Honesty time: Didnt read the article, but to say that TRIM fixes write endurance problems is highly misleading.
TRIM does impact endurance in that it CAN reduce write amplification (I believe) which can reduce the lifetime of your SSD, but it does not really change the fact that erase cycles are REQUIRED in order to reuse a cell. Again, all TRIM really does is schedule when that erase occurs-- directly prior to when it is needed, or at some idle time. Apparently (according to Wikipedia) SSDs using their own internal garbage collection instead of TRIM could cause write amplification, which may be what the article is alluding to-- Micron is no longer doing that, thus increasing endurance.
Anandtech disagrees. Techreport. So, in fact, do huge numbers of user reports which suggest that SSDs really do last a long time.
Further, multiplying this problem manyfold, is that when an SSD fails, it tends to fail totally.
I have seen this happen, but its not due to endurance of the flash cells but on the quality of the firmware / controller. The actual cell failures apparently cause reallocations (according to techreport's tests, and to common sense). And you create an interesting dichotomy; what does it look like for an SSD or HDD or CPU or RAM to fail "not totally"? You get most of your bits back? All tech generally tends to fail catastrophically.
Theres a lot of misconception here, so I'll try to address them.
Making assumptions about how often trim might be used for any given workload only obscures the actual write endurance.
TRIM has nothing to do with endurance. TRIM erases cells that are scheduled for erasure anyways; all TRIM does is try to time that erasure such that it occurs at a time that will not effect performance. What affects endurance is wear leveling, which is an entirely separate technique that does actually work. As capacity increases, wear-leveling ensures that the endurance of the drive as a total increases.
Much like a 100GB capacity tape that's marked as 200GB because dome data that the manufacturer chose compressed 2:1 before being sent to the tape drive. Your mpeg movies aren't going to compress, so you'll be able to put 100GB of movies on that 100GB tape. The 200GB number is pure marketing BS.
When tape manufacturers (or organizations, like the one behind LTO) cite a compression factor like 2:1, it is based on a standard body of data like the calgary corpus which includes both compressible and uncompressible data. This allows you to compare different technologies with different compression standards.
In the real world on LTO (which I assume you are referring to) I have seen compression factors ranging from ~1.5 to 2.5, so its not really accurate to call it marketing BS. They also always (as far as I have seen) mark the tapes something like "800GB/1600GB" with the subtext explaining that the smaller number is native, and that the entire thing is 2:1. Its not dishonest because the compression is part of the (well-defined) standard, and the native capacity is right next to the compressed capacity. Its also not the manufacturer doing this; those numbers are explicitly defined in the spec.
all if the companies use the same 2:1 bs factor,
Which begins to make sense when you realize that thats because LTO itself defines the compression factor of 2:1 based on calgary corpus.
There's no telling what assumptions Micron made about the use of trim
But, as we've established, TRIM has literally no effect on endurance, so its irrelevant what they might assume about it.
so there's no way to compare this drive's endurance to any other, or to estimate it's actual endurance for any real workload.
Not to be harsh, but there is if you actually took the time to understand the tech. They usually do provide endurance stats (ie, "100PB data endurance") and tests by Anandtech and others have often validated that as being realistic.
That has nothing to do with the native cell lifetime.
It does when capacity increases faster than durability decreases. This has been addressed many, many times at each process shrink. The net effect is generally that you're better off spending your money on the newer process SSDs, they will last longer per $ spent.
Whats really bothersome is that so many of the comments hop on the "NSA thats why" or "corporate greed" bandwagons despite having no functional knowledge of the issue.
Thought people here were supposed to be rationally minded geeks; guess not.
When you say "cruising on empty", how do you explain the huge number of top-tier tech companies that are US based? Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, nVidia, AMD, Qualcom...
Dunno, I kind of think capitalism does quite fine at providing ideas. Let me know when everyone else catches up to Intel's current process tech, till then maybe we shouldnt write off capitalism as "cruising on empty".
I dont like suits, but I also disagree. A big reason to require suits is because you want your workforce looking professional. You want them looking professional because it makes a good impression on customers; it does this because it gives the appearance of having ones act together.
