Paintshop and Corel

On 02/12/2013 13:25, nospam wrote:
[]

You need to understand the way you use the disk. Use it a lot, and you
will have invalidated that warranty.

 

nonsense. there is no way anyone can tell how heavily it was used.

 

An SSD fails sooner if it is used more, because of the finite number of
write cycles each cell has. I would not trust any guarantee which did
not specify the net data write in some way or other.

 

so does a hard drive, and if it fails sooner, it will more likely fail
within warranty rather than afterwards, so you'll get a free
replacement.

hard drives don't do that, so why expect it of an ssd?

if something has a 10 year warranty, or even 5 year, that's longer than
its useful life. i'm already starting to replace drives i bought 3-4
years ago, not because they failed but because i need more space.

and if an ssd or hd fails, restore from a backup. it's not the end of
the world.

 

so what? nobody said it was the same.

a hard drive in a server that's constantly reading and writing will
fail sooner than a hard drive that is almost always idle (outside of
random failures, which can affect anything, at any time).

it's common sense.

 

That sounds pretty much like what I heard from others. (Including a guy
who repairs computers for a living.) He stated hat he saw more issues
with SSDs, than HDDs.

 

Not a big deal. The employees get a short, but much needed vacation
while waiting for the arrival of the new drive.

 

Uhm!
I was talking aobout an SSD used under the same conditions as an HDD.

 

maybe early ones, he did. not modern ones.

 

i see you've never run a business.

any company that doesn't have a replacement to use immediately while a
broken item is in for repair, regardless of what that item is, is a
company that will soon be offering very long unpaid vacations for the
entire staff, all at once.

and if they don't have backups for the data, then that vacation will
happen even sooner.

 

ssd will last longer.

 

I came across a test of the Samsung SSD 840 250GB TLC:
http://tinyurl.com/mgxam7r

Their conclusion:

"So let's calculate the lifespan. We consider the first uncorrectable error to
be the end of the SSD. For the first one that was after 764 TiB of written
data, and for the second one that was after 768 TiB of written data. That the
two failed so close together could indicate that the lifespan of the Samsung 840
SSDs is fairly constant. However, two SSDs aren't representative of the
thousands that are out there.

"If we take the 764 TiB and an average of 10 GiB of writes per day, we arrive
at a lifespan of 214 years. Keep in mind that we sequentially write and fill
the SSD which gives us write amplification factor of only 1.04 or 1.05. That's
the difference between the write commands sent to the SSD and the writes
executed by the SSD internally. The general assumption is a WAF of around 3.0
for normal consumer use with SSDs that don't employ compression tricks. That
translates to a lifespan of 75 years. Even when you push an SSD to the max by
downloading lots of movies everyday up to an average of 30 GiB per day, the SSD
will still last you 24 years. No matter how you use it, it will last longer than the period you plan on using it (most people like to add more capacity
after a certain time). A functional lifespan of 10 years is already unusually
high for a storage medium."

As they note, a sample of two drives is not conclusive, but the indication is
that the drives will probably last far longer than anyone would require.

 

You insisted he was talking about software developing. He wasn't.

You started going off the rails when on 26 Nov 2013 22:09:20 GMT in

"Well, there's your problem. You think a protocol determines what a
program does... Maybe that's why you were talking about the totally
unrelated FTP before? You think programs are filled with
developer-enabled protocols or something like that.

The word "protocol" isn't tied to programs at all. In fact, few
would use "protocol" to anything software related unless you are
in reference to that alternate definition of "protocol" that deals
with *communication between computers*, like FTP or HTTP, or NNTP
- all protocols, but not a fixed set of steps.

"What a program does" is defined by the code, which few would
consider to be a "protocol" by any stretch of the imagination. "

You then go on to discuss the execution of conditional code etc.

The protocol is not the code; it is not the logic of the particular
block of code; it is not any part of the program at all. It is a
statement, definition, of what the code must do. In exactly the same
way the protocols for FTP, HTTP, NNTP and IP are statements of what
the code must do. e.g.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460

None of these are the current protocols but they illustrate how the
word 'protocol' is used in this context.

Tony's hypothetical backup protocol would not be as large or as
complex but it would define what the backup procedure would have to
achieve. The details are left to the programmer but the program is not
the protocol.

 

An assumption that would be wrong.

Funny, I ask a simple question, and you turn it into a personal attack
on my competence. When you try to tell me a computer crash is no big
deal, it highlights your ignorance of practicalities.

 

I think it should, but have been advised to the contrary.

 

not based on anything you wrote then or now.

when you lie about what i say, i'm going to turn it into an attack.

crashes, hardware failures and other problems happen. anyone who
pretends that they don't is an ignorant fool and incapable of running a
business.

if a company isn't prepared for such problems, then they won't be in
business very long.

if they are prepared for it, the broken part is swapped out on the spot
with a spare. in some cases, it can happen automatically.

common sense, really.

 

you've received bad advice.

 

Indeed he was, as I have substantiated:

Tony Cooper
Re: Paintshop and Corel
11/25/2013 <>

"How do you think an "automatic" process comes to be?
Someone first decides what the process will be, and then
writes it into the system. The back-up protocol was
determined by the developers of the Time Machine program and
installed it to do the back-up automatically in the future.
The "automatic" function is part of the protocol."

He is quite clearly talking about software development when referencing the
developers of the Time Machine software.

Once again I have proven you to be incorrect.

That was me agreeing with your notion that "protocol" is rarely, if ever,
used in conjunction with software development.

Indeed. I.e. not a protocol.

Not at all. The protocols of HTTP says exactly NOTHING about what the
*code* must do - only in how the application must communicate with the
service/server.

No shit, Sherlock. That is exactly what I told him when he ignorantly
started to talk about software development.

Eric still fails to substantiate his claim - now making it an outright lie.

No quote from Eric, since there is none. His claim is incorrect and he
knows he can't support it, so he'll ignore this rather than admit to his
error. Like a true troll.

Now run along, Eric. You have nothing but humiliation to gain from this
thread.

 

On 02/12/2013 22:41, Mark Sieving wrote:
[]

Thanks for that pointer, Mark. It does show that you need to know your
disk activity before committing to an SSD rather than an HD. In one
application I have, we get about 50 GB/day of compressed satellite data,
which is then processed to images totally some 50 GB/day, which may then
be further processed by scientists into both images and animations. The
animations may be updated once every 5 or 15 minutes (according to the
data source). Disk writes may be some 250 GB/day, giving an SSD life
(for their device) of less than 3 years for this intensive usage. And
that with one of the most recent SSDs available.

Interesting that "Samsung guarantees a lifespan of 1,000 cycles",
contradicting claims made by another poster in this thread.