free web stats

OCZ to Launch SSDs with TLC NAND, Slashing Price, Durability

by: admin Monday, November 7th, 2011

OCZ OctaneOCZ aquired the SSD controller manufacturer Indilinx earlier this year–perhaps in a bid to loosen its ties to SandForce while increasing the prifit margins at the same time. In any event, the first product bearing the “Indilinx Infused” tagline, the OCZ Octane, was recently announced. Among other things, the new and improved Indilinx controller is capable of handling up to 1TB of NAND circuitry and seems to deliver good performance in the SATA III version, which is equipped with 25nm synchronous MLC NAND.

The Indilinx controller is also capable of managing TLC NAND, and OCZ has apparently decided to start shipping SSDs with with this cheaper memory type. TLC is normally used in memory cards and other low-end solid state storage formats. Although TLC NAND is 30% cheaper, it is much less durable than any other memory type on the market. In short, the most expensive SLC (single-level cell) memory type stores one bit per cell, whereas MLC stores two. One of the consequences is that SLC-based drives are capable of about 100,000 write cycles on average, whereas the latest 25nm MLC-based drives can manage 3,000 before it reaches the end of its useful life. To counter this problem, wear leveling algorithms, error-correcting code and over provisioning are employed in current consumer SSDs.

TLC NAND stores 3 bits of data in each memory cell, and wears out after only 1,000 write cycles. Other than the negative effect on durability, performance also takes a hit. The plan for TLC NAND is to use even better ECC (error-correcting code) with help from Indilinx nDurance technology to increase the memory cells’ durability, and also to counter performance losses when the SSD starts to fill up with data.

OCZ claims that its TLC-based SSDs should have a life span of “at least four years.” The company will likely be the first manufacturer on the market with TLC NAND SSDs and the drives will be pushed to OEMs who are looking for a cheaper option, but they are also expected to reach the consumer market in one form or another in the first quarter of 2012. OCZ will also make a move on the enterprise market with TLC NAND in Q3 next year.

« | Home | »

14 Responses to “OCZ to Launch SSDs with TLC NAND, Slashing Price, Durability”

vt Said:

> The plan for TLC NAND is to use even better ECC (error-correcting code) with help from Indilinx nDurance technology to increase the memory cells’ durability, and also to counter performance losses when the SSD starts to fill up with data.

I explained earlier why increasing memory cell durability is not possible in any way other than technological process, and only by a small margin with such manufacturing improvements. In other words, they are going to sell extremely short-lived products (1/3 of MLC, 1/100 of SLC). TLC is not suitable even for an average consumer SSD. PR specialists are apparently playing dumb and want the users to purchase a new SSD at least every single year (because they would just wear out).
> OCZ claims that its TLC-based SSDs should have a life span of “at least four years.”
In other words, OCZ has decided to lie to the customers even more.

Comment made on November 7th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
vt Said:

Even in normal conditions, TLC is less reliable and more prone to errors within its durability cycle and therefore requires better ECC just to operate normally inside SSD, but no extra durability is gained by that.

Comment made on November 7th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
admin Said:

I couldn’t agree more. Of course, OCZ could claim any number of years without telling an outright lie. It might last for 10 years or 15 as long as you don’t insist on pushing the “on” button too often. I don’t see how a 30% price reduction (if all of it is passed on to the consumer, which is unlikely) would justify such a huge drop in durability in any situation, save for perhaps a memory card or USB stick.

Comment made on November 8th, 2011 at 3:47 am
Jason Said:

This is the new standard in life. Lets settle for under OK. Not the best or mid range products. No, lets lie to people and tell them a mouse is a horse. We have a good name to ride on now. Lets do like some of the big companies out there. Lets dumb down our quality. Keep price at there already artificially high points. No one will be the wiser.
Im sorry but, I will not be buying an SSD from any one any time soon. And definitely not from OCZ. SSD’s are way to over priced in this day and age. Actually almost everything is. We the consumer as a whole are not wise to there tactics. Its funny, in a world full of high speed info transfer. people are dumb. And in bliss about it. And no one will catch on to it. Because and especially Americans, are getting dumber by the second. Thank you big brother. Sold us out to corporations and sold our jobs also. So to that I say bug off.

