Talk:Static Wear Leveling

Wrong Lemma

Its "levelling", not "leveling" and there is already an article under the lemma Wear levelling. -- Kju (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear "leveling" is acceptable spelling as noted by various dictionaries, though it is recognized that use of consistent spelling is advisable. 68.177.173.34 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs improvement

This article reads like a technical spec. It doesn't summarize or conclude. It also doesn't maintain a neutral tone; it reads much more conversationally than an encyclopedic algorithm. 75.82.133.73 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove

Article is suggested for merge with "Wear leveling". I suggest remove it. It is not good enough. Not on its onw, even less to be merged. It does not begin with a definition. It barely defines the concept anywhere. It describes an abstract implementation from which it is not clear what "static" wear leveling is about, and how it relates to wear leveling in general, or to "dynamic" wear leveling. Further more, most of the external links and references are irrelevant for "static wear leveling" or even "wear leveling". They are about flash memory in general. David A se (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove. Wear levelling does not address the specific and critical difference between the generalized concept of wear levelling and static levelling. If removed, this important distinction is lost. Wear levelling of only dynamically changed data vs. static data is one way the longevity of static data can be assured beyond the limits guaranteed by the underlying storage (Eg. The motivation of static wear leveling is to prevent any cold data from staying at any block for a long period of time). IE. If an MBR is never altered on a FLASH-based SSD, after a period of time, the MBR will, by specification of FLASH data storage limits, no longer be valid due to natural processes in the FLASH. Static Wear Leveling describes a process that moves static data on the media, not just dynamically changed data, to more flatly age the entire SSD. This not only increases the lifetime of the SSD, but it seems logical that an important side-effect is that static data is refreshed periodically, thus extending its lifetime on the media as well. 68.177.173.34 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, because the article seems to have failed at explaining what 'static' wear leveling is. In fact, the whole article seems to be incomprehensible, and does not include any citations that may clarify the page. In its current state the page conveys minimal factual and conceptual information Math1337 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now updated the Wear leveling article to cover both static and dynamic wear leveling so the original objection to remove this article is no longer valid. I will redirect this page to the wear leveling page. Much of this content is not very well organized or descriptive of wear leveling. I will move the content to the talk page of the wear leveling article so that we can discuss what should be saved and returned to the main article page in the appropriate new sections. § Music Sorter § (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Note: this reference was used in the Wear leveling article to address the concerns of static vs dynamic wear leveling. § Music Sorter § (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)