I don't generally consider arbitrarily slowing down the transfer rate from Netflix to myself to be providing "a pipe with a fixed bandwidth".
I was speaking to now, not the hypothetical future. To my knowledge, noone is currently throttling in the manner you describe (its more to do with peering agreements).
But if I am capable of 1mbps, yet am only getting 1kbps because they don't like the competition from Netflix, fuck them.
The throttling due to bandwidth constraints occurs when it hits the last leg of the connection-- as it is sent to your router. What your router does at that point doesnt change the limitations on bandwidth upstream of it.
ISPs should provide a pipe with a fixed bandwidth the user pays for.
They do.
And user can decide what traffic to prioritize inside his own network.
You can, but prioritization doesnt help very much after the chokepoint.
I believe in not crafting logical progressions based on invalid premises.
"Since X, therefore Y" when X is an unknown is unsound. You could perhaps say "probably", and pay respect to the fact that a lot of the knowledge we have is based on assumptions.
In this one, people like me who live well within their means are not considered quite respectable.
I dont personally hold people without debt in low esteem. But more importantly, you shouldnt care: in a world where foolishness is held in high regard, being thought low of is of no consequence.
Debt is optional, dude. You cant even claim you need debt for school, full time at in-state schools generally runs ~10k/year which is easily achievable with a student-level job.
I think his beef is that a number of us have long since grown out of our "trite comment" phase, when some of us (or at least I) had the good fortune to be too intimidated to open my mouth and say something dumb on the internet.
Unfortunately the newer batch of posters seems to have no such inhibition, and happily prove their ignorance to all.
You ALMOST got a heated response out of me, till I saw it was just more AC trolling.
Why dont we leave it at this: Google actively fights the CPC's Great Firewall / repression in China, Microsoft (Skype/Bing) actively cooperates with them.
Gluten is a core component of bread, something people have been eating for thousands of years.
If you want to make the claim that it is doing us all bad, you're gonna need some very very good evidence and it would help if you could establish a mechanism of action.
Whatever we recommend on a national level should be purely based on people who get very little exercise.
We already have calorie guidelines.
Regardless, thats sort of like saying "well, people smoke, so rather than saying dont smoke if you dont want cancer we should establish a recommended number of cigarettes to minimize cancer".
Was a nutritionist involved? Who suggested the change in treatment? How do you know it was the change in food plan, and not some other factor?
I cant dismiss your claims, and I certainly wouldnt suggest changing a system thats working for you, but to suggest such a change for others generally is gonna need some evidence for how and why such a change would be beneficial.
There are people who swear by colloidial silver for fixing all manner of illnesses. Im sure some feel better afterwards, but some end up turning blue and I think we can widely recognize that any health effects are generally placebo effect.
Claims to be a doctor Makes counterintuitive claims has an 877 number on the site
Everything about that link screams "quack", as do your claims:
* Gluten isnt bad for you, unless you have a specific allergy or condition.
* That claim about margarine being plastic is dumb and based on the absurdly stupid notion that molecules that look similar are similar. By that logic, water is flammable (only one atom off of H2!), highly oxidizing (H2O2) and potentially highly acidic (H2SO4)
* Carbs dont lead to obesity; inactivity and a crappy diet do. Want proof, look at any highly-active runner-- they tend to eat a lot of carbs and still are pretty fit
* Noone knows what causes alzheimers other than "plaques in your brain".
* The sources listed in that naturalnews.com article are horrendous; none of them an actual scientific publication, one of them "goodworkswellness.com" and another a blog? Wow.
You're right about needing cholesterol, but generally the problem is people getting too much, not too little.
Slashdot Mirror
Honesty time: Didnt read the article, but to say that TRIM fixes write endurance problems is highly misleading.
TRIM does impact endurance in that it CAN reduce write amplification (I believe) which can reduce the lifetime of your SSD, but it does not really change the fact that erase cycles are REQUIRED in order to reuse a cell. Again, all TRIM really does is schedule when that erase occurs-- directly prior to when it is needed, or at some idle time. Apparently (according to Wikipedia) SSDs using their own internal garbage collection instead of TRIM could cause write amplification, which may be what the article is alluding to-- Micron is no longer doing that, thus increasing endurance.