Comment made on December 24th, 2011 at 9:48 am
XJDHDR Said:

>I explained earlier why increasing memory cell durability is not possible in any way other than technological process,
There are a number of methods that make SSD NAND last longer besides making it more durable (eg. Sandforce SSDs compress everything that comes in, resulting in less page writes). I’m pretty sure that OCZ is going to do something like that.

>they are going to sell extremely short-lived products
According to Anandtech’s Vertex 3 preview (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4159/ocz-vertex-3-pro-preview-the-first-sf2500-ssd/2), Anand calculated how long an SSD’s NAND should last. With 7GB written per day (which he said is a bit extreme, even for a power user) to his 256GB SSD and assuming a 10x write amplification (most SSDs have considerably lower figures; Sandforce SSDs are typically below 1x), he calculated a lifespan of 10,800 days for 25nm NAND. If we divide that by 3 to account for 1000 p/e TLC NAND, that gives us a lifespan of just under 10 years. Then again, those same calculations placed on a 128GB and 64GB SSD gives us figures of around 5 and 2.5 years, respectively. On the other hand though, I imagine people with smaller SSDs will write less data per day than those with 256GB SSDs.

>TLC is not suitable even for an average consumer SSD.
I don’t know. At least 10 years to replace a 256GB SSD sounds reasonable enough.
I personally can’t wait for TLC NAND SSDs to hit the market. This, combined with 20nm NAND, should push SSD prices well into what I and many people are willing to pay.

>…want the users to purchase a new SSD at least every single year (because they would just wear out).
Quite frankly, the only kind of mathematics that yields a lifespan of less than 1 year is assuming that either 18GB was written per day with a write amplification of 10x or 7GB per day with a 25x amplification written to a 64GB SSD. As stated above though, Anand figures that 7GB with a 10x write amp. are both worst case scenarios for a home or office user. Hence, I think a minimum lifespan of 2.5 years for a 64GB SSD isn’t unreasonable (again though, this assumes a write amplification of 10x; SSDs that use a Sandforce controller would last at least 25 years).

Comment made on February 8th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
vt Said:

>There are a number of methods that make SSD NAND last longer besides making it more durable
For example ? Cooling it to -100 C degrees ? Picking the best samples, which would be nearly equal in price to SLC ? What it is going to do ? The best thing it can do is to make their PR people dance over NAND chips in shaman outfits – I guess would earn much more public attention.
>With 7GB written per day
They lied, lied for the money they had been paid to do it. If you are going to use it for some even average workload, the numbers will be higher.
I can say that if you turn the computer on once per year, it would last for 200 years (providing that you replace the capacitors every 20 years).
>At least 10 years to replace a 256GB SSD sounds reasonable enough.
Same, LIES.
> …
Lies again, it is less expensive to purchase a normal HDD for storage purposes. No need to pay 10x for SSD. SSD should be used for frequently updated data, such as temporary files etc, which require large write overhead due to misalignment within the writable block and erasable blocks.

Conclusion – this is not the right place to post PR (advertising) articles with fake results. I’ve had enough with PR idiots-moderators at some resources removing my realistic reviews and numbers for SSD. If you want to pour marketing shit, pour it elsewhere.

Comment made on February 8th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
XJDHDR Said:

>”For example ?”
I already provided an example but here it is again:
The Sandforce controller compresses everything that comes in, which results in less NAND cells having data written to it. Less NAND cells being written to == less wear.

>”The best thing it can do is to make their PR people dance over NAND chips in shaman outfits – I guess would earn much more public attention.”
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you don’t use logical fallacies, such as this ad hominen fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem). You have no evidence that the PR people are engaging in witchcraft. And even if they are, their superstitions has nothing to do with how long TLC NAND can last.

>”They lied, lied for the money they had been paid to do it.”
Where is your proof that Anandtech is lying? Then again, Wikipedia already proves that the write amplification figures at least are very conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification#Product_statements).

