256GB MacBook Air actual storage capacity?

[Kurso]

An ordinary hdd does the same thing: the more you use it, the lesser its lifespan will get and the slower it'll become. It's part of the normal wear and tear which every component in a computer has. In case of an ssd controller failure is far more likely to happen. Those flash drives in the MacBook Air/Pro Retina (and similar devices) will be replaced sooner because people buy newer computers sooner. All in all...don't worry about it

They are fundamentally different failure scenarios. It is not at all the same thing.

 

[dyn]

They are fundamentally different failure scenarios. It is not at all the same thing.

If you are talking about filling up a disk and writing to it than no, it is the same thing (there have been problems with certain laptop hdds with linux where the max amount of writes to them was reached and the drive failed, this was discussed on a Dutch tech forum for example). If you are talking about controller failure vs NAND lifespan than yes, it is a completely different thing.

However, all these problems are at a nano scale and therefore nothing but nit-picking (as said by Newtons Apple). Get your priorities and risk assessment straight!

 

[Kurso]

If you are talking about filling up a disk and writing to it than no, it is the same thing (there have been problems with certain laptop hdds with linux where the max amount of writes to them was reached and the drive failed, this was discussed on a Dutch tech forum for example). If you are talking about controller failure vs NAND lifespan than yes, it is a completely different thing.

However, all these problems are at a nano scale and therefore nothing but nit-picking (as said by Newtons Apple). Get your priorities and risk assessment straight!

With an SSD reaching capacity a write can reduce the lifespan of cells that unrelated to the page being written. With magnetic media this is not the case. A region can be written completely independently from ant other region.

It is fundamentally a different problem. Please don't spread misinformation.

Also, link to the Dutch tech forum thread please...

 

[dyn]

Now you are looking even smaller than nano scale (which is why you are missing the point completely). Anyway, you need to do some homework concerning how disks work and how certain materials work. It is quite simple: the more you use something, the higher the wear and tear will be and thus the sooner it will fail. The other thread is something that'll take time (busy forum, topic may have been a few years back, my memory doesn't go as far as knowing when and where exactly).

This is highly off topic and I strongly suggest getting back on topic. No matter the wording or how things work at nano scale has it to do with the question in the topic start!

Edit: did not find the Dutch thread but I did find something else that shows the problem (it's even on the Wikipedia article about SMART): How to reduce power consumption: Hard Drives. This is caused by the nature of how Linux writes things to disk from time to time. In quite a lot of cases it reduces the lifespan of the drive to max 1 year.

So there you go: same problem as with an ssd: writing to it too many times will make it fail. Mind you, I never said they failed exactly the same. That would be impossible since an electrical devices behaves differently than a mechanical/magnetic one That's what you get when you are stuck in nano scale mode: assumptions that are wrong.

 

[Kurso]

Now you are looking even smaller than nano scale (which is why you are missing the point completely). Anyway, you need to do some homework concerning how disks work and how certain materials work. It is quite simple: the more you use something, the higher the wear and tear will be and thus the sooner it will fail. The other thread is something that'll take time (busy forum, topic may have been a few years back, my memory doesn't go as far as knowing when and where exactly).

This is highly off topic and I strongly suggest getting back on topic. No matter the wording or how things work at nano scale has it to do with the question in the topic start!

Edit: did not find the Dutch thread but I did find something else that shows the problem (it's even on the Wikipedia article about SMART): How to reduce power consumption: Hard Drives. This is caused by the nature of how Linux writes things to disk from time to time. In quite a lot of cases it reduces the lifespan of the drive to max 1 year.

So there you go: same problem as with an ssd: writing to it too many times will make it fail. Mind you, I never said they failed exactly the same. That would be impossible since an electrical devices behaves differently than a mechanical/magnetic one That's what you get when you are stuck in nano scale mode: assumptions that are wrong.

First off, the link you provided has nothing to do with writes causing failures. In fact, it suggest YOU have no idea how this stuff works.

Secondly, you specifically said:

If you are talking about filling up a disk and writing to it than no, it is the same thing

With 100% certainty it is not the same thing. The wiki entry (not an article but I'll let it slide) you linked discussed adjusting the park rate to reduce power consumption... If you want to get back on topic stop linking unrelated junk.

I suggest you go re-read the thread and come back if/when you have something to add that is based in fact.

 

[Traverse]

I'm sure running an SSD at near full capacity has some affect on performance or life, but current life spans of modern technology I don't think you'll have a breakdown in 6 months. I think a 90% full SSD will last for years, though it may slow down. I know that I'm not going to pay for large SSD and then stop at 70% capacity. Though I wouldn't go over 90% just for the sake of system/app caches etc.

