It’ll likely go on for even longer than that, since they usually guarantee a minimum number of writes; for an example of how much longer they can go, check out this experiment where a microcontroller was used to write to an EEPROM (the same basic technology as Flash, and no wear-leveling with the worst possible sequence of bits, alternating between 0 and 1 with each write) until it failed:
Also, failure presents as an inability to write new data to the affected bits, which is much preferred to the way a hard drive typically fails (on read, not write; of course, both SSDs and hard drives can experience complete failures, some SSDs have had firmware issues resulting in data loss, but so have hard drives).
The same holds true for the data retention time; some people claim that your data will evaporate away but in reality it is speced at the maximum rated temperature and is orders of magnitudes higher at normal operating temperatures, as demonstrated in this PDF (I have seen 30+ year old EPROMs that still hold their data and they had similar data retention times as modern Flash, and FWIW, magnetic media isn’t permanent either, as anybody who has come across old floppies that are now unreadable knows; hard drives are better but not permanent; indeed, bad sectors usually result from loss of magnetization, and you can’t reformat the low-level data used to mark sectors, while Flash uses physical addresses).
I disagree - but then again I come from the background of being in the enterprise storage industry, so admittedly the use case scenarios are different.
Caches - they are fine on SSD because there are far more reads than writes. Pagefiles - not so much. They have a lot more writes than a cache.
Besides - this is getting off topic from the OP. As someone mentioned before - the SSD provides a speed solution when the OP wants a storage solution.
