Question do frequent partition restores wear down an SSD?

[swapjim]

Every couple of months I restore my Windows installation with ntfsclone. It's a command line Linux utility similar to dd or ddrescue, only that it specializes in NTFS partitions. It's included in Clonezilla.

My question is, will doing this every 2 months wear down the drive?

If you're unfamiliar with ntfsclone, dd, ddrescue, or Clonezilla, but you have knowledge of another partition restore utility, like Acronis, then you can answer about that.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Don't forget, they do live up to the claims in the DIMM version. The 256GB version has 500PB rating for writes, which means 5 years writes at maximum speed 24/7, and Intel has said it'll go way beyond that.

The DIMM version also has 200-400ns latency which is 500x lower than SSDs. It's the SSD versions that are hobbled.

OMG! I didn't know that. Why the hell didn't they ever release an SSD version of that for gamers??? Just imagine this as a caching drive. Even just 32GB of this would make even QLC drives shine with best in class performance.

 

[IntelUser2000]

OMG! I didn't know that. Why the hell didn't they ever release an SSD version of that for gamers??? Just imagine this as a caching drive. Even just 32GB of this would make even QLC drives shine with best in class performance.

You need it to be on the DIMM slot, which means it's no longer an SSD. Also I suspect Intel is having technical problems making it work outside of their server platform.

The software/hardcore protocol of NVMe sets lower ceiling on latency which is about 4us. That's why you see Optane latency ranging from 4 to 10us. NAND SSDs are at 80-100us.

The Optane PMMs are complements to DRAM so it needs to be super fast and have really good lifespan.

I do hope the PMMs come on the client side in the future. The 128GB went for $600. I think $300 for that could work.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Even just 32GB of this would make even QLC drives shine with best in class performance.

Intel should have used the Memory Drive software on client rather than on the enterprise version - period. Then calling it Optane "Memory" would have made sense.

Big companies' make questionable decisions to save pennies, which end up doing the opposite.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Big companies' make questionable decisions to save pennies, which end up doing the opposite.

Totally agree. Intel shot itself in the foot in almost every Optane related decision and they probably wonder why it never took off for mainstream use.