Why do discussions about the R/W longevity of an SSD continue to crop up when average consumer use-case will never...

Why do discussions about the R/W longevity of an SSD continue to crop up when average consumer use-case will never reach that threshold well over a decade after buying the device?

Yes SSDs have a limited life span determined by the electrical energy tolerance that NAND flash can accept over the course of reads, writes, and deletes but unless you're committing 400GB worth of reads, writes, and deletions every single day, you're not going to encounter that limit.

Attached: 629270-samsung-ssd-970-evo-plus[1].jpg (980x551, 429K)

Thanks just bought 100k

because you touch yourself at night

Cringe

seething

cuck

have sex

dialate

BRINGE

cope

> Why do discussions about the R/W longevity of an SSD continue to crop up when average consumer use-case will never reach that threshold well over a decade after buying the device?
People don’t like moving to a new technology and something just must be found in order to delegitimize what ever is new and upcoming
For SSDs the lifespan was a relatively easy target because a lifespan exists while on HDDs their isn’t a lifespan really listed other than MTBF
Doesn’t matter if it takes decades for you to hit that limit but it doesn’t look good

>the absolute state of Jow Forums

Attached: 1542853251576.png (519x613, 51K)

looks fine to me

Attached: 2019-08-03 22.46.37 boards.4channel.org 0296d0502e8a.png (1895x1834, 661K)

>all that work to make the board usable when the mods should do their fucking jobs

all me

>400GB worth of reads, writes, and deletions

are these happening all of the time? Like when I'm doing anything on the internet it's all being written to disk, read, and deleted, right? Or is virtually all of my internet browsing stored in ram?

based Jow Forumsnessman

Usually your SSD isn't doing anything. Reading has a negligible effect. Writing does happen but thanks to TRIM you're not going to run up against NAND wear in any significant proportion because the controller manages how the data on the SSD gets spread so it doesn't keep hammering the same cell.

Sorry, I was distracted and didn't finish my point.

SSD stress tests generally force the SSD to accept and manipulate an inordinate amount of data on a recurring basis. Several hundred gigs of data being pushed to and from the drive on a daily basis. You have to be trying deliberately to push that much data across an SSD and if you are doing that level of data manipulation you'd probably need something more than a single NVMe drive to contain it.

the state of QLCucks

Attached: with cache enabled.jpg (795x972, 127K)

>if you are doing that level of data manipulation you'd probably need something more than a single NVMe drive to contain it.
People who do have that type of data usage usage use something like a Fusion IO drive or some other enterprise grade SSD with TBW reaching into the petabyte range
You can also just use a consumer NVMe and treat it as disposable, whatever money you are making video editing or something will vastly outstrip a theoretical drive failure every 2 years

I would like to use filters, but something feels creepy to me about not being able to see the entire thread :(

>SSD
ReadyBoost+PageFile that all it good for

>file size 256MB
Nice benchmark for the volatile cache of the device I guess.

That sounds like a problem with the thread more than you.