On Mon 2017-05-08 16:40:11, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 13:50 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 08 May 2017 11:13:10 +0100 > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 11:09 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > > > You're forgetting that the SSD itself (this thread is about SSDs) also has > > > > a major software component which is doing housekeeping all the time, so even > > > > if the main CPU gets reset the SSD's controller may still happily be erasing > > > > blocks. > > > We're not really talking about SSDs at all any more; we're talking > > > about real flash with real maintainable software. > > > > It's probably a good sign that this new discussion should take place in > > a different thread :-). > > Well, maybe. But it was a silly thread in the first place. SATA SSDs > aren't *expected* to be reliable. Citation needed? I'm pretty sure SATA SSDs are expected to be reliable, up to maximum amount of gigabytes written (specified by manufacturer), as long as you don't cut power without warning. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