Read up on TRIM here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Anandtech disagrees. Techreport. So, in fact, do huge numbers of user reports which suggest that SSDs really do last a long time.
Further, multiplying this problem manyfold, is that when an SSD fails, it tends to fail totally.
I have seen this happen, but its not due to endurance of the flash cells but on the quality of the firmware / controller. The actual cell failures apparently cause reallocations (according to techreport's tests, and to common sense). And you create an interesting dichotomy; what does it look like for an SSD or HDD or CPU or RAM to fail "not totally"? You get most of your bits back? All tech generally tends to fail catastrophically.
Theres a lot of misconception here, so I'll try to address them.
Making assumptions about how often trim might be used for any given workload only obscures the actual write endurance.
TRIM has nothing to do with endurance. TRIM erases cells that are scheduled for erasure anyways; all TRIM does is try to time that erasure such that it occurs at a time that will not effect performance. What affects endurance is wear leveling, which is an entirely separate technique that does actually work. As capacity increases, wear-leveling ensures that the endurance of the drive as a total increases.
Much like a 100GB capacity tape that's marked as 200GB because dome data that the manufacturer chose compressed 2:1 before being sent to the tape drive. Your mpeg movies aren't going to compress, so you'll be able to put 100GB of movies on that 100GB tape. The 200GB number is pure marketing BS.
When tape manufacturers (or organizations, like the one behind LTO) cite a compression factor like 2:1, it is based on a standard body of data like the calgary corpus which includes both compressible and uncompressible data. This allows you to compare different technologies with different compression standards.
In the real world on LTO (which I assume you are referring to) I have seen compression factors ranging from ~1.5 to 2.5, so its not really accurate to call it marketing BS. They also always (as far as I have seen) mark the tapes something like "800GB/1600GB" with the subtext explaining that the smaller number is native, and that the entire thing is 2:1. Its not dishonest because the compression is part of the (well-defined) standard, and the native capacity is right next to the compressed capacity. Its also not the manufacturer doing this; those numbers are explicitly defined in the spec.
all if the companies use the same 2:1 bs factor,
Which begins to make sense when you realize that thats because LTO itself defines the compression factor of 2:1 based on calgary corpus.
There's no telling what assumptions Micron made about the use of trim
But, as we've established, TRIM has literally no effect on endurance, so its irrelevant what they might assume about it.
so there's no way to compare this drive's endurance to any other, or to estimate it's actual endurance for any real workload.
Not to be harsh, but there is if you actually took the time to understand the tech. They usually do provide endurance stats (ie, "100PB data endurance") and tests by Anandtech and others have often validated that as being realistic.
That has nothing to do with the native cell lifetime.
It does when capacity increases faster than durability decreases. This has been addressed many, many times at each process shrink. The net effect is generally that you're better off spending your money on the newer process SSDs, they will last longer per $ spent.
Whats really bothersome is that so many of the comments hop on the "NSA thats why" or "corporate greed" bandwagons despite having no functional knowledge of the issue.
Thought people here were supposed to be rationally minded geeks; guess not.
When you say "cruising on empty", how do you explain the huge number of top-tier tech companies that are US based? Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, nVidia, AMD, Qualcom...
Dunno, I kind of think capitalism does quite fine at providing ideas. Let me know when everyone else catches up to Intel's current process tech, till then maybe we shouldnt write off capitalism as "cruising on empty".
I dont like suits, but I also disagree. A big reason to require suits is because you want your workforce looking professional. You want them looking professional because it makes a good impression on customers; it does this because it gives the appearance of having ones act together.
I don't generally consider arbitrarily slowing down the transfer rate from Netflix to myself to be providing "a pipe with a fixed bandwidth".
I was speaking to now, not the hypothetical future. To my knowledge, noone is currently throttling in the manner you describe (its more to do with peering agreements).
