Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives

Previously JW <none DeleteThis @dev.null> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2008 12:09:39 GMT Arno Wagner <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in Message
> id: <66rhc3F2lh7s3U1 DeleteThis @mid.individual.net>:

>>Previously JW <none DeleteThis @dev.null> wrote:
>>> On 18 Apr 2008 04:29:00 GMT Arno Wagner <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in Message
>>> id: <66qmccF2jc12hU1 DeleteThis @mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>>No flash can do 2'000'000 writes per cell.
>>
>>
>>> http://ec.transcendusa.com/product/ItemDetail.asp?ItemID=TS8GCF45I-D
>>> "Endurance: 2,000,000 Program/Erase cycles"
>>
>>I stated "per cell". They state nothing, so likely "per device"
>>as manufacturers tend to pick the biggest number.

> I dunno, I'm figuring that they mean the entire device. But I could be
> wrong.

Well, same here. Basically it is unclear what the number means.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

John Turco wrote in news:48080A66.F79460DA@concentric.net
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > "John Turco" jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote in message news:4801CA94.553D1020@concentric.net...
> > > JW wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:10:58 -0500 John Turco jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net wrote in Message id: <47FF4742.D30883 RemoveThis @concentric.net>:
> > > >
> > > > > I followed the link you've provided, above...still, I'd be concerned
> > > > > about flash memory's relatively limited number of rewrite cycles
> > > > > (approximately 100,000, typically), if I were you.
> > > >
> > > > Some industrial flash is good for 2 million writes. Combine that with
> > > > wear leveling this is not as bad as you might think. We've shipped over
> > > > a thousand XP embedded systems on CF in the last few years, and I've
> > > > yet to see a drive wear out.
> > >
> > > Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but, didn't know about that "2
> > > million writes" stuff.
> > >
> > If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to post
> > your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?
>
>
> Hello, Eric:
>
> No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g> Besides, if the Windows "page file"
> is enabled, even 2,000,000 write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly --

You call JW a liar, Turco?

> wear leveling, or not.

Well, there's the stupidity in that statement.
It's either 2,000,000 write cycles *with* or *without* wear leveling. If
without then obviously that's of no concern _unless_ the whole drive is used
for pagefile and all the 8GB is *actually used*, begin to end, cancelling out
wear leveling. That's a hell of a lot of paging.

>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Arno Wagner wrote in news:66ruq5F2ll2asU1@mid.individual.net
> Previously JW <none.DeleteThis@dev.null> wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2008 12:09:39 GMT Arno Wagner me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in Messageid: 66rhc3F2lh7s3U1.DeleteThis@mid.individual.net:
> > > Previously JW <none.DeleteThis@dev.null> wrote:
> > > > On 18 Apr 2008 04:29:00 GMT Arno Wagner me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in Messageid: <66qmccF2jc12hU1.DeleteThis@mid.individual.net>:
> > >
> > > > > No flash can do 2'000'000 writes per cell.
> > >
> > > > http://ec.transcendusa.com/product/ItemDetail.asp?ItemID=TS8GCF45I-D
> > > > "Endurance: 2,000,000 Program/Erase cycles"
> > >
> > > I stated "per cell". They state nothing, so likely "per device"
> > > as manufacturers tend to pick the biggest number.

In which case this number would actually be awfully low.

>
> > I dunno, I'm figuring that they mean the entire device. But I could be
> > wrong.

> Well, same here. Basically it is unclear what the number means.

And obviously it is far to difficult to compare them whith other ca-
pacities within the same product range and get a clue, right babblebot.

>
> Arno
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Eric Gisin <gisin.TakeThisOut@uniserve.com> wrote
> > John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote
> >> Eric Gisin wrote
>
> >>>> Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but, didn't know about that "2 million writes" stuff.
>
> >>> If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to post your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing
> >>> out"?
>
> >> No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g>
>
> >> Besides, if the Windows "page file" is enabled, even 2,000,000 write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly -- wear
> >> leveling, or not.
>
> > Raving Lunatic.
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
> > Page file I/O is *much* less than your total I/O.
>
> What matters is the write I/O. Your claim is just plain wrong with many Win systems.
>
> > Get some RAM if not.
>
> You still get page file write I/O even with the maximum ram the system can handle.


