On 17/07/2012 20:47, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/07/2012 15:20, Daniel James wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
(there are actually some quite decent studies out there on SSDs now.

They've certainly got a lot better as the wear-levelling algorithms have
been refined (and debugged!).

The general thrust being that in the consumer space you can expect a
more than adequate life from them)

That's true ... though that's not to say that spinning rust isn't
better.

I'm still not using SSDs because:

1. I'm not concerned about the disk speeds of my HDD systems.
2. SSDs are still much more expensive than HDDs.
3. SSDs are not yet available with multi-terabyte capacities.

I will say that SSDs are attractive for notebook/netbook applications
where their relative immunity to shock damage may be important.

Yup, all those points are valid. I would only add that a reasonable way
to address them at this stage is by fitting both a SSD and conventional
drive. The SSD to give rapid boot, and application access, and the
conventional drive for its bulk data storage capability.

I've recently fitted an SSD Cache. The SSD connects as a normal HDD and
indeed can function as one, but this is not recommended. It comes with a
licence for a piece of software (for Windows 7) which over the course of
a couple of reboots and time running, learns which files should be
cached and uses the SSD to serve them up. It gives a significant speed
boost without sacrificing the large capacity of a HDD.

SteveW