Patrick O'Callaghan writes: > On Mon, 2026-07-20 at 06:33 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > > Over 100000 hours, or 11 years, of constant use. Let's revisit this > > topic in > > ten years and see how well all of y'alls SSDs are doing… > > IMO this is not helpful terminology. We know about SSD wear and > eventual degeneration. Calling it a "suicide clock" implies an actual > counter that trips when reaching zero, and I don't think anyone is > saying that that is what happens.
It simply depends on one's point of view. There certainly isn't an explicit, actual counter that anyone can read, that announces how many cycles the storage medium will remain operational for, before it loses its magic smoke. However, something logically equivalent to that does, in fact exist. It's just nobody knows what the suicide clock reads, at any given moment. It's like a quantum particle, you can never tell where it is. But it does exist, this is a fact. SSDs are the only kind of a hardware that I know of that's guaranteed to fail, by the virtue of its design and how it works. I also wouldn't be surprised if someday it'll leak that some manufacturer quietly installed a real, explicit suicide clock in their SSDs. Given that SSds are guaranteed to fail, at some point, nobody would suspect anything odd if after three or five years of uptime the drive starts spewing errors and refusing to power on.
pgpfPWYU1Kf5n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
