Hello,

i read that SSD is better than SATA, except writing and so far higher price for capacity, mainly its limitted by writting.. so i want to ask how i can see current writing value of my SATA HDD to see if SSD drive in its place wont die too quickly?

quotations:

source: http://www.ssdreview.com/why-ssd-the-advantages.html

source: http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/86392

"iotop" command shows average writing rate 5Mb/s

cat /sys/block/sda/stat
thx

SSDs 'better' than SATA? SATA is an interface, SSD is a technology type. SSDs 'better' than HDDs you mean.

To get an idea if a SATA SSD is as fast or faster for writing than your current SATA HDD, you need to figure out the drive you are using now. There can be large differences betweeen HDD speeds depending on age, rotation speed, data density, cache, sector size, amount of data to written, etc..

You cant compare iotop results to online benchamrking.

The 'SSDs is mainly limited by writing' is a bit of a joke really. Yes, SSDs arent as good as writes as they are reads.....they will still beat the hell out of a HDD even on write speeds. Is just by not much as with HDD vs SSD reads.

As far as lifespan goes, current SSDs are very, very good, IMO at least as good as a mechanical HDD.

I kind of view it as I do flash drives. I've paid a lot of money for ones that I can get for $4 now. Technology moves on and by the time most people wear a ssd out, they'd be in the market for a larger, faster model.

Personally, a home user may not wear a ssd out but in a soho or commercial setting, it could easily wear out. To be fair they don't exactly wear out. You start off by loosing space from day one. The drive swaps out ram locations until all wore out.

Even in SOHOs or commercial settings it is actually pretty hard to wear out a modern SSD. You may want to have a look here about the impact of excessive writing to modern SSDs: http://techreport.com/review/26058/t...-after-600tb/2

I'm just going by what warranty on enterprise level stuff is rated on. Based on how my company uses some servers, it could be possible to destroy a disk in a few years. We run some stuff 24/7/365 and they have a load on it all the time. A lot of data would shift at some time of day. That shift is generally what some of these are rated at.

We run stuff for decades too. We have some one of a kind systems running for 30 years.

At one time a notion of putting mostly static data on the ssd and moving transient data to a mechanical drive was popular. May still be a consideration.

I'll admit that many of the first ssd's are failing but as with all things, they weren't as good as the stuff on the market now.

Do ssd's exactly wear out?? Well, that too is an unknown sort of question. One can usually set aside a large percentage of a drive to offset heavy use. That set aside ram will be swapped out with heavy used areas. In time one might even re-assign the amount set aside to make a ssd run much longer.

For the most part, I'd think that you'd have to really load up a ssd full time and maybe add in a hot server room or other conditions before it would fail. But, look at the reviews at some of the places where people rate stuff. You'll see a lot of these fail way before rated time. As so will you see that on mechanical drives.

Modern SSDs have already a spare area and swap out defective cells automatically. When you look at the aricle I linked to you can see that at 600TB written to the disk only the SSD with TLC cells starts to get defective cells, but is still projected to reach the 1 PetaByte aim, a mark unreachable for most use cases.
Most of those fails are not due to wearout, but simple defects of the electronic.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think you've missed my first point. By the time this wears out, you will consider buying a newer, better, faster, and larger model anyway. This would be true for most users.

A server farm with heavy use or a row of workstations working on graphics might well burn up a few of these. After all, even supercomputers burn up stuff and no amount of quality can fix the billion of issues that could go wrong. We still have some Cray stuff that goes bad once in a while.