Talk:Storage devices

Simply 'storage' or 'data storage' would have been a better fit IMO.

— Galactus (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2016 (EST)

'Storage devices' would make more sense though.  Morpheus talk 08:45, 1 March 2016 (EST)

you guys are welcome to change it, as long as the title relates to a piece of hardware that stores your data--Theredpikmin (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2016 (EST)

Do CDs fit in here? How about tape drives? Or flash drives? Or External hard drives? Would Storage Devices be better off as a category? My personal opinion is that we should just add them all to this page until it becomes unwieldy and then split it all up. Mrsnooze (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2016 (EST)

My original intention for main storage, such as HDD and SSD. So those two should stay at the top of the page. I have already added and external HD section to the page. If you want to add flash drives/cds etc, go for it. Perhaps put them in a separate sub-category on the page and label it something like "movable storage". --Theredpikmin (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2016 (EST)

I just divided the page between primary and secondary storage. Again, feel free to add any secondary storage devices that you wish.--Theredpikmin (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2016 (EST)

Wear leveling with ssds

if someone who is savvy with ssds can better discuss wear-leveling and life span of them, I would appreciate it.

In particular, if someone could discuss how to use an ssd in the best way (example: should I install programs on it, etc).

I am reading into the technology more and more, and if I find answers myself I will add them, but help is always appreciated. --Theredpikmin (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2016 (EST)

Depends on the type of cell used by the NAND flash (MLC, TLC, SLC, e-MMC, ...). You can generally look the endurance rating up for most SSD models online, including the real values, as opposed to what the brands claim.

As for what you said, it's generally recommended to use mechanical discs to store media. SSDs for the rest given how durable they have become. Cache is usually a non-issue due to the fact most programs actually store it in memory nowadays. Those that don't, can be forced to, by using a RAMdisk that copies the cache from disc to RAM, symlinks it, and then copies it back to the main drive every n seconds (Linux's anything-sync-daemon, for instance). — Galactus (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2016 (EST)

Would you mind explaining that in greater detail on the page under the ssd section?--Theredpikmin (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (EST)

A bit tight on time, maybe next weekend if you can wait. — Galactus (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2016 (EST)

that's fine with me. I would appreciate it greatly because I am thinking about buying one o_o--Theredpikmin (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2016 (EST)

I have a question: why do you say SSDs are more stable in the 100-500GB range? What do you mean by stable? — Galactus (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (EST)

From reading reviews, forums and guides around the web it seems that ssds above the 500GB limit break easier than the lower ones. I could be wrong but that seemed like the general consensus.--Theredpikmin (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2016 (EST)

Doesn't make a ton of sense since they are rated higher in terms of endurance, due to having more cells and just as many writes per cell. They also tend to have better flash controllers and are more likely to have MLC flash nand, which is better than TLC. — Galactus (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2016 (EST)