Yes but if SSD have a maximum write limit then for media that is only going written once then to be played back multiple times is that such an issue?

And in this ever more simplified world of computing, people shouldn't know how to use them, they should just work. Either (preferably IMO) by being just like current HDDs or (less preferably) by using an OS that know about the SSD.

I know that I tent to write scripts which write a lot of temp files, these are usually to memory, but sometimes large volumes go to the HDD, I wonder if this could be a problem for me.
I'm also doubting the robustness of a SSD under ZFS and other "modern" file systems. I know ZFS does an awful lot of stuff, and a lot of that makes use of writing stuff to disk...

Apologies, when I made my initial statement I was thinking a large amount of the media would be short-lived. Things like TV programs being recorded and such like.

Another compelling reason why I'd use a HDD not an SSD in that situation is simply cost!

And it was intended to just be an arbitary example, with minimal thought put into it. My point was more that, for any storage scenario, there's some media types that are more suitable, or have better compromises, than others.

Does it mean that when it dies (because it WILL DIE) , you lose even more info at once?

See this post on these very forums. Films and TV shows aren't consumed like music is.

Mark

Why does it? I thought this was only true for platter style drives. I thought SSDs were random access.

Nah! You'll just restore it from your backups according to your recovery policy.

Is there any compelling scenario where you are going to write data to a single point on the SSD over a million times in a couple of years? If not then the life of an SSD should be no worse than that of a HDD. Or have I got this wrong?

TBH, I've no idea how they work, but they report a spin speed and what platters/sectors, etc they have to the OS. So if the OS think it's just a regular HDD, you might find it trying to put files together on the disk, causing defragmentation. Modern OS's will probably be OK. But if anyone is hanging onto older OS's (OS 10.4 perhaps, Win XP/Vista) and uses an SSD then you could be screwed I guess...

As already stated more than once in this thread, it depends on usage. It could be the OS that's inefficient, or used inappropriately in certain environments.
On the whole, I'd say you should be fine in day to day usage.
This thread has got me wondering just how many images I've shot on my camera …

Mark

Can you get 'RAID' cameras? Ones that will take two memory cards and mirror them? Could be somewhat useful...Though perhaps only for the most cautious of people...

Mine can do just this.

Mark

Well maybe if you add new tech to old it may have issues but even so I make it sixty writes per hour to get a million in two years. Even XP can't write 60 times an hour continuously to a single point on one disk for two years solid can it? I mean why would it do so?

I am sure.

The danger is (as ever) not backing up. If one believes that SSD is more robust than HDD and as a result don't back up it will end in tears.

CC, if the drive is used in a server environment it could conceivably last a whole lot shorter than two years.

Mark