Talk:Solid state disk

If is not a disk why is it called a Solid state disk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.145.59 (talk • contribs)

Hope your question is now answered... ;-) — Johan the Ghost _seance 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the article underestimates the importance of flash memories -- for example, mobile phones are heavily using flash memory technology, as well as digital cameras.

solid state disk

the content contains too many errors. solid state disks use either flash memory or DRAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sercypie (talk • contribs)

--Flash memory-based disks are already discussed and listed under the "Flash Disk" article. While they technically are solid state disks, just as USB keydrives and RAM disks are also technically solid state disks, they have grown enough in popularity and usage to warrant their own unique category. Either all kinds of solid state storage -- SSDs, key drives, RAM disks, and flash disks -- should be merged into one article, or they should maintain separate categories. And until someone succeeds in lobbying for the removal of the keydrive and the flash disk articles from Wikipedia, it would be inappropriate to duplicate the information in those articles in this one. Given the confusion, however, it is certainly worthwhile to note the relationship between the various memory-based storage articles. LotSolarin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Even though there exists a separate flash disk category, the fact remains that solid state disks (SSD) cover both flash and SDRAM drives. Do not limit "solid state disk" to DRAM because that is erroneous. You can create a separate "DRAM disk" entry if you want to, but solid state disk covers all.

If you check the external references (storagesearch.com) mentioned in the article, you would find that the SSD industry is comprised mostly of flash SSD manufacturers. The DRAM segment is shrinking, and there may come a time that there won't be and DRAM SSDs left, making this entry 100% erroneous.Sercypie

I think the correct title for this article should be Solid State Drive. Solid State Disk seems non-sensical to me. Gus 2006-11-14 13:22 -05:00

Merge discussion

I vote merge. Neither of these articles are very well written, but cover the same material. They should be combined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethwoodworth (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If there were a merger it should go the other way. these devices are solid state DRIVES they do not contain a disk at all, the word disk should be left out and a redirect should be put in place instead. --Dave1g 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the merge tag to suggest the articles should be merged, without stating which one is merged into which other. Rich257 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger of this article into the Solid State Drive article. The term 'disk' is misleading and should not be promoted. SinisterOwl 13:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also support merging of this two enteries. It should notw however the differences betwen ram based drives and flash based drives (and in the future other solid state technologies such as MRAM/PRAM etc.) Iddo

Yes, I too agree on the merging proposal. --Darin-0 15:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write speed

Have there been any hints towards improvements in nonvolatile SSD write speeds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siodine (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge completed

The merge was advertized on one talk page for 3 months (Oct 2006) with no objections, and agreed 5-0 on the other. I have therefore merged them fully.

The final title may need checking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem statement

SSDs based on volatile memory such as SDRAM and are categorized by fast data access, less than 0.01 milliseconds (over 250 times faster than the fastest hard drives in 2004)

The propblem is that the comparison is latency, not read speed, but sounds like "read time per byte" or something. Needs fixing or rewriting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]