Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: How does OS-X behave with a dead SSD ? Date: 28 Nov 2016 20:38:03 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <583b3a29$0$1567$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> <583b85ff$0$10986$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> <271120162032497326%nospam@nospam.invalid> <583b8e6a$0$1431$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com> <583bb468$0$2214$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> <281120160731570932%nospam@nospam.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net z/G57oNunZD4dlaSUx44UwuE6Tnh8TZlaw7ZMHJWZ8ZkNd+poq Cancel-Lock: sha1:S7S9YSeP6T0LAJgcSfAheP4BEoI= Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:97412 On 2016-11-28, nospam wrote: > In article <583bb468$0$2214$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Mezei wrote: > >> >> > as all of them absolutely will eventually. It's definitely not worth my >> > time and trouble to babysit my storage devices in anticipation of some >> > far-off day when they finally fail, >> >> The idea is to know whether you will or will not get any advance warning >> that the SSD has begin to experience cells that have "worn off". > > it didn't warn with bad blocks on a hard drive, so why should it warn > with an ssd, which is significantly more reliable? Because FUD. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR