Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by wmf on Thursday March 12, 2015 @03:33PM (#9193187)

This headline is misleading. This experiment put something like 18 years worth of wear or more on those SSDs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by shenanigoat on Thursday March 12, 2015 @03:37PM (#9193220)

Headline is accurate. A cursory glance at the article gives you a clear picture of what the drives were put through. I'm happy to know that SSDs can handle as much r/w as they can.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by Goronmon on Thursday March 12, 2015 @04:46PM (#9193774)

I would argue while the headline is technically accurate, it's easily misunderstood.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by geoffgasior on Thursday March 12, 2015 @04:15PM (#9193535)

Headline should have been 18 months, 2.4 petabytes. Dunno what happened there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by passive on Thursday March 12, 2015 @10:09PM (#9195334)

At 30 GB/day (still quite high for a consumer SSD), it's 70-200 years, depending on the drive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Endurance experiment kills six consumer SSDs over 18 months by theandrewbailey on Thursday March 12, 2015 @03:56PM (#9193382)

I agree, if only on the basis of HN's title and the linked page's title do not match.

[ Parent | on HN ]