SSDs - State of the Product?

Chewy509 said:
You have to dig through the specs, but most do include some cache in the order of 16-64MB. The new Intel 510 SSD has 128MB cache onboard, so would expect all new SSDs coming out will be similar in that regard.
Click to expand...

Why the buffer? Does it hide some of the writing decrepitude or prolong the life of the flimsy new flash memory?
 
If I must install the new SandStorm series drive before the next X-25E series exists, which brand should I use and when could that be?
 
If you have a free PCI-E slot, why don't you go with an OCZ RevoDrive? They are faster than those connected with a SATA cable and not much more expensive. I don't remember how much faster the RevoDrive X2 are versus the first generation RevoDrive, but it should be easy to find a comparison on major reviewing web sites (or just by asking SSDrueding).
 
CougTek said:
If you have a free PCI-E slot, why don't you go with an OCZ RevoDrive? They are faster than those connected with a SATA cable and not much more expensive. I don't remember how much faster the RevoDrive X2 are versus the first generation RevoDrive, but it should be easy to find a comparison on major reviewing web sites (or just by asking SSDrueding).
Click to expand...

I might use one for the temp and page files, but not the OS.
 
Sure it is fast, but RAID 0 is not reliable enough for my boot interests.
 
Then just create a backup image of your booting drive and save it on another. Or on a USB key. Don't care. The reliability of a single storage device is irrelevant as long as you have a way to restore it. And no matter how reliable a single storage device is, if the data stored on it is important, then you're a fool if you don't back it up.
 
If it is smaller the slot needs to have an open back and it seems plenty do. Or be like my board and have something like pciex2 in a physical pciex16 slot.
 
Oh I'm sure they will be. The new low-life flash will be everywhere soon.
 
Bozo said:
??????
Click to expand...
OCZ switched to the less-reliable 25nm flash. To make the drives meet the same reliability specifications, they increased the reserve area, thereby decreasing the user addressable space. Since they pulled a Western Digital and didn't change the part numbers, people didn't/don't know that the drives are different until after the fact.

There's no apparent advantage to this move, except that the flash is cheaper to OCZ.
 
I think it's more complicated than that. Didn't they also use half as many 25nm chips with double the data density which drastically affected the performance?
 
Stereodude said:
I think it's more complicated than that. Didn't they also use half as many 25nm chips with double the data density which drastically affected the performance?
Click to expand...

True. Unless you got the highest-capacity drives that still used all the channels. IIRC, they actually did a recall on this problem.
 
It was a rip-off so OCZ probably replaced the crummy drives to avoid a class action suit.
 
I thought that the fix was for the users to pay up for drives with the previous generation flash, which costs more.
 
So will we see even crappier OCZ SSDs or are they just destroying the competition?
 
I suspect that they understand that the main value they were providing was the controller. Now that they own the controller manufacturer, they actually have some value.
 
I think that the accounting department is now in charge. They've really become penny-pinching bastards as of late....
 
Unless they plan to also sell controllers to other companies instead of just using them in house I can't see this being a good idea. You need to sell a lot of controllers to recoup your design dollars, and if you're the only one using them, your effective "sales" (I realize it's really internal use) is much lower.
 
I've never had to swap a motherboard (only fresh builds or re-builds with many new parts). Any tips other than the obvious (back up everything)?
 
ddrueding said:
I must not understand. You are trying to replace the motherboard of a computer and are trying to do it without rebooting?
Click to expand...
I think he got on the wrong thread, and was referring to this one.

Do you think that, after powering off, if he just made sure all the cables in the old board were plugged in to the exact same sockets in the new one, he'd be OK?

That's assuming it's the same model except for the fixes on the SATA3 ports, which may be a leap of faith.
 
Indeed, posted in the wrong thread. My bad.

Was joking about the no-reboot-CPU-swap thing. Although, I seem to recall a long while ago that some very large multi-CPU system was designed to allow different CPUs to be shut down and swapped.

I did simply swap everything. Unfortunately, I've found some weirdness. Had to re-install my USB3 driver to get my USB3 ports to work. And my PCI sound card doesn't work. When I try to uninstall/reinstall the driver, it says no card is detected. My board only has a single PCI slot, so I can't test to see if it's the slot or card. And I've found some funkiness with SATA ports. My old 74 GB raptor is happy to sit on either the 3 or 6 Gpbs Intel ports, but refuses to be detected on the Marvell ports. I've tried swapping the cable, which had gone through an extreme angle, bu this didn't help. On the other hand, I can now run my board stable at 103x48, as compared to 103x47 or 100x48. And my memory was auto-detected with less fuss than on the old board. No idea if it's related, but the new board came with a newer (the newest) BIOS.
 
If you are running XP, try doing a repair install. You might want to slipstream the drivers for all your hardware into XP first. And SP-3.
This type of install shouldn't srew with your programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top