This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcobb (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 7 September 2008 (Showed example of commercial device with less than 12 GB of storage.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:00, 7 September 2008 by Hcobb (talk | contribs) (Showed example of commercial device with less than 12 GB of storage.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solid-state drive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Computing C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives |
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solid-state drive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Merging Flash drive into Solid-state drive
NOTE: The proposal is to merge the article Flash drive into Solid-state drive, the proposed merge has nothing to do with the USB flash drive article. (This clarification added part way through the discussion Zodon (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).
I agree that the merge seems like a good idea. Zodon (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. --Laser brain (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree: All flash drives are solid state drives, but not all solid state drives are flash drives. They're still different things and should be kept seperate. Lightblade (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah but flash could be its own topic under SSD, and still have its differences noted. JMAN1156
- Flash drives are already covered in the solid-state drive article, it is not clear that they have enough unique features to warrant a separate article. It isn't necessary to have an article about every subtype of an item. Please explain why they should be separated out from the other solid-state drives. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree: Flash drives imply portability and "hot swappable" type behaviour, like a USB pen, whereas talking about solid state drives implies usage as permanent hard disks - I think this means that they are 2 seperate things. Merging these would be like merging CD's and Floppy Disks, because they are both types of disk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.249.197 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Acutally SSD are hot swappable, if you use raid and sata hot swappable drives teh SSD can be used instead of traditonal hard disks.Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please observe that the article in question for merging is Flash drive, not USB Flash drive. The Flash drive article even states "Unlike USB flash drives and memory cards, flash drives tend to physically imitate conventional hard drives in size, shape, and interface so that they may act as a replacement for hard drives." The article about flash drive makes none of the distinctions you mention for flash drives. (There is no reason a SSD can't be hot swappable, using an external enclosure, E-SATA, etc.)
- There are so many little articles about similar devices that it makes sense to combine a few of them. Since flash drive is a subset of SSD, and the article overlaps a lot with this one, it makes sense to merge them. The see also section of the Flash drive article has a reasonable summary of a few of the different related types. The flash drive entry should probably become a disambiguation page (pointing to USB flash drive, or SSD, etc.). Zodon (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Zodon. The "Flash Drive" article is confusing: The common use of the term "Flash Drive" implies "USB." Merging "Flash Drive" with this article and creating a disambiguation page for "Flash Drive" is an excellent idea. Horseadmonition (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Agree Do not see any difference for USB / other bus drives. They all need software support (driver) to operate. Also there are conventional USB HDDs at hand. The article must be more sructured and there should be separate parts for RAM/"standard" flash/USB flash drives (else we'll have to distinguish IDE/SATA/SAS/InfiniBand/other buses SSDsStasdm (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Agree There are already USB RAID (RAID 0 actually, but it's only the beginning). Once again - do we describe technology or use/application and bus differences? Most flash SSDs (exept for newest ones)are IDE - any native RAID for them? And EDE/SATA SSDs are quite often used to transfer data - especially in publishing industry, where seem to be a standard already. Stasdm (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- One why give your agurement twice? and second there is no IDE ssd that i know of mostly because the interface can not handle it correctly. USB can not be used as raid, it can be used to elimated raid on linux but that quite hard to do. windows can not handle it nor do it. RAID also requires teh drives are fixed ;) which last time i checked usb flash drive arentAndrewcrawford (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please clarify how your argument against relates to the articles in question. The article on Flash drive says. "Unlike USB flash drives and memory cards, flash drives tend to physically imitate conventional hard drives in size, shape, and interface so that they may act as a replacement for hard drives." So both flash drive and SSD are primarily disk replacements.
- What does whether USB drives can be used in RAID or not have to do with the merger proposal? Neither article proposed for merger deals with USB to any great extent. (Whether it is a discussion of features of USB drives, or evolving into a proposal to merge the USB flash drive article, please either relate it back to the topic of this discussion, or start another thread for it.)
- Since several of the people commenting in this thread seem to have been confused about what articles are proposed for merger, I added a note at the top with links to which hopefully will help keep the discussion on track. Zodon (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am merely asking why the previous person isung saying ot merge it on the fact of USB flash pens. This what was there arguemnt to merge for so i am quesiton it.Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly AgreeOk after reviewing the the article in question rather than go on what is here, i say the articel should be merged here as it basically describing SSD.Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC) previous comment removed
This isn't my field, but
...this story on Engadget today (http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/01/ocz-reveals-core-series-sata-ii-2-5-ssds-128gb-for-479/) looks pretty significant: "these drives check in at $169 (32GB), $259 (64GB) and $479 (128GB), which -- as you undoubtedly recognize -- are amazing price points. Each unit utilizes NAND flash technology, possesses a 1.5-million hour mean time before failure and delivers 120 - 143Mbps read / 80 - 93Mbps write speeds. The sub-0.35ms seek times are also worthy of a tip of the hat, and the low power consumption just makes things unnecessarily sweeter." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Unfortunately, all this data is not quite right and needs to be looked at with a lot of care. The mtbf does not have any meaning at all, it could as well last 10 minutes. Also consider that those drives use MLC and not SLC chips. The random write is much worse than the stated 80 Mbps (which means Mbit per second and is wrong in this case. It should be MB/s = Megabyte per second). Alltogether: The prices are dropping, herewith the quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RunningGer (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Subject matter/WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS experts needed re. ATA/ATAPI support for SSD
Greetings. I am currently having great difficulty with editor Ramu50 re the Advanced Technology Attachment article, specifically over whether solid state drives are "really" supported by ATA.
- They are by SATA by not by PATA, if the user want to prove otherwise fineAndrewcrawford (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, the PATA spec includes specific provisions for SSD. Anyway this is long since settled. Jeh (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I claim they are; the ATA docs say so, explicitly and also by inclusion ("any form of storage device may be placed on the interface"). Ramu50 claims that citing the ATA docs is "original research". Accordingly Ramu50 has repeatedly removed the mention of SSDs from the article lede.
I have opened a case at WP:RSN. The specific section at WP:RSN is here. I've included a large number of diffs there.
This dispute is also discussed, if that is the word, in a long thread (actually several) at the AT Attachment article's talk page: talk:Advanced Technology Attachment.
The input of any SSD or ATA subject matter experts and/or Verifiability, Original Research, or Reliable Sources experts would be appreciated. Thank you. --Jeh (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"faraday cage"
I'm going to let someone else check me on this, but I'm almost 100% sure this statement is completely irrelevant. A faraday cage is basically anything conductive surrounding the drive--there is no reason why SSDs do not have a faraday cage, and I'm almost certain all reasonable manufacturers already use a metal case for their SSDs (they're expensive enough already, why would they skimp with plastic?) Anyway, one problem DRAM-based versions might be susceptible to are soft errors (read on wikipedia). Generally, I'd imagine this is pretty easily mitigated with some error correction (which probably is implemented, anyway. . .) Threepointone31 (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
12 GB minimum size for minilaptop?
Several vendors are selling linux based minilaptops with only 4 GB of storage.
For example:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/laptop-inspiron-9
Include a note as the need to do away with windows bloatware (t.m.) in order to accomplish this for a useful device.
Hcobb (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Categories: