SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say

[jimbo45]

Hi there

just an anlogy !!

The point of the post was to say that in general an SSD will far outlive the potential life of the computer it's being used in -- even if you swap it into a new one.

5 or 6 years is probably far longer than most people would use the same laptop for. - Desktops are another issue but except for serious gaming / dedicated machines these are mostly on the way out anyway.

In any case always remember WHATEVER type of device you use -- ensure you take frequent, and accurate backups.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Layback Bear]

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/216528-we-gaining.html
I have another post that gives a hint what progress going forward can be.

 

[carwiz]

Well I am in the # 1 group but I must say that my boot times are lousy. 50 seconds to get to desktop on a P8P67 Pro .

I built a few machines and The fastest time to desktop I have gotten was about 20 seconds with a P8P67 using a corsair GT 120GB.

I have about the same boot time with my Lenovo Y70 that I swapped with a an M4 C400 256gb

I have 3 SSD 2 being 120 GB vertex 3 on a P8P67 Pro and using 2 Caviar Black 1 TB with another Vertex 2 60 GB.

Go figure :huh:

Might be that slow processor you have. Just kidding.
50 second boots on a SSD are pretty high but not out of line if you have a PCI card(s) installed. I was getting 18 second boots before I added an IR receiver and TV card. The boot time jumped to around 48 seconds. Some drivers and services take longer to initialize. So do PCI cards. Also, many large disk drives can take up to 15-18 seconds to spin up and ready. If you have any start up files on one, there's a built-in delay.

You can check the boot log and see what area is taking the most time. There's also software that will analyze your start up and make recommendations on delayed starts, etc.

Just think how long the boot would take if you didn't have a SSD.

 

[jimbo45]

Well I am in the # 1 group but I must say that my boot times are lousy. 50 seconds to get to desktop on a P8P67 Pro .

I built a few machines and The fastest time to desktop I have gotten was about 20 seconds with a P8P67 using a corsair GT 120GB.

I have about the same boot time with my Lenovo Y70 that I swapped with a an M4 C400 256gb

I have 3 SSD 2 being 120 GB vertex 3 on a P8P67 Pro and using 2 Caviar Black 1 TB with another Vertex 2 60 GB.

Go figure :huh:

Might be that slow processor you have. Just kidding.
50 second boots on a SSD are pretty high but not out of line if you have a PCI card(s) installed. I was getting 18 second boots before I added an IR receiver and TV card. The boot time jumped to around 48 seconds. Some drivers and services take longer to initialize. So do PCI cards. Also, many large disk drives can take up to 15-18 seconds to spin up and ready. If you have any start up files on one, there's a built-in delay.

You can check the boot log and see what area is taking the most time. There's also software that will analyze your start up and make recommendations on delayed starts, etc.

Just think how long the boot would take if you didn't have a SSD.

Hi there
I don't really think most people care about how long a machine takes to boot if it's percieved as "Reasonable".

1 Min or 2 mins really isn't an issue --especially if you don't boot that often -- and if you are at work you've usually got time to get some coffee from the machine while the system is booting anyway.

If it takes 5 Mins then "Houston ... We have a problem...." which an SSD isn't going to fix.

Once the OS is booted however you WILL notice improvements when using an SSD.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[carwiz]

When you go from 18 seconds to 48 seconds, I care.
But I live with it because of the TV and remote control capabilities. I was just saying there could be a reason for Zardoc's increase in boot times. Some can be fixed, some can't and our perception of reasonable changes.

 

[Palindari]

They already have! It's called "Racetrack" memory.

IBM Unveils New Memory Chip Technology - Technology News - redOrbit

This should be a viable alternative when I'm ready to change out my smoking hot SSD

Funny, when in the Army, I'm old enough to remember getting our first computer with the new TEN MEGABYTE HARD DRIVE! (que fanfare and drumroll) inside.

SSD - though new and still has some issues - so did hard drives. The only thing that saved them was avoiding the necessity of having to continuously swap out 5.25 floppy discs for storage. 3.5 floppies actually came of age later.

I've got one - I'm sold. But it will be nice to see this new Racetrack chip come to fruition.

 

[Palindari]

I don't really think most people care about how long a machine takes to boot if it's percieved as "Reasonable".

1 Min or 2 mins really isn't an issue --especially if you don't boot that often -- and if you are at work you've usually got time to get some coffee from the machine while the system is booting anyway.

If it takes 5 Mins then "Houston ... We have a problem...." which an SSD isn't going to fix.

Once the OS is booted however you WILL notice improvements when using an SSD.

Cheers
jimbo

Speaking only from my own experience, about a month ago my HDD was flashing warnings every 30 secs (disabled it) then my access to programs slower down and waking up from sleep mode was taking up to ten minutes to complete - no lie.

Then pauses began to occur on programs. That was when I finally broke down and bought the Samsung 830.

