SSD reliability lower than disks?

By | December 21, 2010, 8:56am PST

Summary: Recent reports suggest that SSD’s are no more reliable than 1 TB hard drives. Given that few SSDs are 1 TB, the reliability per bit is much lower for SSDs. Why?

Recent evidence suggests that SSD’s are no more reliable than 1 TB hard drives. Given that few SSDs are 1 TB, the reliability per bit is much lower for SSDs. Why?

Background
A French site specializing in Mac systems got data from a French retailer on disk and SSD returns. They saw about the same failure rate for SSD’s as they did for 1 TB hard drives. More recent 2 TB hard drives were less reliable. Not a surprise since it takes time for the manufacturing processes to mature.

These findings are surprising if you consider flash chips to be like the thousands of other integrated circuits that you use every day. IC reliability is impressive and it is not uncommon for a chip to work flawlessly for a decade or more.

But flash chips aren’t like other chips: they require ≈20 volts to write data. In the chip world, where insulating layers may only be a few molecules thick, 20 V is a lot of electrical pressure.

Wait a minute, you might think, there isn’t a single flash chip that specifies a 20 V or even in 15 V power requirement. And you would be correct.

Flash chips have power specs like other chips. What’s different is that flash chips have on-board electrical pumps - in the form of dedicated capacitors and an oscillator - that take supply voltage and convert it to the higher voltage needed to write a flash cell.

Here is a recent annotated chip photograph, courtesy of Toshiba Corporation (the folks who invented flash) that shows the chip area devoted to the pump function.

The Storage Bits take
Storage is the most difficult problem in computers. Moving bits through a pipe is easy. Storing bits for years is hard.

It is no surprise that devices composed of multiple high-voltage flash chips may have infant mortality rates similar to disk drives. After all, we’ve been building disk drives for over 50 years and the advances in density, capacity and reliability are just as amazing as they’ve been for semiconductors.

The irritating part of all this is that we shouldn’t have to rely on data filched from a French retailer to know what to expect from our expensive flash drives. The vendors know what the reliability is: they build hundreds of millions of devices a year and they track the returns on every batch.

But, like every other storage vendor, they would rather give us bland assurances than hard facts. First mover disadvantage and all that.

Bottom line: don’t trust your SSD any more than you trust a hard drive. Backup your data locally and online at least once a week.

Only you can protect your data.

Comments welcome, of course. I’m on my 2nd SSD-equipped notebook: a 13″ 4/128 GB MacBook Air. I expect that larger, faster & cheaper mini-SATA replacement drives will be available by the end of 2011.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

46
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
armchairnavigator 20th Dec
WTF is all this bull**** about reliability ? the argument is simple. SSDs work fine if you dont write any data. SSDs fail within days if you try to write lots of data. period. ( these conclusions are aquired from working with OCZ ssds and i have yet to find an OCZ drive, and most likely any other brand i suspect, that works for more than a few weeks if it is being used to store data for a datawarehouse application ).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
james347 21st Dec 2010
Sure, if you buy cheap junk. True with anything.
0 Votes
+ -
My experiance with SSD
pmcgrath@... 21st Dec 2010
I am on my 3rd SSD. The first two failed completely within 3 months of being installed in my laptop. After the second one failed I was able to attribute the failure to a hot undock event from the docking station. This had never been a problem with rotating disk drive. I have since disabled the hot undock option in the bios and make sure the system is in standby before I undock it.

The 3rd drive sat on the shelf for almost 6 months before I installed it, because I didn?t want to go through the hassle of rebuilding my laptop if the SSD failed. Again. I finally purchased an imaging backup package and an external hard drive to keep a daily restorable backup.

I love the performance increase. My 3 year old C2D is faster than the new i5s I have purchased recently because of the SSD. But because of my experience, there is no way I would ever deploy an SSD on one of my users laptops. I just can?t trust them.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
Lerianis10 5th Feb 2011
@pmcgrath@...

I doubt those two deaths were from anything other than you getting two bad drives (it happens). At to the 'hot swap' thing.... YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HOT SWAP A SSD DRIVE!

Says right on their websites that doing that can kill a SSD drive instantly.
0 Votes
+ -
SSD unreliability is not NEWS?
kd5auq 21st Dec 2010
I guess the Spin Doctors specialize in making us forget that!
sad
Perhaps this study details reliability results from "first gen SSD" hardware. That is to say, as Robin points out in his blog, all manufactured tech increase in reliability as manufactures gain experience building these devices.

Another way of stating that, will this study accurately predict the reliability of Apple's current MacBook Air Flash storage systems over time? (I only use Apple products as an example because it was stated that this French retailer specialized in Apple products)
0 Votes
+ -
How does a capacitor ....
Economister 21st Dec 2010
boost voltage?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
pmcgrath@... Updated - 21st Dec 2010
@Economister
charge in parallel, discharge in series? You would need more than one.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
DevGuy_z Updated - 21st Dec 2010
@Economister see pmcgrath. Yep, it is called a "charge pump" and it is a technique used to multiply DC voltage. With care it can be made fairly efficient too. The problem is that typically you do it in powers of 2 and as that power increases the efficiency drops. As was stated in another post you charge a bunch of caps in parallel and then connect them in series for the discharge. You need an oscillator to throw the switches quickly.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
DaemonSlayer 22nd Dec 2010
@DevGuy_z What happens is the incoming DC is converted to AC through the oscillator. this is then fed into on-chip voltage multipliers made with capacitors and diodes string in such a way that the voltage builds up. Google "Voltage Doubler." which uses AC as an input.
0 Votes
+ -
@ DaemonSlayer

Some DC to DC Voltage doublers work this way, but not this one. Basically, capacitors are charged in parallel, then discharged (generally into other capacitors) in series.

With two capacitors, it nearly doubles the Voltage, but one can use more than two capacitors.

A problem can occur if you need a lot of current. It is hard to do, at which point you actually need the oscillator and transformer, followed by a diode bridge to turn it back to DC.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
mrye@... 21st Dec 2010
In addition to the conditions listed by previous posters here, a good chunk of the failures could also be caused by the limited amount of write cycles that flash and SSDs can handle. The "major players" in operating system software all use temporary files. There is the potential of opening large numbers of temporary files just by booting up the operating system. This is not to mention all the software installs/uninstalls that go on, application temporary files and the temporary files used by browsers. Hundreds, even thousands, of temporary files and their respective write cycles are happening. Most of these operating systems by default do not take into account being installed on a limited write cycle drive. Thus, in their default configurations, all of these write cycles are happening on the SSD. The more write cycles, especially in or near the same storage locations on the SSD, the quicker the failure.

I have a Toshiba laptop with both an SSD (boot drive) and a regular hard drive. Out of the box, the system was not installed or configured with consideration for the SSD. I have scoured the system looking for any and all references to temporary locations and files. Every one of them that I have found have been changed to use the regular hard drive for temporary storage.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
DaemonSlayer Updated - 22nd Dec 2010
@mrye@... IF your SSD has a small capacity, what they probably did was install the OS on the SSD, and then configured Windows to use traditional HDD storage for everything else. Better watch how far back you keep for your System Restore points, unless that was defaults/switched over as well.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
osreinstall 21st Dec 2010
Robin, what kind of flash tech did they test? MLC will only last 100,000 writes where as SLC will go to 2-5 million writes. The SLCs are used in military application and are more money and are extremely fast like 250MB/s. They also have smaller capacities and promise to bring out larger drives in the future.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%20600052675&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
0 Votes
+ -
The good ones also tend to be quadruple the price
search & destroy Updated - 22nd Dec 2010
And at $1,000 per SLC SSD, this is unobtainable for most people.

Besides, what will you do if the SSD outlasts the controller?
0 Votes
+ -
@search & destroy

No sense putting in unreliable disks for any price for the data is more valuable than the drive. If the SLCs were ramped up in production the price would drop from $11.50 per gigabyte. Since they use these in the military, they can take plenty of punishment. As for the controller, that is on the motherboard or a daughter card. Separate piece. Just take the drive off and hook it up to another computer with a USB adapter and get your data. You also have to backup to more than one disk.
0 Votes
+ -
@osreinstall
I think he means the flash memory controller built into the SSD itself.

I do agree that if they ramped up production, SLC prices would fall. But I suspect that's not the industries intention since they want people to buy cheaper MLC drives every two or three years instead of the more expensive SLC drives every ten years.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
osreinstall 24th Dec 2010
@LTV10

I believe the memory controller in the SLC is better too.

