timwhit
Hairy Aussie
How come they didn't test it against a single SSD?
SSDs - State of the Product?
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
ddrueding
Fixture
Because it would get spanked. I didn't read a single negative thing about the drive in the whole review.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Not a very good review then is it?
ddrueding
Fixture
Nope, it isn't. But it is a description of the product, and I trust the quantifiable numbers. It is good enough to keep SSDs out of my high-end builds for a while longer.
ddrueding
Fixture
If you are willing to pay $300 and only need 16GB, get an SSD. A warning, though, Vista won't install on even a 48GB drive.
ddrueding
Fixture
Can I tempt you for just over $1000?
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Is there anything wrong with the Mitron MSD 6000? For only $550 it seems like a steal...comparably.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
Microsoft KB
My Vista Ultimate with everything installed except a handful of the extra languages is running at 16.7GB.
ddrueding
Fixture
I read that, too. But it just won't. It got to the drive selection, I was able to choose the SSDs and format, but the "OK" button would not allow me to proceed.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
maximumpc reviewed it and tested against an SSD, in raid 0 of course.
The SSD seems to have kicked butt in 'real world' performance.
The SSD seems to have kicked butt in 'real world' performance.
ddrueding
Fixture
Yup. I went from Raptors in RAID-0 to SSDs in RAID-0 and the difference was night-and-day. There is just no way a spinning drive will compete with a 0.1ms access time.
Edit: I wonder what RPM would manage a rotational latency of 0.1ms.
Edit: I wonder what RPM would manage a rotational latency of 0.1ms.
ddrueding
Fixture
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
Seems pretty obvious why they aren't mainstream. With a 15-30 year life span, you wouldn't exactly be out shopping for new drives very often. So, SSD buyer=lost customer.
5.9 vs. 7.6ms? Rather strange they didn't compare the VR against 15k drives.
5.9 vs. 7.6ms? Rather strange they didn't compare the VR against 15k drives.
ddrueding
Fixture
Not necessarily a lost customer. Once I can double my capacity for the same price, I'll buy again. If they can get the transfer rates to ~200MB/s per drive that would tempt me as well. Hell, I'm likely to add another drive to my array for more capacity sooner than that.
I would have liked to see numbers against 15k drives as well. The SR performance database can do it if you are interested. (Hint: results are exactly as you would expect).
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
If you can get by with 16GB you can get one for ~$350. Or double your space to 32GB for ~$550.
I don't know how much space Ubuntu takes for a default install, but that could be doable.
DD, are you running the MSD-6000 series or the MOBI series? Are there any benefits to the MOBI over the MSD-6000?
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm running the MSD-6000 series. (MSD-SATA6035-016)
Difference? I didn't really look. My thoughts were that:
1) They all have the insane access time that I wanted
2) I was going to use at least 3 in RAID-0, so STR would be fine regardless
Difference? I didn't really look. My thoughts were that:
1) They all have the insane access time that I wanted
2) I was going to use at least 3 in RAID-0, so STR would be fine regardless
Not to be picky or anything but 600k rpm equals 0.05ms of rotational latency.
3.6k=8.33ms of rotational latency.
4.2k=7.14ms
5.4k=5.56ms
7.2k=4.17ms
10k=3ms
15k=2ms
150k=.2ms
300k=.1ms
But yeah, SSDs are the future as far as performance is concerned. Conventional HDs will still be 'mainstream' for the next few years simply because of the high cost of SSDs and their low capacity.
Then again, considering HDs cost around $50,000/GB in the early/mid 1980s ($5000 for a 100 MB drive back then) paying $10-20/GB for an SSD doesn't see so bad.
ddrueding
Fixture
You are listing average rotational latency, I was listing maximum. To accomplish a full revolution in 0.1ms requires 600k RPM. I do cede that the average is a more useful value.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
ddrueding
Fixture
Very interesting find. They don't move and don't generate heat; why do you need a case at all? Do what I've done and attach them using double-sided poster tape to the underside of an optical drive; keeps it out of the way and easy to change cases.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I'd be worried about static shock or blunt force trauma wrecking a $350 drive. Plus, I doubt it has any kind of warranty. You buy one first and let me know how it works, then I will follow.
ddrueding
Fixture
Not me I'm afraid; I'm leaving for Russia week after next and saving all the money I can.
ddrueding
Fixture
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
After the primary RAM drive and RAM disk are full CPU drops to only ~10% on one Raptor - the old one. Seeks are heavy, so transfer rate is obviously not linear. I don't want this hitting the boot drive either. Of course the new Velociraptors are not cheap for RAID either.
ddrueding
Fixture
Based on the near-linear $/gb increase for SSD drives, I decided to get multiple smaller ones in RAID0. At the time 3x16GB were just a little more than 1x32GB, and much faster.
SSD v Mechanical 2.5"
Two years before crossover I'd say. The $ per gigabyte isn't there yet, and in a lot of tasks, the performance isn't either (yet). 1 year warranty versus 3/5. No thanks.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15079
Two years before crossover I'd say. The $ per gigabyte isn't there yet, and in a lot of tasks, the performance isn't either (yet). 1 year warranty versus 3/5. No thanks.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15079
Stereodude
Not really a
However, the use of an apostrophe to remove ambiguity of a plural abbreviation is allowed. Hence the apostrophe is actually ok.
link
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
I'd say it will take longer for the $per gigabyte to come closer, much longer... when there is price parity, probably 5-10yrs out, SSDs will be then be standard and will replace HDs altogether. Extra price premium won't be much of a consideration for those who want the performance advantage(s) of SSDs.
Too bad techreport did not wait a few more months to test the newer OCZ MLC drive rated for even higher performance and nearly 1/2 the price, and 2x the capacity of the drive they did test (see my thread in the news forum on that one).
http://www.storageforum.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7173
Has Eugene gotten around to testing any ancient lower performance, lower capacity SSDs yet
?jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Price parity I'd say within two years for notebook drives, perhaps 3 to 5 for desktop drives. I'd be willing to pay a 50% premium at this point for SSD, and I'm cheap. I imagine there would be a huge market even at 100% premium. Let's not forgot hard drives were once $300 items even on the low end. In today's dollars that might be $500 or $600. $600 for, say, 200 GB of solid-state storage doesn't really sound terribly expensive to me in those terms. Of course, I'd like $100 even better but I'll bet that doesn't happen until 2012 or thereabouts.
But yes, 5 to 10 years out I doubt mechanical drives will even be made. Once price parity is reached it really wouldn't make sense.
But yes, 5 to 10 years out I doubt mechanical drives will even be made. Once price parity is reached it really wouldn't make sense.
Stereodude
Not really a
Call me when they extend the warranty to something reasonable.
When you buy a SSD you're buying something that has a fixed life cycle. A SSD will stop working correctly after some number of writes. A HD has no such limitation.
When you buy a SSD you're buying something that has a fixed life cycle. A SSD will stop working correctly after some number of writes. A HD has no such limitation.
ddrueding
Fixture
The lowest lifetime I saw was 33 years at 50GB/day and 1,000,000+ hours MTBF. That argument died a long time ago.
As we know from hard drives, warranty length doesn't correlate with drive quality.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
I'd just like cheap, low-capacity ones that I can RAID for a Photoshop scratch disk. Panoramas hurt my computer too much .
.