>”If you are going to use it for some even average workload, the numbers will be higher.”
Where is your proof? You have not backed up this claim with mathematics or sourced figures.

>”I can say that if you turn the computer on once per year, it would last for 200 years (providing that you replace the capacitors every 20 years).”
This one is called ‘Moving the Goalposts’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). The NAND would, indeed, last 200 years if you rarely used the PC. The discussion is, however, about how long it would last with “regular” use and the mathematics Anand presents shows a lifetime of at least 10 years for a 256GB TLC SSD. This figure has not been dis-proven.

And BTW, capacitors in an SSD are used to give an SSD enough time to flush the data from it’s cache to the NAND, not to keep the data fixed into the NAND when you are not using the PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSD#Battery_or_super_capacitor).

>”Same, LIES.”
So replacing an SSD after 10 years is NOT reasonable? Where is your proof? Then again, it is one of my personal thoughts that you are calling a lie (ie. you are basically saying that my mind is lying to myself) so that immediately proves you wrong.

>”Lies again,”
Where is your proof?

>”it is less expensive to purchase a normal HDD for storage purposes.”
Moving to Goalposts, again. HDDs are, indeed, less expensive than SSDs (that is why my PC has only an HDD in it). SSDs are, however, used because they are faster than HDDs, not because they have comparable prices.

>”SSD should be used for frequently updated data,”
SSDs should be used for frequently READ data that is sensitive to the speed at which it is read, where they provide the largest improvement. And this is, indeed, why most people buy an SSD.

>”which require large write overhead due to misalignment within the writable block and erasable blocks.”
The misalignment is done deliberately so that write speed is maintained at a high level. And even if this causes a noticeable overhead, SSDs still write data many times faster than an HDD can ever manage, which means that you gain nothing by sticking with mediums that have no overhead.

>”Conclusion – this is not the right place to post…”
…unproven opinions and logical fallacies?

>”PR (advertising) articles with fake results.”
Where is your proof that the Anandtech article is advertising with fake results? In reality, the article is defined as a “review” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review).

>”…moderators at some resources removing my realistic reviews and numbers for SSD.”
If what you have posted here is an example of your “realistic reviews and numbers”, I am not surprised the moderators deleted it, especially since most sites don’t permit trolling. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though; why not post an example of your realistic reviews and numbers that moderators deleted.

>”If you want to pour marketing shit, pour it elsewhere.”
And he finishes off with an Ad Hominem fallacy combined with a Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Comment made on February 9th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
vt Said:

>You have no evidence that the PR people are engaging in witchcraft.
It looks like PR people lack not only common sense, but some basic sense of humor as well … haha ..
>Where is your proof that Anandtech is lying?
My own benchmarks for example, the blocks didn’t last too long, moreover some of them didn’t endure more than several millions of uncached reads. Also, i count write cycles to the allocation table, timestamps, attributes and other fields which are updated with or regardless of the file contents changes.
>And he finishes off with an Ad Hominem fallacy combined with a Straw Man
I hope not combined with Martian Universe-Wide Ad-PR Idiocy ? That’s a huge relief for me. Not for you though.

Comment made on February 21st, 2012 at 5:44 am
vt Said:

>especially since most sites don’t permit trolling.
That is exactly what you do here, trolling, because what i posted there are realistic calculations with SMART calculations about how low the particular drives would last in different scenarios with references to the official documents of component manufacturers.
Maybe you promote a new version of trolling called PR trolling ? Companies firing PR staff lately ? Good riddance.

Comment made on February 21st, 2012 at 5:50 am
vt Said:

>And BTW, capacitors in an SSD are used to give an SSD enough time to flush the data from it’s cache to the NAND, not to keep the data fixed into the NAND when you are not using the PC
haha …
capacitors just wear off over time, those with liquid electrolyte and supercapacitors, due to chemical reactions over time
this is the first time i see someone assuming that they are used to keep the data fixed

Comment made on February 21st, 2012 at 6:01 am
.XJDHDR Said:

>”It looks like PR people lack not only common sense, but some basic sense of humor as well”
Where is your proof that I, as a South African, am involved in PR? In fact, there aren’t even any SSDs manufacturered here, let alone NAND chips. We have to import SSDs. In light of this fact, the entire thought is illogical due to the fact that very few, if any, South Africans visit this site, which means that any SA business I promote here will not benefit in any way. In short, if I was even working for a memory business’ advertising, there is no reason for me to advertise here; I would advertise on a website that South Africans visit.

