At the SHARE in Austin last month, several IBM presentations on FlashDrives said that sequential access is still faster on controllers with devices that spin than with FlashDrive. That was what I meant about lower access times.
They also discussed the problem with rewriting into the same byte too many times. That poor byte wears out. FlashDrives are therefore really good for read-only data that is accessed randomly. Bill Fairchild Rocket Software From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Hawkins Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "A foolish consistancy" or "3390 cyl/track architecture" Bill, No moving parts doesn't mean they don't wear out. There's a lot of redundant capacity in those babies to handle cell failures due to writes. This is why you'll see Flashdrive articles talk about "wear leveling" algorithms, and also one of the reasons why you won't see Enterprise Flashdrives on the shelf at Frys. I'm not sure about your access time comments. So far the performance I have seen is very impressive. Can you elaborate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
