Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That math rarely pencils out. Most companies with large storage budgets have figured out that you can design write-intensive storage engines for cheap read-optimized flash that will last several years without an issue despite the relatively low number of write cycles. This is easy to verify on a cocktail napkin if one can assume the software is efficient with its use of storage bandwidth. In most applications with sane storage architectures, you might physically rewrite an SSD once a month, and often less, despite relatively high write intensity.

Quite a lot of software is excessively wasteful with storage writes, in which case it is more of an issue. That says more about the software than the storage, and can be addressed by not being profligate.



What do you mean by 'wasteful' with storage writes? That there is some unintentional write amplification going on for whatever reason?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: