Interesting article and it proves what I have been telling people all along. Use your SSD like a hard drive. Stop trying to baby it and tweak your system and stop trying to move the pagefile. Just use it and stop worrying about it.
Just don't treat it exactly like a hard drive, such as defragging it. But of course even my generic SSD is still going strong after years of above-average abuse.
Good point. Do not defrag it. But otherwise mine have held up fine for a long time with no special treatment.
I've seen this article before. While SSDs are a lot cheaper than in the past . . . im still waiting for it to get cheaper. Hahahahaha
I think many have not kept pace with SSD development and still regard them as unreliable and prone to failure (which was generally true several years ago) – plus, there was a mistaken perception that they had a limited life span. I have a much maligned OCZ SSD – now 2 years old, which I have never had an issue with. I haven't even bothered with firmware updates – and apart from some initial 'tweaking' when first installing the SSD, haven't messed with the drive since. My only consideration with using the SSD is to let it sit at the login screen for 30 to 40 minutes (maybe once daily) to enable TRIM to do it's job.
I dislike the trend toward TLC and QLC. Soon SSDs will require as much over-provisioning capacity as the advertised capacity. Ridiculous. And then the cells will be write-once with 1000x over-provision. Stupid. Just build a better cell from the get go! Just after 100TB writes, the Samsung disks start consuming their spares at far faster rate than all the other disks. And the samsung disks are TLC. Hopefully they'll make this SSD tech ready for consumers soon enough!
I just bought two Crucial MX100 - 256GB SSDs from newegg.ca (price about the same as newegg.com) including S&H + tax = $258.07 ($129 per drive) which is less than what I paid for my two (first) 60GB drives and my two (later) 120GB drives. The prices are now dropping, the other mfrs will have to follow Crucial, so there's no longer a good reason to avoid buying these for system drives. My 120GBs will replace the 60GBs, the 60GBs will be used in a docking station for selective data backup.
I did not read the whole article. But seem they want to make big assumption: all of the other SSDs have similar behaviour. Problem is if they only test 6 individual SSDs, and only one from each type, this experiment show only how some of each of those SSDs maybe can perform. For we can say same about other SSDs of each type, we must to know how much consistency there is of each type. It is like reading reviews of hard drives - or any other electronics. Someone complain they have a problem with their. Then other people say "Well mine work just fine". Yes, maybe your work just fine - but that does not mean everybody else have one that work just fine too!
Not looking for a specific size to be honest. Something like 128GB would be more than enough for my daily use but im pretty sure i would end up loading more things than i need as always and it would end up clogged of useless things. Hahahaha Right now i only have 2 HDDs and my OS HDD is already full. (250GB Velociraptor)
OK. 128 GB is stacks if you don't put your music, video, pictures and documents on the SSD. Put them on a HD. As discussed in another thread, I think you only need 40 GB for a Win 7 or 8 partition. But you need to be disciplined with where you store your data,
Running all my desktop systems with SSD RAID-based arrangements, by using RAID1+0. Had to make add some new and advanced controllers since TRIM is not supported for most RAID0 controllers. Laptops have dual SSD's.... the secondary one's are mSATA. All SSD are Intel. The read and write speeds are phenomenal. Intel SSD toolbox takes care of maintenance, since every single drive is Intel.
I have a second hand SSD. The previous owner had bought a 60GB Agility 3. Its max performance is 200 MB/s read and 60 MB/s write (although it is SATA3) according factory specs. The 60 Gig was not sufficient for his programs (?), so he decided to compress it, adding a performance drop. HE ditched it when his friend obtained better performance marks. I accidentally ran into him when he came mocking to his wife (who was drinking coffee at my mother of 81). He had the SSD in his hand and wanted to give it to the house master (it is a pensionado complex) so the house master could throw it away according environment regulations. With standard HD/SSD monitoring (health) software I soon found out that capacity was only 58 GB. I have no idea how he managed to get a full 60GB (as he claimed). After some testing I found out one flash memory part did not work alright. Now it runs in my desktop as a 28 GB SSD drive (just using half of the capacity for OS-partition) obtaining the factory specs (even exceeding it 202.4 MB/s read and 64,7 MB/s write). Cheap way to get a free SSD. When performance degrades, I will relocate my Win7 (32 bits) ultimate OS partition, to the now unused half of the SSD.
That's smart way to expand SSD life. Previous owner probably did shorten it's life is he really managed to fill the whole disk.
Filling the entire disk wouldn't necessarily shorten the life of the drive by a significant amount. If some of the files were the type to just sit there without being altered (like media files), there would be no "damage" after the initial transfer. Even on an OS drive, there are many files that don't change. Of course it could have affected performance though.
