96 writes to a sector per day with a limitation of 300,000 writes yields about 10 years of usage, so I say it's a non-issue.
However, I will concede on the other points, you've definitely done your homework. Good to see people here with a real background and enthusiasm for technology. I usually have to spell everything out, it's good to see some people here just "get it" without further explanation.
You're right about wear leveling, it has a maximum potential of prolonging the life of about 15% of the media, doesn't really do much. If you'd push it to it's limits anyway, 15% is nothing, if you wouldn't it doesn't matter. It really is a marketing word more than a technology, so I'll agree with that.
Quote:
|
What a stupid statement.... of course they are contiguous.....
|
Okay, you got me. Bits within a sector are, sectors on a disk may not be, but it doesn't read sectors in one rotation, it reads bits. Logical clusterfuck on my part. Statement retracted.
Quote:
|
This isnt software, this is hardware....
|
Yes, the controller handles much of the basic functions where as SATA does not, so SATA compensates in software resulting in the higher system overhead I mentioned. That isn't to say either have disk keeping routines that function totally independent of software, however, a server with a SCSI array is likely running linux and support exists inherently there. I should have elaborated, but.... okay, I'll shut up.