No. Reading doesn't wear NAND.

Any endurance figures in amount of data are referring to writes.

 

And from the looks of it, it takes extreme effort to kill an ssd with writes

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blameless

No. Reading doesn't wear NAND.

Any endurance figures in amount of data are referring to writes.

perfect, thank you.

 

Quote: perfect, thank you.

I know it's old but please keep in mind that if you access your drive and open a file most Operating systems writes metadata to show the last time the file was opened. So it writes "a little"

 

An ssd cannot be read from indefinitely at no cost. And it does degrade it's performance.

Look at the early Intel X25-M articles for more details. Back then, an ssd was guaranteed to be readable for up to one year after no power had been applied, and even then, errors were expected.

Reading nand chips does wear them out, but it will take more than a 5 minute google search to find that info today.

 

    Well that sure was a perfect contradiction of opinions.  I guess this wasn't a stupid question after all!  Does anyone here have proof either way?

 

To be honest, neither the read or write limits are of much concern.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blameless

No. Reading doesn't wear NAND.

Any endurance figures in amount of data are referring to writes.

Pretty much this. That and usually the endurance ratings are very conservative; actual use is probably several times that.

Write limits are not going to be a problem for the overwhelming majority of users. NAND does wear out over time each time you write. SLC will last a long time, followed by eMLC, then consumer MLC, and TLC has the shortest life span, due to the 3 bit design.

However, even with TLC, it probably is not a concern for most end users. Where you need the endurance, I'd recommend looking into getting RAM drives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATDK

An ssd cannot be read from indefinitely at no cost. And it does degrade it's performance.

Look at the early Intel X25-M articles for more details. Back then, an ssd was guaranteed to be readable for up to one year after no power had been applied, and even then, errors were expected.

Reading nand chips does wear them out, but it will take more than a 5 minute google search to find that info today.

Read does not affect endurance. It will not degrade the data.

However data does degrade with time with or without electricity. Slowly with time, you get minute leakages of the static charge over time.

Anyways, here's an analysis of flash memory.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/41262/1/09-9.pdf

For long-term archival storage, I'd recommend some sort of backup every 5 years or so.

I suppose you could use optical media or some sort of data redundant hard drive system.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Techie007

Well that sure was a perfect contradiction of opinions. I guess this wasn't a stupid question after all! Does anyone here have proof either way?

See the article above.

As far as write endurance, TTR did a review about it:
http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb

Bottom line: very long endurance. By the time it becomes an issue, your SSD will be obsolete.

 

Read does not affect endurance. It will not degrade the data.

However data does degrade with time with or without electricity. Slowly with time, you get minute leakages of the static charge over time.

with or without ? Do you mean data will disappear over time if it's plugged in ? I always thought that plugging it in every now and then resets the leakage current doom counter. Is there any way to use an SSD for semi-long term storage (i.e. family photos, games, books, movies, stuff that I'll probably touch at the very least once a month, with the possibility of sometimes leaving it unpowered for a year or so) ? Is everything doomed to eventually disappear ?

 

Speaking of 80TB. That seems quite low considering how frequently small things like browser cache are written to storage. Is it a lot bigger than it sounds?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHorse

Speaking of 80TB. That seems quite low considering how frequently small things like browser cache are written to storage. Is it a lot bigger than it sounds?

Normal user average, you be pressed to write more than 10gb day.
so 300gb month,
3600gb year.
36000gb 10 years
Normal user an ssd will last their lifetime unless the hardware solder or such faulter.

if you have a workstation maybe database that goes then enterprise level which users wont have.