As for the humour remark, there is nothing anywhere in that paragraph which indicates that the statement is funny/a joke; every indication is that it is a serious remark.

Finally, common sense is a very subjective term due to the fact that whatever defines a person’s concept of common sense largely depends on that person’s experiences and assumptions. Thus, it is not possible for anyone to lack common sense; rather, people lack what you define as common sense, which is a description that applies to nearly everyone in the world, not just PR people.

>”My own benchmarks for example”
And where are your benchmarks exactly? Where are they documented? Do they comply with the scientific method? And most importantly, how closely do these benchmarks mimic real life SSD usage? The problem with benchmarks is that they usually exaggerate problems and benefits. For example, performance benchmarks usually give largely improved scores for using faster RAM but in real life, faster RAM has no advantage over slower RAM, even in intensive programs such as video games.

Furthermore, I found a few comments made by SSD owners:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20111104123908_OCZ_Plans_Cheap_SSDs_Based_on_Triple_Bit_Per_Cell_NAND_Flash.html 2nd post
Wrote 700GB of data over 2 years = ~982MB per day. 80GB Intel X25-M G2 SSD
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32967092&postcount=7
Wrote 5730GB of data over 569 days = 10GB per day. 120GB Intel X25-M SSD
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2225635
Wrote 1550GB of data over just under 1 year = ~4.2GB per day.
I’m not sure whether these figures are writes by the drive controller to the SSD or by the SSD controller to it’s NAND (i.e. do these figures include write amplification or not?).
I assume that they do include write amplification which means that if the worst example above used 1000 p/e TLC NAND in their SSD, it would be ~32.9 years before their NAND loses the ability to write data.
If it doesn’t include write amplification, this post (http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32998506&postcount=11) has the person stating that his WA of 3 is in the upper range of several Intel SSD owners. If we add this figure to the above calculation, that person would still have almost 11 years before their SSD runs out of p/e cycles. Ironically, this new calculation is double what I calculated for a 120GB SSD in my first comment here. And again, that assumes that the above figures don’t include write amplification.

>”moreover some of them didn’t endure more than several millions of uncached reads”
Well, my posts are concerned with TLC NAND’s low p/e figures, since that is the main issue brought up by the article. Read operations have no effect on this.

>”Also, i count write cycles to the allocation table, timestamps, attributes and other fields which are updated with or regardless of the file contents changes.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ext4)
First, the NTFS and ext4 file systems don’t use allocation tables, they use a B tree derived indexing system. FATxx and ext3 (to a lesser extent) use allocation tables but I can’t think of any reasons why those would be better than their successors.
Second, NTFS records the following timestamps (and ext4 records similar ones): Creation, modification, POSIX change, access. Access time is the only one that changes without modifying the file but it is very easy to disable this one in Windows.
Third, NTFS has the following attributes (not sure about ext4): Read-only, hidden, system, archive, not content indexed, off-line, temporary, compressed. All of them, in the vast majority of cases, require user intervention to modify. I don’t know any situation where Windows changes these attributes on a whim, and they are certainly not values that are changed on a regular basis.

Finally, I’m not sure what “other fields” refers to but all of the things you have mentioned are not modified on a regular basis and even if they are, the space required to store this data is minuscule, at worst. Hence, it requires very little data written to an SSD to update these values. Also, I have posted figures above from SSD users which shows the volume of all data written to their SSDs over their lifetimes, including all the value changes you mentioned.

>”I hope not combined with Martian Universe-Wide Ad-PR Idiocy ? That’s a huge relief for me. Not for you though.”
Wrong on all accounts. There is no such thing as “Martian Universe-Wide Ad-PR Idiocy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Martian+Universe-Wide+Ad-PR+Idiocy). Failing to mention a logical fallacy that doesn’t exist doesn’t affect me in the slightest. You, on the other hand, by implying that it does exist on top of the other logical fallacies you have utilised, have proven that any “facts” you present can’t be trusted and must be regarded as a lie unless backed up with extensive evidence.

