Realbeast, you are right that the biggest problem is the writing that data on SSD. Then the writing that data will cause to wearing out SSD faster, right?
So if you change the saving destination like the other HDD, then it will not have any problem because that data does not write on the SSD. that is my point.
Sure but I like to use my SSDs as they will be obsolete long before they wear out. I have an old Intel X25M 80Gb that has around 300Tb of writes to it as it is a Photoshop and Premiere scratch drive and it has years of life ahead of it -- the guys in the test I cited got over 800Tb of writes to theirs.
Wearing out is simply not a real issue for any of the newer drives until hundreds of TB are written, the problem is that with all those large incompressible data writes SandForce drives that use firmware after 3.x don't wear out, they just really slow down and TRIM does not work to fix the problem.
Anyway I have recorded a few games on my SSD, but I don´t think its performance is compromised. However when it is benchmarked, the performance is far away from what Samsung says it could reach in sequential/random write/read.
I will change the recording folder target to one in the HDD tough. The thing is how fast is the sequential writing in the HDD compared to a SDD? Will it be a huge difference?
Yes, it will make a fair difference in recording time, and I would keep using the SSD. You will not wear it out and it has no issues with large sequential non-compressible writes like some other controllers.
The Samsung 830 uses a Samsung controller, not SandForce with its poor TRIM, so you have no worries -- you can record on that SSD and not wear it out for a decade.
The write endurance tests show that your Samsung 830 is incredibly durable and one 64Gb model that has had continuous large writes since May 2011 is still going strong way past the 85Tb of writes that the SMART indicated as its limit.
Yeah, I use an old 80Gb Intel X25-M as a scratch disk for heavy write programs and I've probably written 300Tb and I thought that it might go read only any time now, but the Xtremesystems guys have done over 850Tb on theirs so I figure I'm good for many years to come.
Yes, good new but TRIM is only for let the SSD does not significantly slow down future write operations to the involved blocks, and it can't not provent SSD to wear out. Each time the data write and rewrite on the SSD, then the SSD lifespan will short once.
wait so the SSD's life is based upon the writes but not the reads?
Correct, reads have no affect on the cells, only writes do. The standards that govern these things require that SSDs that are worn out and can no longer write, still allow reads for a significant period of time.
As some of the endurance testing shows, it is much harder to wear out an SSD than initially thought. Of course, some units will vary due to many other issues and you still need to practice good back up procedures.
Data on Flash drives is safe because the bits are stored by electrons locked in a very well isolated layer. These electrons, if present, produce an electric field that can be picked up by a nearby transistor. Since they're locked up, reading out the transistor doesn't affect the electrons. During writes, however, to get the electrons through that layer Flash needs very high voltages. These high voltages cause some damage to the isolation layer, which accrues.
In comparison, DRAM doesn't have such an isolation layer. The electrons move quite easily. As a result, DRAM is faster and doesn't break down from writes, but the leaked electrons frequently need to be replaced. Turn off the power and they're all gone in milliseconds.