But if I am capable of 1mbps, yet am only getting 1kbps because they don't like the competition from Netflix, fuck them.
Thats not whats been happening
The throttling due to bandwidth constraints occurs when it hits the last leg of the connection-- as it is sent to your router. What your router does at that point doesnt change the limitations on bandwidth upstream of it.
ISPs should provide a pipe with a fixed bandwidth the user pays for.
They do.
And user can decide what traffic to prioritize inside his own network.
You can, but prioritization doesnt help very much after the chokepoint.
QoS at your end of the pipe is quite a bit different from QoS at the ISP's end.
I believe in not crafting logical progressions based on invalid premises.
"Since X, therefore Y" when X is an unknown is unsound. You could perhaps say "probably", and pay respect to the fact that a lot of the knowledge we have is based on assumptions.
In this one, people like me who live well within their means are not considered quite respectable.
I dont personally hold people without debt in low esteem. But more importantly, you shouldnt care: in a world where foolishness is held in high regard, being thought low of is of no consequence.
Debt is optional, dude. You cant even claim you need debt for school, full time at in-state schools generally runs ~10k/year which is easily achievable with a student-level job.
Since it's the same elements and forces all across the universe,
That is neither provable nor falsifiable.
I think his beef is that a number of us have long since grown out of our "trite comment" phase, when some of us (or at least I) had the good fortune to be too intimidated to open my mouth and say something dumb on the internet.
Unfortunately the newer batch of posters seems to have no such inhibition, and happily prove their ignorance to all.
and two cars in front of our debt-bondage
You COULD choose not to take on greater financial burden than you could bear.
Real life 101: If you cannot hold people accountable, they will goof off.
Personally, I am a big believer in the "paleo" diets, I think they are the healthiest way to eat.
Because as we know life expectancy has been dropping steadily over the last 2000 years?
You ALMOST got a heated response out of me, till I saw it was just more AC trolling.
Why dont we leave it at this: Google actively fights the CPC's Great Firewall / repression in China, Microsoft (Skype/Bing) actively cooperates with them.
Honestly thats enough for me.
I believe they will provide it if you package up the sum total of the convenience they provided to you, and ship it back to them via UPS.
I have yet to figure out how to package an experience, but let me know if you figure out how.
Gluten is a core component of bread, something people have been eating for thousands of years.
If you want to make the claim that it is doing us all bad, you're gonna need some very very good evidence and it would help if you could establish a mechanism of action.
Whatever we recommend on a national level should be purely based on people who get very little exercise.
We already have calorie guidelines.
Regardless, thats sort of like saying "well, people smoke, so rather than saying dont smoke if you dont want cancer we should establish a recommended number of cigarettes to minimize cancer".
Was a nutritionist involved? Who suggested the change in treatment? How do you know it was the change in food plan, and not some other factor?
I cant dismiss your claims, and I certainly wouldnt suggest changing a system thats working for you, but to suggest such a change for others generally is gonna need some evidence for how and why such a change would be beneficial.
There are people who swear by colloidial silver for fixing all manner of illnesses. Im sure some feel better afterwards, but some end up turning blue and I think we can widely recognize that any health effects are generally placebo effect.
You should ask for your money back.
Claims to be a doctor
Makes counterintuitive claims
has an 877 number on the site
Everything about that link screams "quack", as do your claims:
* Gluten isnt bad for you, unless you have a specific allergy or condition.
* That claim about margarine being plastic is dumb and based on the absurdly stupid notion that molecules that look similar are similar. By that logic, water is flammable (only one atom off of H2!), highly oxidizing (H2O2) and potentially highly acidic (H2SO4)
* Carbs dont lead to obesity; inactivity and a crappy diet do. Want proof, look at any highly-active runner-- they tend to eat a lot of carbs and still are pretty fit
* Noone knows what causes alzheimers other than "plaques in your brain".
* The sources listed in that naturalnews.com article are horrendous; none of them an actual scientific publication, one of them "goodworkswellness.com" and another a blog? Wow.
You're right about needing cholesterol, but generally the problem is people getting too much, not too little.