Stereodude
Not really a
$193.50 after the 10% Bing CB (assuming it works). I have a G2 and a G1 already, so I will pass.
SSDs - State of the Product?
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Of course it will drop eventually. I'm really hoping for a X25-E G2 early next year. :queen:
I don't care about that, since it is not for Win 7 yet. If the firmware improves performance in some way I would use it.
The drive seems to working fine so far in XP64. I'm only using 7 GB, so it is underutilized.
The drive seems to working fine so far in XP64. I'm only using 7 GB, so it is underutilized.
It is there now, but only for the 160GB.
It is for both. I am watching this for the guinea pigs:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1473952
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1473952
I'll update my 160GB G2s tomorrow if I have time.
It is an .iso file. Great.
It's bootable so as to help out the unwashed masses. If you don't like that there are only a couple hundred utilities to extract, mount, manipulate and titillate ISO's.
I'm in Dallas well away from home to update mine.
Bozo
0
What happens when you run a standard defrag program on a SSD. With all the files being moved, does it actually slow down the SSD?
Very much. Don't do it. 7 is supposed to be smart enough to know when you have an SSD and disable all defrag activities. It detected fine on my machine.
Bozo
0
First.............Doh!
As far as the toolbox goes I think they never pulled that, was never a problem with it. I am thinking for someone like me who has had the OS on there for a month or two it might be beneficial to run the full cleanup via toolbox, I don't think the OS will do that for you. But that's pretty much the last time you have to do it with the toolbox.
As far as the toolbox goes I think they never pulled that, was never a problem with it. I am thinking for someone like me who has had the OS on there for a month or two it might be beneficial to run the full cleanup via toolbox, I don't think the OS will do that for you. But that's pretty much the last time you have to do it with the toolbox.
I flashed the firmware on the G2 and ran the Toolbox. It completed in less than a second, whatever that means. Perhaps there is almost nothing to be done, given that the drive has only a few weeks of use and experiences very few writes. Most of them are from system restore via True Image.
I noticed no problems in XP64, except the drive was detected anew on first reboot.
I noticed no problems in XP64, except the drive was detected anew on first reboot.
Here is a comparison of the Toolbox SMART data between the X25-E and X25-M G2. The X25-E does not accept the Toolbox commands, yet it indicates ready for use (whatever that means). Almost 9TB of writes is not bad for a 32GB drive. 
It is recommended to use the Toolbox SSD Management daily, but I doubt that is necessary in a single-user scenario.
udaman
0
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Huh, it's default, therefore it's important...can u say non- sequitur?
Isn't 8k default bs on FAT32?
Not important for Mac OS X, HFS+ is superior to FAT32 :cooler:
512k is set as 'default' for a DB, certain DB software....and "it's important"...er maybe, depends
http://www.sqlteam.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52861
Eeeeh gads, more conspiracy theories.
Intel, latest Trim...yawn.
...and moot, get a 6GB/s SATA SSD in a few months/ next spring:
http://hothardware.com/News/Microns-RealSSD-C300-SSD-Is-The-Fastest-Ever/
^these will be expensive, but others will surely follow, like OCZ at lower prices.
Whatever happend to the vaporware Sandisk G3 series SSD's...almost a year since they were "announced" for summer 2009 production, lol?
I wonder how long b4 Samsung's 30nm process MLC make it into the 6GB/s SATA standard SSD's, and how long it will be b4 that standard starts to become saturated...1yr? 2yrs?
SAMSUNG Announces Industry's First Mass Production of 30-nm-class Asynchronous DDR NAND Flash
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/newsView.do?news_id=1098
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
.1ms access times are slow all of a sudden?
Those tests seem to tell me the bus is the limiting factor now.
timwhit
0
I'm wondering if Greg has ever used a system with a fast SSD?
Once the PCIe 16x bus is the limiting factor I will be really excited
jtr1962
0
I tend to think long term we'll be putting SSD modules into slots on the motherboard same as we're already doing with RAM. A serial interface, even one of 6 Gb/sec, is going to limit you compared to a massively parallel on-board interface accessing 64 or 128 bits at a time.
Fushigi
0
IBM's Power7 will be ready for that. The upcoming design has 192GB/s I/O bandwidth on top of 512GB/s memory bandwidth. Yeah, B and not b.
Santilli
0
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,451
From ram disk testing, my system is maxed at 1200 mb/sec.
David's at 3500 mb/sec, IIRC.
The 3 Ware Raid card has done 800 mb/sec, in the 133 PCI-X slot, with 8 7200 SATA drives in one of the tests.
I think at these speeds, and access times, to really notice a difference, you need to at least double throughput. Most of the tests they are using are not RAT heavy, but SRead
stuff.
So, I'm now in a situation that if the price is right, I'm going to pick up 3 or more smaller SSDS', and put them in Raid 0, and see what this setup will do.
I tested the card last night, and, it works great, and, so does my SCSI setup in the 100 mhz slot.
David is getting 600 mb/sec, with 3 drives. THAT would make a huge noticeable difference.
I'd like to see David's system with 6-10 drives in Raid 0...
LM:
As Sechs has pointed out, the difference is not nearly as huge with SCSI to SSD, as it is 7200 drives to SSD.
I would not mind having a boot drive that does 1200 mb/sec, and maxes the bus on this machine...
Also, when you put in SSDs, as has been pointed out, the disadvantage of using non-enterprise boards comes into play, due to the board makers using chips that can't approach
the interface maximum speed.
Dell and Apple come to mind...
David's at 3500 mb/sec, IIRC.
The 3 Ware Raid card has done 800 mb/sec, in the 133 PCI-X slot, with 8 7200 SATA drives in one of the tests.
I think at these speeds, and access times, to really notice a difference, you need to at least double throughput. Most of the tests they are using are not RAT heavy, but SRead
stuff.
So, I'm now in a situation that if the price is right, I'm going to pick up 3 or more smaller SSDS', and put them in Raid 0, and see what this setup will do.
I tested the card last night, and, it works great, and, so does my SCSI setup in the 100 mhz slot.
David is getting 600 mb/sec, with 3 drives. THAT would make a huge noticeable difference.
I'd like to see David's system with 6-10 drives in Raid 0...
LM:
As Sechs has pointed out, the difference is not nearly as huge with SCSI to SSD, as it is 7200 drives to SSD.
I would not mind having a boot drive that does 1200 mb/sec, and maxes the bus on this machine...
Also, when you put in SSDs, as has been pointed out, the disadvantage of using non-enterprise boards comes into play, due to the board makers using chips that can't approach
the interface maximum speed.
Dell and Apple come to mind...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Mind your cases
And apostrophes. Bob the Angry Flower has some important information for you.
Anyway, as many people have continually and repeatedly told you, the magic of SSDs has more to do with latency than data transfer rates. The magic of having a faster computer also has pretty much everything to do with disk latency as well.