This is not a failure of SSDs; it is a failure of the vendor you bought your SSDs from.
Yes. Like every SSD vendor on the planet.
While it's purely anecdotal, I only know one person who's ever worn out an SSD. I know plenty who've lost all their data when the SSD failed due to buggy firmware; most commonly when there's a sudden loss of power.
>running a large table through a scan will reliably blow your cache. for most use cases i/o performance remains limiting
Depends on how big your database is. We cache our entire database in RAM because it's only a few gigabytes; reads are as fast as they can be, and, in our case, far more common that writes.
Huh? The typical failure mode for an SSD that hits its write limit is actually to simply become read only.
In my experiece, the typical failure mode for an SSD is not to reach its write limit, but to destroy all your data through a firmware bug. The typical failure mode for an HDD is an increasing number of bad blocks, which allows you to recover most of your data before it dies.
This is how things work these days: if you can't get a law passed in your country, you convince other governments to make it part of a treaty, then blame them when the treaty is passed.
You're willing to sit in your car for 60 seconds while you wait for the computer that runs it to boot? You're much more patient than I am.
My Civic takes about five seconds to 'boot' after I turn the key (i.e the point where the digital displays reach their normal driving status). That's about as long as my Windows PC takes to boot to the login screen after it exits the BIOS, so it's clearly not hard to do.
I'm certain this is absolutely pointless to say now, but most of those setups were designed so that spring pressure had to be overcome to close the lenses; that way, if the mechanism did fail, it *should* fail-safe to the open position.
Ha-ha. Americans and their electronic complexity.
My Italian car with flip-up headlights just had a knob you turned to raise them if the motor failed.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone ever really clicks on an Internet ad, or it's all just bots. I guess a few people must do so now and again, if only by accident.
Except that I never seem to be able to find what I actually want? Like the apalling 'ribbon', it seems to be based around only showing you what it thinks you want, which is almost never what I'm looking for.
If AMD can get X performance for Y price and Intel can't beat them, that's who everyone will buy.
Except they don't, because AMD can't compete with Intel at anything other than the low end. Which they've traditionally done by selling big chips at low prices where the margins can't be good.
Plus, the i5 is a quad core.
You were gloating about a six-core AMD beating the i3, which is a dual core with hyperthreading. That you consider that an achievement shows how far behind AMD are right now.
The FX6300 gets a passmark rating of around 6400. The i5-3450 gets around 6450 so they're basically the same speed.
In a purely synthetic benchmark.
The FX has a max TDP of 95W and the i5 is 77W and their minimum power states are almost identical.
And my i7 has a 75W TDP.
AMD has a price per performance passmark ratio of 55.63 and Intel's is 12.36. 55.63 beats every Intel chip in existence as well.
So why don't AMD triple their price? They'd still beat Intel on price/performance for everyone who buys a computer to run Passmark.
Oh, except very few people buy computers just to run benchmarks.
If I were launching a $300,000,000 payload on a rocket with fewer than a dozen launches, the insurance company is going to laugh me out of their office.
Happens all the time. The insurance company probably just charge you $100,000,000+ for insurance.
If your satellite is going to make you $1,000,000,000 a year and operate for twenty years. That's not a big deal.
But wait, there's more! Their 6-core non-APU chip blows away an i3 and some of their i5 processors while costing almost half.
Wow! AMD only need six cores to beat an Intel dual-core! They're totally crushing Intel, baby!
Back in the real world, if what you're saying is true, AMD woudln't be forced to sell these chips at bargain basement prices. I'm thinking of using one to replace my old Athlon X2 system, but only because it's cheap.
I am afraid it wouldn't change much of the feeling I have about Linux on the Desktop; great if you want an additional hobby.
Weird. I gave a Linux netbook to my girlfriend and it just works. No longer do I have to fix bizarre problems with Windows that make no sense to anyone, like the time Windows stopped letting anyone log in because it corrupted the home directory path in the registry somehow, and, my God, you can't let a user log in without a home directory. It's not like you need to log in to fix the problem. Oh, no, actually, you do.
I would be shocked, given that what they're supposedly trying to get is available in the form of said Windows tablets, they are cheap and easy to acquire, but nobody is buying them, which would suggest not many are trying to.
Which Windows tablets are cheap? The Surface sure as heck isn't.
My guess is that anything cheap enough to make any sense is also unusable for what they want to do. They probably think 'wow, I could buy a $100 tablet, run all my Windows software and carry it all the time', then discover they're going to have to spend more like $1,000 to make it viable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a failure of SSDs; it is a failure of the vendor you bought your SSDs from.
Yes. Like every SSD vendor on the planet.
While it's purely anecdotal, I only know one person who's ever worn out an SSD. I know plenty who've lost all their data when the SSD failed due to buggy firmware; most commonly when there's a sudden loss of power.
>running a large table through a scan will reliably blow your cache. for most use cases i/o performance
remains limiting
Depends on how big your database is. We cache our entire database in RAM because it's only a few gigabytes; reads are as fast as they can be, and, in our case, far more common that writes.
Huh? The typical failure mode for an SSD that hits its write limit is actually to simply become read only.
In my experiece, the typical failure mode for an SSD is not to reach its write limit, but to destroy all your data through a firmware bug. The typical failure mode for an HDD is an increasing number of bad blocks, which allows you to recover most of your data before it dies.
