The SMART on the disk marks the disk as FAILED when you hit the manufacturer's posted limit (1000 or 2000 writes average). I am sure using a "FAILED" disk would make a lot of people nervous. The conclusion of you can write as fast as you can and it will take 3 years to wear out would be specific to that specific brand/version with a given set of chips in it, and may or may not hold to other vendors/chips/versions, and so may have quite a bit of variation in it. I think I remember seeing that, but I don't remember what the average write rate was. The one I just found says 200TB of writes on a 240g drive, so about 8000erases per cell was the lowest failure rate, with some drives making it 3-5x higher. On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 8:53 AM Wols Lists <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 15/02/2023 11:44, Roger Heflin wrote: > > WOL: current SSD's are rated for around 1000-2000 writes. So a 1Tb > > disk can sustain 1000-2000TB of total writes. And writes to > > filesystem blocks would get re-written more often than data blocks. > > How well it would work would depend on how often the data is deleted > > and re-written. > > When did that guy do that study of SSDs? Basically hammered them to > death 24/7? I think it took about three years of continuous write/erase > cycles to destroy them. > > Given that most drives are obsolete long before they've had three years > of writes ... the conclusion was that - for the same write load - > "modern" (as they were several years ago) SSDs would probably outlast > mechanical drives for the same workload. > > (Cheap SD cards, on the other hand ...) > > Cheers, > Wol