Hello, Rod:

Thank you, for putting Eric "Clueless Canuck" Gisen, in his place.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Tim_Mac wrote:
>
> fact is... flash memory has been used successfully for a long time
> before it's current mainstream introduction. but it is new to a lot
> of people who don't trust it, which is also understandable. if you
> are a skeptic, then wait another 5 years until you're comfortable with
> it. in the meantime, let the early adopters prove you right or wrong,
> either way they're doing you a favour


Hello, Tim:

Sound advice, indeed! I, myself, was only advocating caution, during
my prior responses in this thread.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote in news:48080A66.F79460DA@concentric.net
> > Eric Gisin wrote:
> > > "John Turco" jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote in message news:4801CA94.553D1020@concentric.net...
> > > > JW wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:10:58 -0500 John Turco jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net wrote in Message id: <47FF4742.D30883 RemoveThis @concentric.net>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I followed the link you've provided, above...still, I'd be concerned
> > > > > > about flash memory's relatively limited number of rewrite cycles
> > > > > > (approximately 100,000, typically), if I were you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some industrial flash is good for 2 million writes. Combine that with
> > > > > wear leveling this is not as bad as you might think. We've shipped over
> > > > > a thousand XP embedded systems on CF in the last few years, and I've
> > > > > yet to see a drive wear out.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but, didn't know about that "2
> > > > million writes" stuff.
> > > >
> > > If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to post
> > > your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?
> >
> >
> > Hello, Eric:
> >
> > No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g> Besides, if the Windows "page file"
> > is enabled, even 2,000,000 write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly --
>
> You call JW a liar, Turco?

<edited for brevity>

Hello, Folkert:

No...I'm calling >you< a troller, instead. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Eric Gisin <gisin.TakeThisOut@uniserve.com> wrote
>>> John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote
>>>> Eric Gisin wrote

>>>>>> Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but,
>>>>>> didn't know about that "2 million writes" stuff.

>>>>> If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to
>>>>> post your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?

>>>> No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g>

>>>> Besides, if the Windows "page file" is enabled, even 2,000,000
>>>> write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly -- wear leveling, or not.

>>> Raving Lunatic.

>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

>>> Page file I/O is *much* less than your total I/O.

>> What matters is the write I/O. Your claim is just plain wrong with many Win systems.

>>> Get some RAM if not.

>> You still get page file write I/O even with the maximum ram the system can handle.

> Hello, Rod:

> Thank you, for putting Eric "Clueless Canuck" Gisen, in his place.

No problem, I enjoyed it, as always |-)
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Previously Tim_Mac <timmer3 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> fact is... flash memory has been used successfully for a long time
> before it's current mainstream introduction. but it is new to a lot
> of people who don't trust it, which is also understandable. if you
> are a skeptic, then wait another 5 years until you're comfortable with
> it. in the meantime, let the early adopters prove you right or wrong,
> either way they're doing you a favour

Indeed. And if you need to use flash, have a very close
look at the data of the specific product you consider.
There is still older, less durable flash on the market and
nobody published their load-leveling algorithms, so I am
distrustful of them. And the distinction between SLC and MLS
is still there, with the first being a lot more durable and
more expensive, and the second being in a lot of cheap
products.

Paging/swapping on flash is not a good idea in any
critical system, but critical systems will not use an OS
that needs it anyways. In non-critical systems, experiment
away.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

John Turco wrote in news:480D6088.38EBF64A@concentric.net
> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> > John Turco wrote in news:48080A66.F79460DA@concentric.net
> > > Eric Gisin wrote:
> > > > "John Turco" jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote in news:4801CA94.553D1020@concentric.net...
> > > > > JW wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 John Turco wrote in news:47FF4742.D30883@concentric.net:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I followed the link you've provided, above...still, I'd be
> > > > > > > concerned about flash memory's relatively limited number of
> > > > > > > rewrite cycles (approximately 100,000, typically), if I were you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some industrial flash is good for 2 million writes. Combine that with
> > > > > > wear leveling this is not as bad as you might think. We've shipped over
> > > > > > a thousand XP embedded systems on CF in the last few years, and I've
> > > > > > yet to see a drive wear out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but, didn't know about
> > > > > that "2 million writes" stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to post
> > > > your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello, Eric:
> > >
> > > No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g> Besides, if the Windows "page file"
> > > is enabled, even 2,000,000 write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly --
> >
> > You call JW a liar, Turco?

