this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
181 points (97.9% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

14314 readers
563 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rikudou_Sage
[email protected]
sabbah
AradFort
Don_Dickle
181
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? (self.explainlikeimfive)
submitted 1 year ago by lemmington_steele to c/explainlikeimfive
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a similar vein, why can we not use the technology of RAM to prolong the life-cycle of an SSD?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Modern RAM just needs to be told to refresh. The device itself will go through the refreshing process. But the whole array needs to be refreshed, there's no LRU scheme to tell what bank or row was last accessed.

Starting with DDR3 it's not so easy. Density is so high that reading or writing one row affects cells in adjacent rows. Partial target row refresh (PTRR) counters this, where any access of a row is followed by a refresh of adjacent rows. Flaws in this process in early DDR3 controllers was at the heart of rowhammer exploits, where repeated accesses to a memory location could work out what's stored in physically adjacent memory, even if it's not privileged. IIRC DDR4 pulled the PTRR process into the RAM's built in refresh circuitry so it's transparent to the memory controller.