Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
Thread started 28 Feb 2012 (Tuesday) 13:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Shortenning SSD Life by Defragging?

 
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 28, 2012 13:27 |  #1

I recently began using a defragging program called Defraggler, and when I started to defrag my boot drive which is an SSD it stated the warning that it may shorten its life. I received no such warning when I defragged my conventional spin drive.

Is there something about SSD's that makes them susceptible to damage or wear through the defragmentation process?


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rpaul
Senior Member
631 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2011
Location: BC NJ
     
Feb 28, 2012 13:29 |  #2

Please, please don't defrag your SSD. They are not like spinny hard drives, where the physical position of the data matters. Defragging SSDs just creates unnecessary writes that reduces the lifespan of the drive.


Rob | rmpaul.com (external link)
Gear 'n Stuff (external link)
C&C always welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Feb 28, 2012 13:47 |  #3

Don't defrag your SSD, it's unnecesary. SSDs wear out with writes so a defrag shortens its life.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Feb 28, 2012 13:49 |  #4

rpaul wrote in post #13984323 (external link)
Please, please don't defrag your SSD. They are not like spinny hard drives, where the physical position of the data matters. Defragging SSDs just creates unnecessary writes that reduces the lifespan of the drive.

I knew there was the physcial difference, but I was unclear on the concept of unnecessary writes. I take it the "write medium" is significantly from the magnetic media of conventional drives? Thanks for the advice Rob - you too Tim ;)


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rpaul
Senior Member
631 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2011
Location: BC NJ
     
Feb 28, 2012 14:06 |  #5

Basically, SSD's are made up of lots of flash memory cells, which wear out after many thousands of writes. (This happens to all flash memory.) While the drives will still last for years under normal usage, defragging adds lots of unnecessary writes as it shuffles the data around the drive without creating any benefit, since SSD's don't have to physically "seek" the same way spinny HDD's do.


Rob | rmpaul.com (external link)
Gear 'n Stuff (external link)
C&C always welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 01, 2012 05:44 |  #6

There are two good reasons why you shouldn't defrag your SSD.

1. It will reduce the lifespan of the drive. As Rob said, the memory cells can only be written to a limited number of times.

2. It's pointless. Your SSD deliberately fragments the data that it writes to the drive. You don't want the same sets of memory cells being used all the time (because they'll wear out quickly). So the drive controller spreads the data over all of the cells - it's called wear levelling.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 01, 2012 08:17 |  #7

hollis_f wrote in post #13995935 (external link)
There are two good reasons why you shouldn't defrag your SSD.

1. It will reduce the lifespan of the drive. As Rob said, the memory cells can only be written to a limited number of times.

2. It's pointless. Your SSD deliberately fragments the data that it writes to the drive. You don't want the same sets of memory cells being used all the time (because they'll wear out quickly). So the drive controller spreads the data over all of the cells - it's called wear levelling.

Thanks for that explanation Frank - gives me better insight into the tech. I had a general awareness but that fleshes it out.

I wonder how similar/different those memory cells are to the structure of our CF and SD cards? We constantly write to, erase and format those little things, and the better ones are supposed to last for years.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,313 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 717
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Mar 01, 2012 08:21 |  #8

Interesting. I never knew this but it makes total sense.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Facebook (external link) | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 01, 2012 08:51 |  #9

CameraMan wrote in post #13996432 (external link)
Interesting. I never knew this but it makes total sense.

I wonder if the SSD's controller and operating system (?) mark of bad sectors or their equivalent (as on a conventional drive) when these cells go bad or become unreliable. I'm sure it must communicate in some fashion: "Don't write data right here......"


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 01, 2012 09:09 |  #10

sapearl wrote in post #13996417 (external link)
I wonder how similar/different those memory cells are to the structure of our CF and SD cards? We constantly write to, erase and format those little things, and the better ones are supposed to last for years.

They are very similar. CF cards have the same problem with limited read/erase cycles, and they use the same wear levelling technique to even out the wear. You'll sometimes read posts from people giving advice on how one should try to minimise that wear, but they're normally a load of old tosh. Here's why...

Most of the memory used for CF cards can handle something like 10,000 write/erase cycles. So a 16GB card can handle about 160TB before it starts to wear out. That's 160,000,000 megabytes. If each of your raw images is 25MB then you can write 64 million images to your card. If you shoot 1000 images per day, every day, then your card will wear out after about 175 years!


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 01, 2012 09:11 |  #11

sapearl wrote in post #13996596 (external link)
I wonder if the SSD's controller and operating system (?) mark of bad sectors or their equivalent (as on a conventional drive) when these cells go bad or become unreliable. I'm sure it must communicate in some fashion: "Don't write data right here......"

Yes, it does.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pit
Senior Member
289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: New York, NY
     
Mar 01, 2012 11:56 |  #12

Not only that, it also has spare or over provisioned memory sectors that are there to replace the failed blocks.

hollis_f wrote in post #13996716 (external link)
Yes, it does.


Canon EOS 6D, Canon 24-70mm 2.8 Mk I, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MK II, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, 600EX-RT, 430EX II, 430EX, Transceivers, Bags, Tripods, Cables, Trigger Trap.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 01, 2012 13:25 |  #13

Pit wrote in post #13998016 (external link)
Not only that, it also has spare or over provisioned memory sectors that are there to replace the failed blocks.

Well now THAT'S interesting.

Do we know if this "spare" amount is included the spec of the drive? What I mean is, if I purchase a drive that claims to be 256GB is there really xx% more drive space above and beyond that to allow for future failed cels?


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 01, 2012 13:31 |  #14

My 300GB Intel SSD is 300,066,406,400 bytes according to Windows.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 01, 2012 13:37 |  #15

hollis_f wrote in post #13998711 (external link)
My 300GB Intel SSD is 300,066,406,400 bytes according to Windows.

So basically then Frank, it is what it is just as is the case with conventional disks ;).

We buy disks at XXXGB, and realistically over the life of the disk a certain percentage of sectors will go bad on average. On long-lived disks/storage devices that survive healthy for years, I don't imagine this is a large number because if it is then they simply crash or fail. So I guess the moral of the story is always to buy more than what you think you need.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,307 views & 0 likes for this thread
Shortenning SSD Life by Defragging?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jwinslow7
854 guests, 398 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.