> <edited for brevity>

You mean:
<make the evidence of your stupidity go away>, don't you, Turco.

>
> Hello, Folkert:
>
> No...I'm calling >you< a troller, instead. <g>

Right, it was me and just my sheer presence here that compelled
you to make your stupid statements. I can see how you feel trolled
by that and make you babble.

>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

John Turco wrote in news:480D6083.6B327C68@concentric.net
> Tim_Mac wrote:
> >
> > fact is... flash memory has been used successfully for a long time
> > before it's current mainstream introduction. but it is new to a lot
> > of people who don't trust it, which is also understandable. if you
> > are a skeptic, then wait another 5 years until you're comfortable with
> > it. in the meantime, let the early adopters prove you right or wrong,
> > either way they're doing you a favour
>
>
> Hello, Tim:
>
> Sound advice, indeed!

> I, *myself*, was only advocating caution, during my prior responses in
> this thread.

Yes, Turco, you yourself, made a complete ass of you, yourself.

>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Rod Speed wrote in news:6756rnF2l213cU1@mid.individual.net
> John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> > > Eric Gisin <gisin.DeleteThis@uniserve.com> wrote
> > > > John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net> wrote
> > > > > Eric Gisin wrote
>
> > > > > > > Oh, I was already aware of "wear leveling," but,
> > > > > > > didn't know about that "2 million writes" stuff.
>
> > > > > > If you knew about wear leveling all along, why do continue to
> > > > > > post your paranoid claim about flash memory "wearing out"?
>
> > > > > No "paranoia" involved, wise guy. <g>
>
> > > > > Besides, if the Windows "page file" is enabled, even 2,000,000
> > > > > write cycles will be used up, pretty quickly -- wear leveling, or not.
>
> > > > Raving Lunatic.
>
> > > Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
> > > > Page file I/O is *much* less than your total I/O.
>
> > > What matters is the write I/O. Your claim is just plain wrong with many
> > > Win systems.
>
> > > > Get some RAM if not.

> > > You still get page file write I/O even with the maximum ram the system
> > > can handle.

Sure you do, when it 's switched off.

>
> > Hello, Rod:

> > Thank you, for putting Eric "Clueless Canuck" Gisen, in his place.

Yeah, pity you're too clueless to do it yourself, you big hero.

> No problem, I enjoyed it, as always |-)

Troll and it's little troll helper.
Aren't they a nice pair.
Watt and half watt.
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Rod Speed wrote:
>
> John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote

<edited for brevity>

> > Thank you, for putting Eric "Clueless Canuck" Gisen, in his place.
>
> No problem, I enjoyed it, as always |-)


Hello, Rod:

I think that this newsgroup's resident "dour Dutchman" could use some of
your unique "Aussie persuasion," as well. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>


PS: I'd mispelled "Gisin," before. :-J
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives 

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> Rod Speed wrote in news:6756rnF2l213cU1@mid.individual.net
> > John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net> wrote
> > > Rod Speed wrote

<edited for brevity>

> > > Hello, Rod:
>
> > > Thank you, for putting Eric "Clueless Canuck" Gisen, in his place.
>
> Yeah, pity you're too clueless to do it yourself, you big hero.

Hello, Folkert:

Gisin's "place" is in the outhouse, just as yours is. <g>

> > No problem, I enjoyed it, as always |-)
>
> Troll and it's little troll helper.
> Aren't they a nice pair.
> Watt and half watt.

Rather, that should be, "wit(less) and half-wit" -- a perfect description
of the Rienstra/Gisin "dynamic duo" and their torpid trolls!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Quietness of 2.5" vs. 1.8" Notebook Drives