> When one cell is read in the vertical stack, the interferences produced by the traces in the area increases the cells that need to be rewritten, what consumes the life of the device, by design.
You should try being honest about the magnitude of this effect. It takes thousands of read operations at a minimum to cause a read disturb that can be fixed with one write. What you're complaining about is the NAND equivalent of DRAM rowhammer. It's not a serious problem in practice.
Not NAND equivalent as the larger the stack, the larger the writings on the continuous cells, not just rewriting a single cell.
Here, the dishonest are the SSD manufacturers of the last decade, and they are feeling so comfortable as to introduce QLC into the market.
> It's not a serious problem in practice.
It's as serious as in to read data consume the disk, and the faster its read the faster it's consumed [0]. You should have noticed that SSD disks no longer come with a 10-year warranty.
"under low throughput read-only workloads, SSD-A/-B/-C/-D/-E/-F extensively rewrite the potentially-disturbed data in the background, to mitigate the read (disturbance) induced latency problem and sustain a good read performance. Such rewrites significantly consume the already-reduced SSD lifetime. "
Under low throughput read-only workloads.
It is a paper from 2021, what means sci-hub can be used to read it.
> It's as serious as in to read data consume the disk, and the faster its read the faster is consumed
Numbers, please. Quantify that or GTFO. You keep quoting stuff that implies SSDs are horrifically unreliable and burning through their write endurance alarmingly fast. But the reality is that even consumer PCs with cheap SSDs are not experiencing an epidemic of premature SSD failures.
EDIT:
> You should have noticed that SSD disks no longer come with a 10-year warranty.
10-year warranties were never common for SSDs. There was a brief span of time where the flagship consumer SSDs from Samsung and SanDisk had 10-year warranties because they were trying to one-up each other and couldn't improve performance any further because they had saturated what SATA was capable of. The fact that those 10-year warranties existed for a while and then went away says nothing about trends in the true reliability of the storage. SSD warranties and write endurance ratings are dictated primarily by marketing requirements.
"So, on page 8's graphs, they show that 800GB-3800GB 3D-TLC SSDs had a very low "total drive failure" rate. But as soon as you got to 8000GB and 15000GB, the drives had a MASSIVE increase in risk that the entire drive has hardware errors and dies, becomes non-responsive, etc."
Would you care to explain how any of that supports the points you're actually making here?
Some of what you're spamming seems to directly undermine your claims, eg.:
> Another finding is that SLC (single level cell), the most costly drives, are NOT more reliable than MLC drives. And while the newest high density 3D-TLC (triple level cell) drives have the highest overall replacement rate, the difference is likely not caused by the 3D-TLC technology
"The last column in Table 1 allows a comparison of ARRs across flash types. A cursory study of the numbers indicates generally higher replacement rates for 3D-TLC devices compared to the other flash types. Also, we observe that 3D-TLC drives have consumed 10-15X more of their spare blocks."
Latter follows
"we observe that SLC models are not generally more reliable than eMLC models that are comparable in age and capacity. For example, when we look at the ARR column of Table 1, we observe that SLC models have similar replacement rates to two eMLC models with comparable capacities [...] This is consistent with the results in a field study based on drives in Google’s data centers [29], which does not find SLC drives to have consistently lower replacement rates than MLC drives either. Considering that the lithography between SLC and MLC drives can be identical, their main difference is the way cells are programmed internally, suggesting that controller reliability can be a dominant factor."
What certainly follows,
"Overall, the highest replacement rates in our study are associated with 3D-TLC SSDs. However, no single flash type has noticeably higher replacement rates than the other flash types studied in this work, indicating that other factors, such as capacity or lithography, can have a bigger impact on reliability."
So programmed obsolescence is present in the drivers, as well as in the 3D-NAND that degrades over time with reads (the chosen traces design, not the layers themselves). Interesting.
China, are you reading this? You have the opportunity to shake the market and dominate it globally, just by implementing a well-designed product, honest drivers and modest nm (not lowering to today's sizes, just enough to ensure decent energetic efficiency and good speed).
You should try being honest about the magnitude of this effect. It takes thousands of read operations at a minimum to cause a read disturb that can be fixed with one write. What you're complaining about is the NAND equivalent of DRAM rowhammer. It's not a serious problem in practice.