Interesting article on Air flash degradation...

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by TheRealDamager, Feb 7, 2011.

  1. TheRealDamager macrumors 65816

    Jan 5, 2011
  2. Hellhammer Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 10, 2008
    Thanks for the heads up. Looks like Apple has really worked on the firmware to make it that good. All this crying about the lack of TRIM seem to be history now.
  3. jamesryanbell macrumors 68020


    Mar 17, 2009
    "Those 'in the know' understand that TRIM doesn't matter anymore for anything new running OSX".
  4. KPOM macrumors G5

    Oct 23, 2010
    It would be interesting to see how the MacBook Airs with the new Samsung drives compare to the ones with the Toshiba drives.
  5. nowstime macrumors regular

    Jul 2, 2008
    Yep...this is the article made me jump for the Macbook Air recently. Thanks for posting...
  6. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Aug 3, 2009
    Hows that different from the OWC Sandforce based benchmarks?
  7. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Aug 3, 2009
    The technology they are using is in the firmware, so that means it applies to any OS, not just OS X. TRIM is ment to be a level above that to help even more.
  8. ecib macrumors regular


    Jan 4, 2011
    From the forums of the article cited:

    "Don't the manufacturers of Flash storage cite very high numbers of writes to a given block, before the cells start getting flaky? Any reason to think that these tests came anywhere close to that level? Since there are no "faster tracks" on a SSD, the OS (or better, drive firmware) simply has to always write to the least-recently-used block and map it to wherever it supposedly is, and you now have very few hot spots that would have crossed the over-use threshold of the devices.

    If modern SSD controllers are half as smart as they should be, your tests came nowhere close to being stress tests of the storage itself."

    This poster pretty much summed up what I was wondering. As I understood it, it was not the fact that *all* cells could be written X times without degradation, but that *individual* cells could only be written X times without degradation. I am by absolutely no means an expert, but as I understood the critique of flash memory's degradation, this test failed to address what was cited as the weakness.

    That being said, I have a new maxed out MBA, and I am in no way worried about memory degradation, -I'm certain I will have a new computer long before this ever becomes an issue, but it seems to me at a glance that this stress test wasn't designed to test the alleged shortcomings of flash memory as they were defined.
  9. PeckhamBog macrumors 6502


    Nov 28, 2007
    But what happened to the 128 GB Air? Was the fault ever discovered?

Share This Page