228.88.135 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the Misplaced Pages article for eMCC as your wikilink was a disambiguation page. Can you provide a link please? --Chamith (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong consonant-doubling, I screwed up and wrote EMCC by mistake, fixed link to eMMC, embedded-multimedia, C is either card or controller, or possibly both. Right now solid-state storage redirects to this article but perhaps that is wrong and I am misled by that? Is there any kind of SSS besides drives? For example would a MultiMediaCard be described as a "solid state card" with cards being smaller/slower than drives? --64.228.88.135 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, solid-state storage doesn't redirect to eMMC. Those are two different articles about two different storage medias. And you asked whether why eMMC falls into Category:Solid-state_computer_storage_media. Actually the word media doesn't mean software, it stands for a particular form of storage material for computer files, for example magnetic tape or discs. In other words it's a physical media. eMMCs are memory cards and it is also known/used as non-traditional SSDs. You can describe it as a "solid state card" if you like because it is a solid state storage media. Like hard drives SSD technology has improved a lot. You can consider eMMC as a basic step/version of SSDs available now.--Chamith (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, beginning to clear up a bit. Based on MMCs being solid-stage storage but NOT a solid-state drive, I am going to change the solid-state storage redirect to this article into a disambig and use this SSC term. I also need to amend that edit based on misunderstanding to the MMC intro. --64.228.88.135 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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