This is how things work these days: if you can't get a law passed in your country, you convince other governments to make it part of a treaty, then blame them when the treaty is passed.
You're willing to sit in your car for 60 seconds while you wait for the computer that runs it to boot? You're much more patient than I am.
My Civic takes about five seconds to 'boot' after I turn the key (i.e the point where the digital displays reach their normal driving status). That's about as long as my Windows PC takes to boot to the login screen after it exits the BIOS, so it's clearly not hard to do.
I'm certain this is absolutely pointless to say now, but most of those setups were designed so that spring pressure had to be overcome to close the lenses; that way, if the mechanism did fail, it *should* fail-safe to the open position.
Ha-ha. Americans and their electronic complexity.
My Italian car with flip-up headlights just had a knob you turned to raise them if the motor failed.
Yeah, that's what advertisers say when they're trying to justify their existence and can't prove any immediate benefit.
It's also irrelevant to this article about click-bots, because they're clearly being paid for people clicking on the ads.
Don't forget Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, with their flying sub.
Oh, and UFO, with their sub-launched fighter.
There are much worse things people could be doing with two million zombie Windows PCs.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone ever really clicks on an Internet ad, or it's all just bots. I guess a few people must do so now and again, if only by accident.
What's wrong with the Windows 7 start menu?
Except that I never seem to be able to find what I actually want? Like the apalling 'ribbon', it seems to be based around only showing you what it thinks you want, which is almost never what I'm looking for.
Ha-ha. That's what happens when you let politicians make technical decisions.
If AMD can get X performance for Y price and Intel can't beat them, that's who everyone will buy.
Except they don't, because AMD can't compete with Intel at anything other than the low end. Which they've traditionally done by selling big chips at low prices where the margins can't be good.
Plus, the i5 is a quad core.
You were gloating about a six-core AMD beating the i3, which is a dual core with hyperthreading. That you consider that an achievement shows how far behind AMD are right now.
The FX6300 gets a passmark rating of around 6400. The i5-3450 gets around 6450 so they're basically the same speed.
In a purely synthetic benchmark.
The FX has a max TDP of 95W and the i5 is 77W and their minimum power states are almost identical.
And my i7 has a 75W TDP.
AMD has a price per performance passmark ratio of 55.63 and Intel's is 12.36. 55.63 beats every Intel chip in existence as well.
So why don't AMD triple their price? They'd still beat Intel on price/performance for everyone who buys a computer to run Passmark.
Oh, except very few people buy computers just to run benchmarks.
If I were launching a $300,000,000 payload on a rocket with fewer than a dozen launches, the insurance company is going to laugh me out of their office.
Happens all the time. The insurance company probably just charge you $100,000,000+ for insurance.
If your satellite is going to make you $1,000,000,000 a year and operate for twenty years. That's not a big deal.
But wait, there's more! Their 6-core non-APU chip blows away an i3 and some of their i5 processors while costing almost half.
Wow! AMD only need six cores to beat an Intel dual-core! They're totally crushing Intel, baby!
Back in the real world, if what you're saying is true, AMD woudln't be forced to sell these chips at bargain basement prices. I'm thinking of using one to replace my old Athlon X2 system, but only because it's cheap.
Desktops are not selling right now because Moore's Law has let us down lately. As soon as the Law is restored, desktop sales will resume.
Indeed. Once Word needs sixteen cores at 5GHz and 32GB of RAM, upgrades will be plentiful.
For everyone that doesn't play games.
If you don't play games, why do you care about 3D performance?
Sure, you might do CAD or similar 3D work, but then you can afford a real GPU.
So did you stop believing in Intel after their bugged Pentiums rolled off the line?
The Pentium had a bug that was fixed. Steamroller was just a horribly flawed design that didn't come close to what it was supposed to be.
And the BBC claims they have $4 billion of satellite launches booked.
Businesses have stopped buying PCs because of UEFI? That's an interesting theory which nobody shares with you.
That's good, because... drum roll please... it's not what I said, is it?
I didn't realize anyone was still making DDR2.
I remember when I replaced my old PC, I sold off the DDR1 RAM on ebay for as much as I paid for it new.
I'm using a desktop PC at the moment, normally use a laptop, and can't actually remember where I left my tablet because I haven't used it in weeks.
I am afraid it wouldn't change much of the feeling I have about Linux on the Desktop; great if you want an additional hobby.
Weird. I gave a Linux netbook to my girlfriend and it just works. No longer do I have to fix bizarre problems with Windows that make no sense to anyone, like the time Windows stopped letting anyone log in because it corrupted the home directory path in the registry somehow, and, my God, you can't let a user log in without a home directory. It's not like you need to log in to fix the problem. Oh, no, actually, you do.
I would be shocked, given that what they're supposedly trying to get is available in the form of said Windows tablets, they are cheap and easy to acquire, but nobody is buying them, which would suggest not many are trying to.
Which Windows tablets are cheap? The Surface sure as heck isn't.
My guess is that anything cheap enough to make any sense is also unusable for what they want to do. They probably think 'wow, I could buy a $100 tablet, run all my Windows software and carry it all the time', then discover they're going to have to spend more like $1,000 to make it viable.
What user buys a computer and then installs a different operating system on it? Oh, that's right, the statistically insignificant.
Business users, you mean?
I think they'll be surprised to hear that they're 'statistically insignificant'.