Toshiba Introduces MacBook Air 'Blade-Type' SSDs to Mass Market

[ten-oak-druid]

...

 

[AidenShaw]

I would think the failure rate would be less for SSD than HD.

Lower than a spinning drive, but with RAID 0 it's still much higher than for a single SSD.

As for RAID, I like the idea of RAID mirroring.

I'd think that it should be possible to do something cheaper than RAID-1 - which would at least double the cost of storage.

Spinning drives have failure modes where huge extents of storage can fail, as well as failures at the sector level. Any mechanical failure can be potentially catastrophic.

My assumption would be that SSD failures larger than a page would be quite rare, so that extended ECC or RAID-5 type techniques internal to a single SSD could give reliability similar to external RAID-1 mirrors.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Lower than a spinning drive, but with RAID 0 it's still much higher than for a single SSD.




I'd think that it should be possible to do something cheaper than RAID-1 - which would at least double the cost of storage.

Spinning drives have failure modes where huge extents of storage can fail, as well as failures at the sector level. Any mechanical failure can be potentially catastrophic.

My assumption would be that SSD failures larger than a page would be quite rare, so that extended ECC or RAID-5 type techniques internal to a single SSD could give reliability similar to external RAID-1 mirrors.

But with all else being equal, the time machine (or traditional parallel RAID) is built in with multiple SSD configuration. That is convenient in my opinion. Plus an external tertiary time machine could be set up.

And I have to say I don't buy this equal failure rate between HD and SSD. SSD would be less likely to fail due to shock from dropping (no moving parts) and that would be a bonus for a portable computer.

But again this is all waiting for the day when TB SSD is affordable and easily available.


***********
"In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel over what I considered to be an odd number."
- Steven Wright

 

[beebler]

Next Macbook Pro = current Macbook Pro + deleted optical drive + blade-type SSD + much more battery in the extra space + USB 3.0 and Light Peak = me gusta

The next Macbook Pro will just be an upgrade of the current one. The one after that will be the refreshed version in about a year.

I think they'd make it thinner before filling the empty space.

 

[doctor-don]

FWIW, 1.5 mm is about the thickness of two credit cards or two (or three) mechanical pencil leads since they are 0.7 (or 0.5) mm leads.

And WHY does the volume of the notebook computer matter? The only dimensions / specs that are important are length, width, thickness, and weight.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

FWIW, 1.5 mm is about the thickness of two credit cards or two (or three) mechanical pencil leads since they are 0.7 (or 0.5) mm leads.

And WHY does the volume of the notebook computer matter? The only dimensions / specs that are important are length, width, thickness, and weight.

The volume is the length, width and thickness all together.

If you decrease just one dimension by 15%, the volume decreases by that much. If you start with 1cm thickness and decrease by 1.5mm, that is 15%.

You carry the volume around, not just one dimension. UPS or Fed Ex can probably explain it well.

 

[doctor-don]

The volume is the length, width and thickness all together.

If you decrease just one dimension by 15%, the volume decreases by that much. If you start with 1cm thickness and decrease by 1.5mm, that is 15%.

You carry the volume around, not just one dimension. UPS or Fed Ex can probably explain it well.

MULTIPLIED together. Here 15% makes little difference.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

MULTIPLIED together. Here 15% makes little difference.

Are you serious? If you you decrease one dimension by 1.5mm and that dimension is only 1cm thick to begin with, the percent decrease in the volume is greater than if the one dimension was greater to begin with (say 2cm). Since that one dimension is already small, a small decrease is more significant.

If the thickness were 1mm to begin with then a decrease in thickness and volume of 0.15mm would be significant.

I think you or someone said it is only the thickness of a credit card. Well if took one card out of a stack of 100 it would be hardly noticeable but take one out of a stack of 10 and both the one dimension and the overall volume change is significant.

 

[doctor-don]

Are you serious? If you you decrease one dimension by 1.5mm and that dimension is only 1cm thick to begin with, the percent decrease in the volume is greater than if the one dimension was greater to begin with (say 2cm). Since that one dimension is already small, a small decrease is more significant.

If the thickness were 1mm to begin with then a decrease in thickness and volume of 0.15mm would be significant.

I think you or someone said it is only the thickness of a credit card. Well if took one card out of a stack of 100 it would be hardly noticeable but take one out of a stack of 10 and both the one dimension and the overall volume change is significant.

Your idea of significant is weird. It makes little difference to anyone but the manufacturer (who is concerned about such details and will scrimp on solder to lower those costs to the point of making a product that is more susceptible to vibration) how much material is used to produce the product. Consumers are not about to select one notebook over another because it is 1 mm thinner.

 

[frankly]

Your idea of significant is weird. It makes little difference to anyone but the manufacturer (who is concerned about such details and will scrimp on solder to lower those costs to the point of making a product that is more susceptible to vibration) how much material is used to produce the product. Consumers are not about to select one notebook over another because it is 1 mm thinner.

I don't think that was the question at all. I don't think he was debating whether or not it was the right decision to make it thinner, just that the memory probably won't fit because it is significantly thinner.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

I don't think that was the question at all. I don't think he was debating whether or not it was the right decision to make it thinner, just that the memory probably won't fit because it is significantly thinner.

That was my point. The volume change and thickness change are closely related here because the dimension being decreased is the shortest of the three. I actually misspoke before saying the percentage decrease in volume is the same as the percentage decrease in the one dimension if only one changes. I meant to say a decrease in the smallest of the three dimensions decreases the volume by a greater percentage than would be the case for the other two dimensions being decreased. The percentage decrease was the same in my example because I started with a value of "1".

The overall volume is perceived as decreasing as is the thickness. Removing a small amount off of the shortest dimension is very noticeable while removing the same off larger dimensions is not. If an object is homogenous then of course a greater mass is removed when more volume is removed. A computer is not homogeneous; but of course shrinking down the case volume would occur because the heavier interior parts are now smaller (or fewer) and so lighter. Tat probably has a greater affect on the mass than the reduced amount of case material.

 

[blue22]

The next Macbook Pro will just be an upgrade of the current one. The one after that will be the refreshed version in about a year.

So, curiously, in your estimation will the "refreshed" MBP feature Sandy Bridge or will SB debut sooner that that as an "upgrade of the current one"?