I have valuable data so I would go with the SLC. I can juggle so many and 2 or 3 SLC would probably cheaper than 5 or 6 MLC to guarantee against data loss. The trick is to have a few hard drives going at once to prevent data loss.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong measure of reliability
cgorange 21st Dec 2010
Retail return rates aren't a measure of product reliability. The #1 cause of return is buyers remorse, not product failure or product quality. The #2 cause is "I don't know how to install this", which also doesn't have to do with reliability.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't trust anything
Kiwiiano 21st Dec 2010
Power pumps are also known as Joule Thieves, and are turning up in LED torches that only need a single AA or AAA cell to run them rather than the traditional 3 cells (which always left 1 spare in a 4-pack). In fact you can put a cell that is dead in a normal torch into a power pumped LED torch and get another hour or two of light.
Re the reliability of drives, don't rely on any of them. Even if someone developed a storage that could last a thousand years with 100% reliability, it's useless if someone steals it or you have a house fire. Personally a 2TB drive terrifies me. 2TB is a helluva lot of data to lose and if the data is genuinely valuable you should regard the minimum backup as 2x the capacity in 2 different locations. My MacBook Pro backs up to an off-site(ish) RAID via Time Machine and to a weekly SuperDuper clone.
0 Votes
+ -
Retail info reliable
Gis Bun 21st Dec 2010
Unsure how you can assume things just from one retailer - when a single store or multiple. From what it looks like, the retailer lumped all the bad SSD disk together even though it's theoretical that the bad disks could of come primarily from one company. [Sort of like saying that if a politician is corrupt then they all are - well THAt could be true.]

If there was some type of broad study which lists the reliability of SSD drives from all manufacturers and compare against the PATA/SATA drives, then that would be different.

In the end, [at least part of] this blog is nothing but shotty reporting.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
kenosha77a 21st Dec 2010
@Gis Bun
Good points. At the very least we can conclude that there was insufficient information presented to draw valid conclusions.
"Recent evidence SUGGESTS that SSD?s are no more reliable than 1 TB hard drives"

One companies evidence is not a industry standard. But is definitely something to keep an eye on.
0 Votes
+ -
SSDs are Theoretically unreliable!
subs@... 21st Dec 2010
Flash storage, as a technology is inherently unreliable:
It stores data in the form of trapped charge in an insulating layer. To do that, it uses what can only be described as a controlled spark - officially known as Hot Carrier Injection. That is why it needs the the 12 - 20 volts that you referred to in your article. (Note that 10 volts across a silicon dioxide thickness of ~100 Angstrom is a Gigavolt/metre). Early Flash devices could be written about 10000 times. The technology has improved to a few 100k times. Even though this sounds like a lot, consider that in a typical operating system, some areas - like the directory - can be updated frequently. In addition, Flash cannot be written a bit at a time. You have to erase and rewrite a whole page (~4k to 128k typically) to change a single bit. The only reason Flash works at all is that all manufacturers use some form of "wear levelling" technology. This entails distributing writes across the whole device as well as maintaining a look-up table of what logical location (sector address) they were meant to be. All of the above makes Flash writing inherently slow. And all of the above refers to single-level cells. In order to increase the density, most manufacturers are now moving towards multi-level cells, where the amount of stored charge is translated into multiple bits (4 levels for 2 bits, 8 levels for 3 bits etc.) Of course very high levels of automatic error detection and correction are used but the extra complexity is already becoming self-defeating..
Net result is that Flash storage is fine for data that is written once and changed only rarely but not as a wholesale replacement to rotating magnetic disks - at least not with current file systems. (One last point: the various wear levelling techniques - which are usually proprietary - make it nearly impossible to recover the data once the device fails).
Plamen Pazov
Xyber Data Recovery
xyber.com.au
0 Votes
+ -
@subs@...you are 100% right! If an SSD fails chances to recover data are very slim...and with a HDD is quite easy, and that's a major point.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't really expect mechanically plattered HDs to be used indefinitely, do you?
0 Votes
+ -
SSDs are Theoretically unreliable!
subs@... 21st Dec 2010
Flash storage, as a technology is inherently unreliable:
It stores data in the form of trapped charge in an insulating layer. To do that, it uses what can only be described as a controlled spark - officially known as Hot Carrier Injection. That is why it needs the the 12 - 20 volts that you referred to in your article. (Note that 10 volts across a silicon dioxide thickness of ~100 Angstrom is a Gigavolt/metre). Early Flash devices could be written about 10000 times. The technology has improved to a few 100k times. Even though this sounds like a lot, consider that in a typical operating system, some areas - like the directory - can be updated frequently. In addition, Flash cannot be written a bit at a time. You have to erase and rewrite a whole page (~4k to 128k typically) to change a single bit. The only reason Flash works at all is that all manufacturers use some form of "wear levelling" technology. This entails distributing writes across the whole device as well as maintaining a look-up table of what logical location (sector address) they were meant to be. All of the above makes Flash writing inherently slow. And all of the above refers to single-level cells. In order to increase the density, most manufacturers are now moving towards multi-level cells, where the amount of stored charge is translated into multiple bits (4 levels for 2 bits, 8 levels for 3 bits etc.) Of course very high levels of automatic error detection and correction are used but the extra complexity is already becoming self-defeating..
Net result is that Flash storage is fine for data that is written once and changed only rarely but not as a wholesale replacement to rotating magnetic disks - at least not with current file systems. (One last point: the various wear levelling techniques - which are usually proprietary - make it nearly impossible to recover the data once the device fails).
Plamen Pazov
Xyber Data Recovery
xyber.com.au
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
nessrapp 22nd Dec 2010
can some of you write things out clearly, in steps/points, and not just jumble a massive paragraph together?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
junk@... 22nd Dec 2010
A big mistake a lot of people make with SSDs is using the standard defrag program. There is no need to ever defrag an SSD since there is no track-to-track latency to eliminate, fragmented files access as quickly as linear ones. The trouble is that you use a huge number of write cycles defraging, and limit the life of the drive.