 

[dyn]

First off, the link you provided has nothing to do with writes causing failures. In fact, it suggest YOU have no idea how this stuff works.

What it shows is that you have entered a discussion that is way over your head and/or you haven't even bothered reading the article.

Linux (and nearly every other unix system or similar out there) will use memory as a cache. From time to time it will write the contents from memory to disk. This is why you have to mount and unmount disks. On those laptop disks there is a mechanism that is only build to last for x amount of writes. The way Linux works with its filesystems means that it will write a lot of times to disk and that causes the timer to countdown to 0 quickly. When it is at 0 the disk is broken and you'll receive failure notices. Windows works differently and doesn't expose this behaviour. That's why there is no problem with these disks when using Windows.

With 100% certainty it is not the same thing. The wiki entry (not an article but I'll let it slide) you linked discussed adjusting the park rate to reduce power consumption... If you want to get back on topic stop linking unrelated junk.

It is the exact same thing. What you are doing here is not understanding the difference between functionally the same and technically the same. You are making a very dangerous assumption. Functionally both an ssd and an hdd will fail when there are too many writes to the disk. Technically there are differences but even there one could argue that it is the same. Both an ssd and an hdd will fail when they wear out. Writing a lot to disk will increase wear and thus lead to a shorter lifespan. The article I linked to discusses another technical difference.

It is for the better if you stop posting here since the only thing you are doing is trolling and dragging the discussion into the realm of offtopic. Either that or start being helpful.

 

[Kurso]

What it shows is that you have entered a discussion that is way over your head and/or you haven't even bothered reading the article.

Wow... I once had a VC tell me I wasted time getting my PhD but somehow I think he was speaking of something differently. But your personal attacks speak volumes regarding your credibility.

Linux (and nearly every other unix system or similar out there) will use memory as a cache.

Pretty fundamental to computer science, not just Unix.

From time to time it will write the contents from memory to disk. This is why you have to mount and unmount disks.

I assume you are speaking about virtual memory, which had NOTHING to do with the reason you mount or unmount a disk.

On those laptop disks there is a mechanism that is only build to last for x amount of writes. The way Linux works with its filesystems means that it will write a lot of times to disk and that causes the timer to countdown to 0 quickly. When it is at 0 the disk is broken and you'll receive failure notices. Windows works differently and doesn't expose this behaviour. That's why there is no problem with these disks when using Windows.

Based on your location I assume english is a second language so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here but... WTF are you talking about?

It is the exact same thing. What you are doing here is not understanding the difference between functionally the same and technically the same. You are making a very dangerous assumption. Functionally both an ssd and an hdd will fail when there are too many writes to the disk. Technically there are differences but even there one could argue that it is the same. Both an ssd and an hdd will fail when they wear out. Writing a lot to disk will increase wear and thus lead to a shorter lifespan. The article I linked to discusses another technical difference.

Again... english may be getting in the way here but if I toss one drive off a building and another dies simply fails on use both are technically and functionally dead...

Now, the CAUSE of the failure is fundamentally different. Do you understand the difference?

It is for the better if you stop posting here since the only thing you are doing is trolling and dragging the discussion into the realm of offtopic. Either that or start being helpful.

In fact I'm trying to keep the thread on track which, in part, was about the reason SSD lifespan is reduced as the drive reaches capacity. What is it that you are doing expect spreading dubious technical mumbo jumbo?

 

[dyn]

The thread is about what actual storage capacity is available to the user, not what Apple advertises. Lifespan has nothing to do with that nor do things like amount of writes, the SI system however does. The first page of the topic pretty much answers the question and since you can't contain yourself it might be better if a mod closes it.

 

[Kurso]

Perfect! And I described in technical detail why staying below the usable capacity will increase SSD lifespan (which does not apply to HDD) and the technical characteristic of NAND that are fundamentally different than magnetic media that cause this. Both applicable to the thread.

You have added zero to the discussion except bogus claims.

 

[donlab]

Thank you, flowrider spokesperson.

Please quote your source for this information or is this just your opinion?

Hi munchkin, storage engineer here.

Flow is mostly right. Typically you see most SSDs over provisioned for this reason. If you buy a machine that has a drive that isn't over provisioned like the one in MBA you should leave at least 6% to 10% free for housekeeping and longevity. Here's a tidbit from samsung.

http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...isite/SSD/global/html/about/whitepaper05.html

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
I think this thread is off the rails. Closing.