Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:20:28 -0800 (PST) From: UFS User <ufs.user@yahoo.com> To: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why do I feel like compact flash is more reliable than SSD ? Message-ID: <1325280028.76835.YahooMailNeo@web140409.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOgwaMumAGWcpsdVYWCu8n9XLNn3g463_r7m1L00nW4masJSKw@mail.gmail.com> References: <1325229204.34713.YahooMailNeo@web140405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAOgwaMumAGWcpsdVYWCu8n9XLNn3g463_r7m1L00nW4masJSKw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM, UFS User <ufs.user@yahoo.com> wrote: >But everyone I know (including me) has had an SSD fail, usually with no explanation. > >So is this just chance, or ... are CF cards really a lot more reliable than SSD ? The following pages , and references in them , may be useful : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Solid-state_computer_storage_media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Solid-state_computer_storage No, these aren't useful at all, and further, the previous response that compared SSDs to spinning disks was also irrelevant. I am asking why compact flash cards (which are flash) seem to be much, much more reliable and durable than SSD (which is also flash). Why do I have CF parts running for 8+ years all over the place, but everyone I know has had SSDs fail (including me) ? There is no mention of spinning hard disks here, nor is this about *how* flash degrades in general - because in this case, they're both flash. Further, the failures I am seeing with SSDs are not because they wore out - they just quit. Comments ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1325280028.76835.YahooMailNeo>