Why do SSDs have a more limited number of times data can be written to them, but RAM memory can handle loads of re-writes?
Why do SSDs have a more limited number of times data can be written to them, but RAM memory can handle loads of re-writes?
In a similar vein, why can we not use the technology of RAM to prolong the life-cycle of an SSD?
Writing to an SSD damages the SSD, however things saved to an SSD are persistent, meaning the data isn't lost when the SSD doesn't get any power. Writing to RAM doesn't damage it and it is also quicker. However, data saved on RAM is not persistent, meaning that all data is lost as soon as the RAM is not connected to a power source. Also, RAM is a lot more expensive than SSD storage.
RAMs are already used to avoid writing to (or reading from) the SSD or HDD when possible, the concept is called "Caching"
Even if it's powered, RAM will lose its data on the order of a tenth of a second. RAM doesn't just require power, it requires that your computer constantly read and rewrite it - so every 64ms your computer has to read every gigabyte of RAM and write it back.
Doesn't the ram do that itself? Otherwise reading/writing all that data would waste tons of time for the CPU.
Slightly misleading, the DRAM chips do that themselves so the kernel doesn't have to do that.
What!
If I remember, the decay of information in RAM is slower than that. This is an old memory, but I recall I think someone on TechTV talking about how you could, if fast enough, remove a module from one machine and put it in another, and if done right, potentially get the information off it.
Note that when you freeze the RAM a lot, it will hold the data for up to seconds (if I remember correctly). This is used in hacking - you can get the contents of the RAM after the computer has been shutdown.