Boot time to desktop is less than 20 secs from a cold start. Loading programs are as fast as my iPad. Honestly, it's a difference between night and day.

Will it slow down? From everything I've read - yes, unfortunately. But as a very lengthy article points out - even the most used SSD is still faster than a HDD.

Then there's the battery life extension plus for us laptop users and the fact that if you drop it - the spinning parts don't bite the big one (my guess is what happened to the original drive).

I see nothing but wins on the SSD front - with the exception of price, which like all things will drop as more competitors join the fray. Even HDDs were over $1 per mB and gB when they became available.

 

[Night Hawk]

The hold for me besides pricing was the lack of capacity as well as who was making them brand wise. 120gb wouldn't cut it from the start here or even a 500gb OS drive.

A 250gb ide drive once ran for about $200. That followed an older 13gb drive that also caught about the same prices just a few years earlier. And now you see 500gb sata models for under $50! Rather then tossing a large amount for a small drive I simply will be waiting to see a 1tb model by a good brand to fall in price.

As far as longevity a great deal depends on how things are treated as well as the normal wear and tear over a long period of time. You can have one that will last 10yrs. or simply end up having one fail in 10 months time. Getting in there and blasting all that dust out will help as well as having good air flow going to keep drive temps down.

 

[Palindari]

See your point. But if one uses a good sized SSD (120+) you still have ample room.

On my laptop I have an external spindrive of 500gB for storage, games and such. The rest resides on the SSD.

As for my old drive, it's still operational - it's the aforementioned external now - and I have a 32gB SD card as well. So when I'm out and about carting the Toshiba around, I have plenty of storage and when I get home I just plug my external in and transfer what I need.

Prices will be dropping. Hell look at last year at this time to now. Prices have dropped substantially already.

But to be honest - I'm truly excited about the new Racetrack chip by IBM. Now that may be the answer...

 

[Night Hawk]

120gb is far from ample here! My last system image came in at 492gb in size from the 1tb OS drive. Think that can restored to a 120gb SSD? :roflmao: I don't think so!

The idea of having a larger OS boot drive is called work space. With multiple VMs, video captures/editing, some CAD even along with other projects drive space is a commodity!

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Yeah well my 128GB (M4) is steadily getting slower - gets to the flag whereas it got to the blobs and then into it. Mind you once in it does plough from app to app quickly.

But I still reckon that for the money it's only minimally justifiable and mine is filling up real quick

 

[Palindari]

120gb is far from ample here! My last system image came in at 492gb in size from the 1tb OS drive. Think that can restored to a 120gb SSD? :roflmao: I don't think so!

The idea of having a larger OS boot drive is called work space. With multiple VMs, video captures/editing, some CAD even along with other projects drive space is a commodity!

Think you may have missed my point. Glad to give you a laugh though

 

[Night Hawk]

120gb is far from ample here! My last system image came in at 492gb in size from the 1tb OS drive. Think that can restored to a 120gb SSD? :roflmao: I don't think so!

The idea of having a larger OS boot drive is called work space. With multiple VMs, video captures/editing, some CAD even along with other projects drive space is a commodity!

Think you may have missed my point. Glad to give you a laugh though

Not actually! Even a 256gb SSD would still be far from what I would need here. As for storage I had to add on an external enclosure for another 1tb drive to pick up where the pair of 1tb internal Sata 3 HDs were filling too fast.

Now for my next build that may see a good 1tb SSD host/OS drive but with an external fan cooled enclosure for 3 or 4 2-3tb drives! I'll still keep a second internal drive however for testing purposes.

 

[jimbo45]

120gb is far from ample here! My last system image came in at 492gb in size from the 1tb OS drive. Think that can restored to a 120gb SSD? :roflmao: I don't think so!

The idea of having a larger OS boot drive is called work space. With multiple VMs, video captures/editing, some CAD even along with other projects drive space is a commodity!

Hi there

the VM's can live on an HDD -- the MAJOR Performance problems for VM's aren't really I/O but RAM. If the host has plenty of RAM most VM's will be just fine on an HDD -- Of course if your VM's are being used by several clients (as servers) or if you are trying to run a lot of simulataneous apps then you could have a problem.

For Windows itself -- if you have a typical W7 say Ultimate or Pro system with Office, Vmware / Vbox, Photoshop and a few other smaller apps the actual OS itself only needs to be around probably 50 - 60GB and that's quite largish.

That means on your 256 GB SSD you've got nearly 200 GB free for System paging (should be a MAX amount equal to the RAM size so tytpically 8 - 16 GB) and the rest available for photoshop scratch files etc etc.

You could even have a VM with a smallish amount of its OS space as one VHD and the other (data) as a VHD on a "Normal" HDD.

perversely (although it's "counter intuitive" an SSD won't really help you much in Multi-media editing since a lot of the time it's HUMAN intervention and keyboard / mouse actions - the initial file load will be quicker but that's about all --so it's a moot point as to whether you would gain significantly in using that option).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Palindari]

Not actually! Even a 256gb SSD would still be far from what I would need here. As for storage I had to add on an external enclosure for another 1tb drive to pick up where the pair of 1tb internal Sata 3 HDs were filling too fast.