>”this is the first time i see someone assuming that [capacitors] are used to keep the data fixed”
This logical fallacy is called the Law of non-contradiction (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction). How can I possibly assume that capacitors are used to keep data fixed while simultaneously stating that they don’t do this?

>”That is exactly what you do here, trolling,”
And where is your proof that I am trolling? Do note that anything you quote has to:
1. …be an inflammatory remark…
2. …with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

As for my proof of you trolling:
“playing dumb”
“lie”
“shaman”
“PR (advertising) articles with fake results”
“idiots”
“marketing shit”
“haha”
“lack … common sense, [and] basic sense of humor”
“Companies firing [you] ? Good riddance.”

>”because what i posted there are realistic calculations with SMART calculations”
Wrong. You have not posted a single calculation anywhere on this webpage.

>”with references to the official documents”
You have also provided no references of any sort on this page, let alone ones to official documents.

Comment made on March 5th, 2012 at 9:05 am
vt Said:

>Where is your proof that I, as a South African, am involved in PR?
People no longer trust PR assholes in the rest of the world ?
>which means that any SA business I promote here will not benefit in any way.
The AD and SPAM companies are rarely located where their clients are.
>Do they comply with the scientific method?
They do not comply with any PR crap.
>even in intensive programs such as video games.
Oh my … I didn’t know that video games are such “memory intensive”. That must be some amazing new trend with on-fly compression/decompression …
>I’m not sure whether these figures are writes by the drive controller
What is a “drive controller” anyway ? I thought that there are interface controllers, RAID controllers which provide additional layer of abstraction over the drives, but “by the drive controller to the SSD” – that is something new.
>First, the NTFS and ext4 file systems don’t use allocation tables, they use a B tree derived indexing system.
Regardless of the name, they are allocation tables arranged in whatever form, they map the actual usage of the logical blocks. Along with modifying the timestamp, the usual minimum for a single write operation with reallocation would take 3 writable pages (not erasable, erasable blocks are much larger), which start from 4096 bytes each. Which translates to real numbers for short files like writing at least 3*4096x bytes for just creating one small temporary file, and even more when it comes to changing its size beyond the next range within the multiple of the cluster size. Just writing s single byte to the file would result in writing the whole new writable page. To prevent performance degradation, SSD controllers are forced to write additional page allocation information as well though the numbers are not that huge compared with the write overhead for scattered small write operations.
>Access time is the only one that changes without modifying the file but it is very easy to disable this one in Windows.
I repeat for those lacking any basic common sense – if I purchase a SSD, I’m not going to disable ANYTHING at all, as I’m paying 10x to get maximum performance by placing temporary, cache, database, and swap files on it, which would result in minimum of 30 gigabytes per day written, and much higher on average. Otherwise I would go for a normal HDD.
>As for my proof of you trolling:
Its not me trolling, but you spamming and lying by indirectly advertising products with 10x more price while implying that people should not use them for high workload tasks. See the above arguments. And I suggest you once again to pour your PR shit elsewhere.
>How can I possibly assume that capacitors are used to keep data fixed
Did you smoke something ? It was me who assumed that the capacitors are not used for permanent data retention in NAND. Furthermore, they have to be replaced just because they are used in power circuits and with the power circuits failing to provide a stable power supply the whole system would be unable to operate.
>You have also provided no references of any sort on this page, let alone ones to official documents.
At some other comments at this site I did provide the references. I’m not going to spend my time looking for them again for ever single PR idiot I see.
>This logical fallacy is called the Law of non-contradiction
be so kind, put those laws in your a** and f*** off

Comment made on March 12th, 2012 at 4:51 am
.XJDHDR Said:

@vt
Note that I am no longer going to reply to logical fallacies. If I don’t reply to something you said, that is because that particular remark is one, especially when the issue has already been addressed.

