Previous 1 2 Next 16 Replies Latest reply: Jun 28, 2012 2:33 PM by William Lloyd Go to original post
  • léonie Level 10 (91,054 points)

    That is why I went for a mixed solution with my new MBP:

    ☞ 500 GB SSD

    ☞ 1 TB internal HD instead of the optical drive

  • William Lloyd Level 7 (21,040 points)

    Well, yeah, but that's referring to the failure rate of the media itself.  It's possible with checksums, etc., to account for that and ensure that data isn't lost (somewhat like RAID 5, but more advanced).  You just have to know the limitations of the medium and build the logic into the drive controller.


    Flash fails with a certain number of writes already, and the controllers do advanced wear leveling to get around it.  There are some downsides to the wear leveling and block reading/writing too, again which can be addressed (and are being enhanced) in the newer SSDs.  I mean, really, flash-based storage is 500+ MB/sec now, as compared to 50 MB/sec 3-4 years ago.


    The article calling the future "bleak" in 2024 is fairly silly, because there are lots of engineers thinking about ways to come out with optimal devices given the challenges of the medium.  Is it the best physical storage medium ever?  Likely not.  But there's way more that can be done with flash than can be done with rotating magnetic media, which is slow and unreliable.  I mean it's the slowest, least reliable thing on a laptop by far.  By FAR.

Previous 1 2 Next