On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:24:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When pressed
for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source of
information that would be educational, or even a recommendation of a SSD
that does this hypothetical on the fly realignment.

Are you sure that is what he was suggesting as a straight 'thing' but
more that the physical / electronic alignment can be different in a
real world sense in comparison (even) than with what the tools we
generally use for such things offer / report? eg, There is no
*re-alignment on the fly* (as in making it actually align with the 4k
block boundaries) but that the whole alignment thing is hidden by the
electronics *and* data (or more importantly it's storage structure)
could / can be moved in any case for various reasons?

I would think that any SSD manufacturer would like to 'hide' the
actual electronics (block sizes and actual addresses) so as to make it
unnecessary for anyone (or utility) to have to consider them. I'm not
suggesting that this is the case, just that I'm still willing to be
'open to' such thoughts.

Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

Cheers, T i m