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.