Also, properly written SSD drivers rotate the locations on the memory where new files are written. This is called "wear leveling" and helps to make sure the maximum write life is achieved from the chips.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
kirovs@... 22nd Dec 2010
@junk@...
I believe defrag is exclusively Windows disease. I have no problem with that.
0 Votes
+ -
I couldn't resist....
fatman65535 22nd Dec 2010
@kirovs@...

Quote: I believe defrag is exclusively Windows disease.

And the cure is a Linux Live CD.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
Robin Harris 22nd Dec 2010
@kirovs@... Defrag is a disk disease. Some OS are smarter about doing defrag in the background, but it is a problem for every disk-based storage system with significant read/write activity.
0 Votes
+ -
I've never had to defrag a Linux drive
search & destroy 22nd Dec 2010
This is a windoze-only phenomena.
0 Votes
+ -
SSD Advantages
cerving 22nd Dec 2010
The main advantage of SSDs is durability, not reliability. You won't have an SSD crash because somebody put their laptop down on a table a little bit too hard. It is common sense that you still need a backup solution, you can delete stuff from an SSD just as easily as from a mechanical hard drive. Given the ubiquitous nature of flash storage in a wide variety of commercial and consumer products, I think you can safely say this this is a mature technology with well-known and acceptable MTBF numbers.
0 Votes
+ -
They've saved me grief.
Gaius_Maximus 22nd Dec 2010
I've yet to crack a screen or shatter a case, but I usually manage to kill my laptop's disk every 6-9 months through vibration, or overheating, or something. (Just put your running laptop on the seat of a moving car and watch how much it bounces.) (And how hot it gets!) And while I've had a couple of SSDs fail (one in an early Asus Eee 1000, another a Patriot 128 GB Warp), I've been using a G.Skill 256 in my main machine for the past 2 years without incident. And this is a machine that is in almost constant (and I mean 24x7) use. That's a first for me. I'm sold on them. From where I stand, installing SSDs (and keyboard skins) is all the toughening most users will ever need in a laptop.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
keitha73 22nd Dec 2010
Sorry, but I won't trust anything from the French as a basic rule....

Over the years, since I started building my own computers (as a 15 year old back in 1996) I have had many platter drives failed. My first two drive failures were Western Digital (although WD is all I use now for platters). I've had Samsung, Hitachi, and Seagate drives fail... but never a Maxtor ironically.

I have been using flash for years. First in my cameras, then on thumb drives. I have never had a camera flash card get corrupted, and never lost data on a thumb drive.

Since I have been using SSD drives, I have not had a single issue with them. Now, I'm sure you may get different results with ultra-cheap SSD drives, but isn't that true for any cheap memory?

So, two points:

1. Get a decent SSD. It doesn't have to be an Intel drive.. just pick a manufacturer and device that uses good memory. Example: OCZ's Vertex line uses either Micron or Intel memory, however their Agility line uses cheaper memory. So go with the Vertex.

2. Backup your important information. You don't have to use a platter drive in your system or have a raid setup to do this. You can get an external drive (which are very cheap now) and use a program like Beyond Compare to backup files. Then just turn the external drive off (WD externals have a nice power button on the front) so you don't have to listen to it.

