# SSD--What is the difference between MLC and SLC



## Duffman (Jan 21, 2010)

Is one better than the other?

I read somewhere that one is better for an OS because it is limited in the ultimate number of writes it can perform.

I'm looking at getting one for my OS and using my 4 500tb drives as storate (currently running them in RAID 10 or 0+1)

even now, that setup is the slowest part of my system.  My i7 setup has been ordered and i want to get the most out of it.

For reference, I have the following on the way:

evga Classified 760 mobo
Xenon W3520
Corsair 1600 Dominator GT DDR3 mem
Asus 5870


----------



## DanishDevil (Jan 21, 2010)

First Googled link:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3036991&postcount=1

Looks well-written. Definitely something to look into before buying and SSD. Kudos to you doing your research!


----------



## trooper001 (Jan 21, 2010)

Eventhough I'm not in the market for a SSD (yet), that was a good read. Thank you DD.


----------



## Duffman (Jan 21, 2010)

Definately.  From that, I don't know if it is justifiable for the average consumer to go SLC.

Also found this link:
http://www2.electronicproducts.com/MLC_and_SLC_NAND_flash_design_tradeoffs-article-FAJH_Toshiba_Sep2008-html.aspx


----------



## Carl2 (Jan 22, 2010)

HP has a white paper on SSD's after reading it I'd say MCL is the way to go, most manufacturers have a fairly long warrenty on the drives.  
Carl2


----------



## Duffman (Jan 23, 2010)

Yep, from what i've read so far, most MLC drives will be good for at least 7-10 years.  SLC upwards of 40 years


----------



## Loosenut (Jan 23, 2010)

Before going raid 0 with my Caviar Blacks, I had an SSD. Patriot Warp 64Gb ver1. It was SLC and man, it rocked. I'm currently trying to organize my funds and go raid 0 with a couple of 256Gb SSD. Hopefully soon


----------



## Duffman (Jan 23, 2010)

even though i have my data (mp3's mostly) backed up on an extrnal, i decided to switch to raid 10 for safety.


----------



## Carl2 (Jan 25, 2010)

At this time I just put in 2 Samsung hard drive in a raid 0 volume, grtting good read and write speeds but to me the performance is about the same.  I'm doing some research on SSD for the future.  I pulled up a couple of links:  http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=736 and http://www.wdc.com/WDProducts/SSD/whitepapers/en/NAND_Evolution_0812.pdf.
  Also Hp has a white paper on SSD.
  A quick summary: MLC is mutilayered cell,  The cell can store more than one piece of data,  This slows down the write speeds.  
    SLC is single layered cell,  Read and writes will be about the same.  There is also a difference in meantime before failure, sorry can't remember which is which, 1 Milion vs 2 Milion hours.
Carl2


----------



## Loosenut (Jan 25, 2010)

SLC is the better of the two. The reason most manufacturers are going MLC is because SLC are way more expensive to manufacture but last nearly twice as long if not more. The MLC can store 4 bits of info (as opposed to SLC's one bit per cell) but if one of those bits gets screwed, you lose the other three also.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 25, 2010)

The MTBF in hours is totally retarded for SSD's. You can have them idling there for 5 decades or writing like crazy for 1 year. And they would wear out in a very different way.
Hours measurement is only valid for classic HDD's because their platters spin even when they aren't doing anything. Opposed to SSD's that don't do that.


----------

