SSD Latency and MLC Write Endurance Facts
Short answer
D Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are false because MLC lacks the endurance for high-intensity writes and SSD latency is measured in microseconds, not 0.1 seconds.
Question
Statement 2: The latency of SSD drives is about 0.1 s.
Key Takeaways
The question tests knowledge of NAND flash types (SLC vs MLC/TLC) for workload suitability and the order-of-magnitude difference in latency between SSDs (microseconds) and HDDs (milliseconds).
Both statements regarding MLC suitability for high-intensity writes and SSD latency being 0.1s are false. MLC is less durable than SLC, and SSD latency is in microseconds.
Common mistake: Candidates often choose C, mistakenly believing MLC is good for writes due to its popularity, or A, misremembering SSD latency as being closer to HDD latency. The comment noting 0.1s is high latency even for mechanical disks highlights this common confusion.
Expert Analysis
To determine the correct option, we must evaluate both statements against standard storage technology specifications.
Statement 1: MLC drives are optimal when used for high intensity writes to that disk. This statement is false. Multi-Level Cell (MLC) NAND flash stores two bits per cell. While cheaper than Single-Level Cell (SLC), MLC has significantly lower endurance and write performance compared to SLC. For 'high intensity writes' (such as logging, caching, or heavy transactional workloads), SLC drives are preferred because they offer higher endurance (more Program/Erase cycles) and faster write speeds. TLC (Triple-Level Cell) and QLC (Quad-Level Cell) have even lower endurance. Therefore, MLC is not optimal for high-intensity write scenarios; SLC is.
Statement 2: The latency of SSD drives is about 0.1 s. This statement is false. 0.1 seconds equals 100 milliseconds. This latency figure is characteristic of mechanical Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), specifically their average seek time plus rotational latency. Solid State Drives (SSDs) operate using electronic circuits with no moving parts. Their typical latency is measured in microseconds (µs). A standard SATA SSD might have ~100 µs latency, and NVMe SSDs can be as low as 10-50 µs. 100 ms would be considered extremely slow even for an HDD under heavy load, let alone an SSD.
Since both statements are factually incorrect, the correct choice is D.
Exam Strategy
When evaluating hardware specifications, always check the units of measurement. Latency for SSDs is in microseconds (µs), while HDDs are in milliseconds (ms). Confusing these units leads to immediate errors. Additionally, remember the trade-off hierarchy: SLC = best performance/endurance, highest cost; TLC/QLC = lowest cost, worst endurance/performance. High-intensity write workloads always demand the highest endurance tier available.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is SLC preferred over MLC for high-intensity writes?
What is the typical latency of an SSD compared to an HDD?
Discussion 3 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.
From public community threads 3
-
oro_blu 👍 10.1s = 100 ms -> this is an high latency even for mechanical disks
-
magufr 👍 1 Answered D- D. Statement 1 and 2 are false
-
Yamensa 👍 1 Answered DI think 1 and 2 are false
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.