>”The AD and SPAM companies are rarely located where their clients are.”
You have still failed to prove that I am working for an SSD business or an advertising business. The fact of the matter is that I do not work in either of these. I actually work as an accountant for a factory that manufactures building material. In short, my work has nothing to do with SSDs or the marketing of them.

>>Do they comply with the scientific method?
>”They do not comply with any PR crap.”
The scientific method has nothing to do with PR. The scientific method is “a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
The fact that you haven’t heard of the scientific method further proves that nothing you say can be trusted without evidence.

>>First, the NTFS and ext4 file systems don’t use allocation tables, they use a B tree derived indexing system.
>”Regardless of the name … scattered small write operations.”
Exactly what I was expecting. This may be what would happen, IN THEORY. However, I have already provided 5 examples of SSD owners that, if they owned SSD with TLC NAND, would be in no danger of their NAND wearing out within 10 years. Hypotheses are not scientific unless they can be proven using the scientific method. The fact that all the evidence I’ve presented disproves your hypothesis plus the fact that you still refuse to publicize your benchmarks means that your hypothesis is pseudo-science. I suggest you keep pseudo-science away from these discussions.

>”if I purchase a SSD, I’m not going to disable ANYTHING at all, as I’m paying 10x to get maximum performance by placing temporary, cache, database, and swap files on it, which would result in minimum of 30 gigabytes per day written, and much higher on average.”
Is this 30GB minimum another one of your hypotheses or is it what you personally manage to write to your HDD per day?
If it is what you personally achieve, please understand that that is quite unusual in comparison to the 5 SSD owners I earlier presented who write much less to their SSDs. No one is forcing you to buy a TLC NAND SSD; MLC NAND and HDDs are not going anywhere. Just don’t alienate the people that would benefit from TLC NAND.

If, on the other hand, 30GB minimum is another hypothesis, I have already presented 5 SSD owners that achieve average data written per day rates much lower than your hypothesized minimum. You have, again, failed to prove that this is what the average PC user writes per day.

Finally, take a look at this blog post by Microsoft (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx). Specifically, this quoted piece is near the bottom:

>Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

>Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

>In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

>In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.

Indeed! Not only is the pagefile (a.k.a. swap file) rarely written to, any data that is written to it is done in large chunks, which has a write amplification at or near 1 (or less if you have a SandForce SSD).

Basically, since you’ve already lied about the swap file requiring large amounts of data written to storage, how can anyone be expected to believe that temporary, cache or database files require large amounts of data written.

>”Its not me trolling,”
Wrong again. You have, yet again, failed to prove that I am trolling despite requesting evidence last week. Also, disguise your inflammatory remarks under whatever intention you want, making an inflammatory remark is trolling, thus you are a troll and your accusations are nothing more than unproven opinions. As for the rest of that sentence and the three afterwards: unproven opinions and logical fallacies.

>”At some other comments at this site I did provide the references. I’m not going to spend my time looking for them again”
Being lazy doesn’t invalidate the requirement for proof. No one reading your comments is going to look for the proof you’ve presented elsewhere. Also, the scientific method requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable. By refusing to present the official document references, it becomes impossible to falsify the hypothesis. Thus, your hypotheses are, once again, pseudo-science.

Remember, anything that hasn’t been replied to is a logical fallacy and might have already been addressed.

Comment made on March 16th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
vt Said:

PR trolls are non the wiser …
So, some data for those who read the comments (excluding PR trolls):
>Is this 30GB minimum another one of your hypotheses or is it what you personally manage to write to your HDD per day?
Enterprise database verification and compacting takes ~80Gb of data written, the files are about 12Gb, Microsoft SQL Server 2008.
Video production takes from 30 to 200Gb of data written for 1 movie, that is with minimum editing.
Application recompilation using GCC (one of those I use) – ~8Gb per single build operation though I usually prefer RAM drive for that.
Background services, writes, summary from power-on, ~5 days (the system stays powered on 24/7):
632,753Kb per hour, 15186072Kb per 24 hours
Where are those f****** 10 Gb per day ?

Comment made on March 18th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
 

Leave a Comment