When I first read the title,

Submitted by Stomper88 on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 12:56pm

When I first read the title, I fully expected it to somehow reference the fact that servers could use SSD and enjoy the increased durability.  I know enterprise servers have drive failures relatively often which is why they are run in redundant raid arrays to prevent data loss when they fail.  I figured using SSD would reduce the long term cost of drive replacement for them.

 

Login or register to post comments

Critical analysis is more complex than merely being critical

Submitted by TheJosher on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 3:42am

To the first commenter:

The cost to repair is more than just the part. Consider the down time experienced by the individual whose hard drive crashed. Consider the data loss that may have occured and the cost of recovery, especially at firms that deal with intellectual data, with users that don't necessarily use the company servers. Next, consider the amount of time it takes you to order the new drive and replace the old drive. All this time the workstation's person can't work. There is more involved than just the cost of the drive itself.

 To the second commenter:

I couldn't find data on who funded it, but I imagine it was a study funded by J.Gold Associates, LLC. It doesn't seem like a complicated study - pretty much common sense analysis - maybe a day or two worth of research and composition? So not sure how much funding it would have needed. Here is there press release if you want to scour it for more information:

http://www.jgoldassociates.com/Press_Releases/SSD_in_Business_Notebooks_Cost_Benefit_or_Cost_Burden.pdf

Login or register to post comments

So, the study is ssaying

Submitted by big_montana on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 7:30pm

So, the study is ssaying that if you purchase an SSD equipped laptop that the drive will not fail. BS!! Standard drive have a typical life of anywhere from 3 to 5 years depending on usage. Corporations when purchasing new equipment will always purchase a 3 year warranty (as does my company) with their systems, so the study's conclusions about cost saving over 3 years are meaningless. We typically keep out systems for five years before replacing them, and if the drive happens to fail out of warranty a 100GB SATA laptop drive from Tigerdirect runs us only $45. I would love to know how the studies authors arrived at their conclusions and numbers ass they out of line with reality.

Login or register to post comments

Does this study say who paid

Submitted by statewd on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 3:10pm

Does this study say who paid for it?  Did SSD companies pay for this study?  How do we know what data they used to come up with that determination?

Login or register to post comments