Now for my next build that may see a good 1tb SSD host/OS drive but with an external fan cooled enclosure for 3 or 4 2-3tb drives! I'll still keep a second internal drive however for testing purposes.

Well my point was exactly as you describe - that if you set up a systems disk of 120gB (or better) then have all the 1tB drives you like (fairly cheap by the way) both internal or external - you will have a quicker system.

Like what my laptop is currently rigged at. 120gB internal drive - 32gB SD Card for storage - and for games and such at home - a 510gB drive external.

Unlike you, who requires enough storage to house five Libraries of Congress on, I have simpler needs lol

Hopefully, soon I will build me a desktop system and that's how I'll craft it. The speed of access from the SSD is pretty remarkable - and when I'm ready to build - the price will be even less than it is now for even bigger drives.

Comparing each of our needs is like my needing a Ford Ranger to get about town and do my errands when you obviously need an F450 with a fifth wheel attachment. lol

 

[win7person]

As it looks now, the best way to go will be the Hybrid solution, you labeled #1
Which is perfectly fine.
But to be honest: if you had those "dog-slow" mechanical drives we have today, 12 years ago you would've been the speed demon and envy of the neighborhood.

I was the only kid on my block to be running Ultra SCSI / Adaptec U2W2 / P166 OC'd to 200mhz - I was the envy of my friends whilst kicking their butts in Doom with my USR 33.6 modem.

 

[Night Hawk]

Not actually! Even a 256gb SSD would still be far from what I would need here. As for storage I had to add on an external enclosure for another 1tb drive to pick up where the pair of 1tb internal Sata 3 HDs were filling too fast.

Now for my next build that may see a good 1tb SSD host/OS drive but with an external fan cooled enclosure for 3 or 4 2-3tb drives! I'll still keep a second internal drive however for testing purposes.

Well my point was exactly as you describe - that if you set up a systems disk of 120gB (or better) then have all the 1tB drives you like (fairly cheap by the way) both internal or external - you will have a quicker system.

Like what my laptop is currently rigged at. 120gB internal drive - 32gB SD Card for storage - and for games and such at home - a 510gB drive external.

Unlike you, who requires enough storage to house five Libraries of Congress on, I have simpler needs lol

Hopefully, soon I will build me a desktop system and that's how I'll craft it. The speed of access from the SSD is pretty remarkable - and when I'm ready to build - the price will be even less than it is now for even bigger drives.

Comparing each of our needs is like my needing a Ford Ranger to get about town and do my errands when you obviously need an F450 with a fifth wheel attachment. lol

I wouldn't call it "five libraries of Congress" but more like several VMs like 60-80gb in size for some right on the OS drive. For someone who only needs the basics and tosses everything else on another drive they can rush at the performance gain for the larger price tag.

The external drive once unmounted from host OS serves the VMs when mounted to become available for use with those. 20gb-60gb doesn't leave room for much on the smallest. SSDs won't be a help there.

 

[lovewin7yea]

thats why i stuck with 64gb it seems going any higher than 128 is destined for failure at some point. and its flash memory, once it goes, its gone and nothing would be retrievable.

 

[mjf]

A rotating disk of magnetic domains has to end. I think Companies like Intel won't let the SSD product concept go. Way down the track I think it will be full optical storage (non rotating!!!).

 

[ICIT2LOL]

And who said the drives have to get smaller? The drives are small enough now that manufacturers could revert back to the 3.5" format and easily quadruple the capacity with current technology. And think about what these drives could do if they had integrated RAID-type logic or multi-channel processing like RAM. The mechanical drives will never catch up in speed or rate of capacity increase. They have magnetic recording limitations similar to the SSD's electro-capacitive storage limits. 1TB HDDs were hitting the market about the same time as 20GB SSDs (About 5 years ago). Comparing rate of capacity increases in SSDs, how many 25TB HDDs do you see on the market?

There has always been a dividing line between workstations/desktops and laptops/netbooks and their usage. As long as this line remains, there's little reason for all SSD to become nano-drives. And 1 and 2TB SSDs have been around for quite a while. Just not within reach of the home crowd.

Well I am with #1 at the moment and I am NO expert but reading the articles on graphene based tech I get the impression that a whole machine could possibly be built onto one "chip" at the rate that things are getting to be smaller and smaller. The quote for 2024 I think is really stretching it out as I reckon that the aforementioned tech will be with us before then.

My personal worry is that the SSD is easier to "fry" than a chunk of metal based hardware - not that I don't like the speed but the limitations that are imposed like no defragging and stuff that could be missed in setting one up (especially for clods like me).

Having said that it has been a pleasant if steep learning curve for me with the SSD.