SSD Drive Life

[semo]

Just a question:
If we assume that the Sandforce controller do, on average, a write amplification of 1; it had 120GB, and it's NAND can do 2500 cycles, would it mean that I could write in it about 300.000GB before it failed? Or about 105GB per day in 8 years?

I think that's the theory. In practice, it is more likely that either the controller will die, the solder joints will crack or another manufacturing defect will kill the drive before the memory cells die in massive numbers. If somehow your memory cells start to die due to "wear and tear", then you will start noticing the drive capacity shrink rapidly rather than die instantly (something like an avalanche effect).

 

[IntelUser2000]

Just a question:
If we assume that the Sandforce controller do, on average, a write amplification of 1; it had 120GB, and it's NAND can do 2500 cycles, would it mean that I could write in it about 300.000GB before it failed? Or about 105GB per day in 8 years?

It's not just about write amplification, something else prevents it from being capacity x cycles, rather capacity x (some fraction of a number) x cycles. That's why I gave you the example of in a 100% sequential write which should equal write amplification of 1 has less than 50% of lifespan.

 

[Voo]

In theory=160GB x 5000 cyles = 800TB

In reality=(160GB is 149GB usable GB) x 5000 cycles = 745TB but the actual lifespan is claimed to be 370TB so the controller can only manage half before it dies out

I'd think Intel prefers to stay on the safe side. Even if their engineers thought 600TB was a more realistic result, why risk anything when 370TB sounds just as impressive (hardly doubt I wrote more than 60tb to any of my drives) and gives you a nice safety net?