Overall point, you will never need data recovery from a device if you simply BACKUP.
0 Votes
+ -
The latest weather satellites use SSD instead of tape drives so NOAA must have some confidence in them.
0 Votes
+ -
Might be the temperature in space.
Gaius_Maximus 23rd Dec 2010
@syhprum Cryogenics seem to help CPUs, after all.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
RyuDarragh 22nd Dec 2010
This issue is a very, very old one. Back in the days when there was very little in the way of flash to be had we devised "drive cards" for use in early PCs (and not just IBM/x86 based machines). We used large arrays of RAM and ROM. When flash/EEPROM became available, we jumped at it. My first drive board was 20MB and used RAM and flash in a parallel array. Why? Simple. All reads/writes went to the RAM until it was time to power down. A battery on the card kept the RAM alive and ran a tiny CPU that transferred all changed RAM to the flash. On power up, all flash was copied into the RAM. Despite flash capable of only 10,000 writes per cell, this unit never failed for more than 15 years. At some point, a memory manufacturer made some dual mode memory that included exactly this architecture or RAM cells with a built in flach cell and even included a detector to determine if a block of RAM had been changed versus its companion flash cell. Nowadays, all SSDs should include a huge DRAM bank and take advantage of commit charge and trim commands to prevent undie wear. Then, too. USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB. SSDs are long term storage units. PERIOD. Using them in PCs the way they are today is asking for trouble. I'd keep my temp files and swap file on RAM based "drives" and OS stuff that rarely changes on flash based "drives" and all other crapolla on magnetic disc drives. It'll be a few more years before ferroelectric flash cell based chips become cheap and plentiful (www.ramtron.com).
0 Votes
+ -
Is seek time an issue for SSD's? If not then shouldn't virtual memory be disabled?
I'm just sayin'.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
jrlambert 22nd Dec 2010
The French company's data... shows failure rates for 1TB drive from 1.24% to 5.7%..
and failures of SSDs at .59% to 2.93%
Then there is the other issues a)failures not related to the storage technology b) human issues..
How does one come up with "comparable to 1TB drives"?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
dalspartan 23rd Dec 2010
I was told by a retailer that SSD's, unlike traditional HD's, write over the data, therefore "burning out" much more quickly unless the OS is up to the task. He said iOS is ok, and Win 7 is ok, but to be leery of upgrading, at least for now. I'll wait!
0 Votes
+ -
Hey, Robin!
Gaius_Maximus 23rd Dec 2010
What about SiOx? Any data on that yet?
0 Votes
+ -
Manufacturers have to learn to iron out production flaws. Its true of almost anything new. You want to be an early adopter, you have to deal with the consequences. Flat screen TVs have a lower shelf life than my old zenith. Didn't stop the masses from tossing their old clunker tv out the window.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
hsvandrew88 6th May 2011
We've used them in workstation (high activity) and low end server applications. Used both OCZ and G-Skill brands from 2009 - 2010. 100% failure rate across 6 purchases on different dates. 0% recovery to date. High performance SSD drives use Raid 0 across the 16 or so chips to make the 128gb. If a single one of the 16 chips fails all data is lost.

Will never use these drives in a system that stores important data ever again. Spent 2x the cost of a 15k SAS drive with under 18 month lifetime and complete data lose!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
AdanaLy Updated - 19th Aug
xvczxv
mynet sohbet
mynet
sohbet
Mynet Sohbet
sohbet siteleri
sohbet odalari
yonja
forum siteleri
ankara sohbet
ankara chat
almanya sohbet
dizi izle
mirc indir
mirc indir
sohbet
mynet sohbet
canli sohbet
sohbet siteleri
sohbet chat
netlog
mynet sohbet
netlog sohbet
chat
seviyeli chat
seviyeli sohbet
adana sohbet
dini sohbet
cet siteleri
cet
bayan escort
vip escort
istanbul escort
0 Votes
+ -
RE: SSD reliability lower than disks?
armchairnavigator 20th Dec
WTF is all this bull**** about reliability ? the argument is simple. SSDs work fine if you dont write any data. SSDs fail within days if you try to write lots of data. period. ( these conclusions are aquired from working with OCZ ssds and i have yet to find an OCZ drive, and most likely any other brand i suspect, that works for more than a few weeks if it is being used to store data for a datawarehouse application ).

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix