SSDs - State of the Product?

[Santilli]

Newegg keeps their mail in rebates a bit more in check then TigerDirect.
I'm always seeing these great drive prices, that turn out to be mail in rebates...

 

[sechs]

My current OS + apps takes up 51 GB. I think a 60 GB drive would be the minimum I would need, 80 GB would be safer, and 100+ a luxury.

I think it's time to reconsider something here. If I uninstalled the CS4 apps that I don't use, I could fit my OS and applications on a 30GB drive.

The only reasons I use a 60GB drive is because it was on sale, and I don't relish the idea of less than four gigabytes of play.

 

[LunarMist]

Newegg keeps their mail in rebates a bit more in check then TigerDirect.
I'm always seeing these great drive prices, that turn out to be mail in rebates...

I ignore all rebates when determining total costs. Rebates are simply too unreliable. :errr:

 

[Santilli]

I think it's time to reconsider something here. If I uninstalled the CS4 apps that I don't use, I could fit my OS and applications on a 30GB drive.

The only reasons I use a 60GB drive is because it was on sale, and I don't relish the idea of less than four gigabytes of play.

Sechs:

I thought you already had a SSD setup?
GS

 

[Adcadet]

Yes, I do need to reduce the size of my programs. My OS is only 15 GB, the rest are apps.

 

[Mercutio]

Short of games, I don't see how you people use that much space for non-OS software.

 

[ddrueding]

The CS4 suite consumes an amazing amount. A couple of my programs also copy countless hours of help videos to the hard drive.

 

[LunarMist]

An 80GB has just enough more capacity than 60GB to make them much more useful. I also prefer to avoid filling an SSD too close to capacity for performance/longevity reasons. :cheers:

 

[sechs]

Sechs:

I thought you already had a SSD setup?
GS

I do. Replaced 36GB SAS drives, as you may recall.

 

[sechs]

An 80GB has just enough more capacity than 60GB to make them much more useful. I also prefer to avoid filling an SSD too close to capacity for performance/longevity reasons. :cheers:

Do yours get slower towards the edge of the drive?

Just tap them lightly to compress the data.

 

[LunarMist]

Do yours get slower towards the edge of the drive?

Just tap them lightly to compress the data.

Yes, they really do. :tounge:

 

[BingBangBop]

Do yours get slower towards the edge of the drive?

Just tap them lightly to compress the data.

That will only compress the bits on the surface of the silicon. To compress all the deeper bits, you need the force that a hammer can supply. :lol:

 

[Santilli]

Do yours get slower towards the edge of the drive?

Just tap them lightly to compress the data.

ROFL!

Yes, and I remember all that SCSI stuff I would have liked playing with going to Good Will;-(

As for using a hammer, I've always used .500 Linebaugh Maximum. It SERIOUSLY compresses stuff, or a 375 H&H...

 

[Santilli]

Where I was going with this is that 100 dollar, 170 MB/sec Kingspec SATA drive, 32 gigs, is a huge improvement. Think I'll use it for a linux boot drive.

 

[Buck]

MISC DATA TRANSFER TEST

I did some unscientific data transfer testing with a stop watch on an older system:

CPU: ATHLON 64 X2 3800+ 2.01GHz
RAM: 1GB 667MHz
MB: GA-M55PLUS-S3G rev 1.0 - latest drivers
NB: GEFORCE 6100
SB: nFORCE 430
HDD: WD1500HLFS (VR) - 150GB
EXT: WDMT5000TN - PASSPORT III w/FIREWIRE 800 & USB 2.0 - 500GB
FOLDER SIZE COPIED: 14,812,468,983 bytes
OS: XP SP3 32 bit

I copied this folder from the WD Passport drive to the system running with a WD VR drive. Here are the data tranfer results:

from: FIREWIRE 800 to: FIREWIRE 800 SIIG CARD PCIE 1x - 65MB/s
from: FIREWIRE 800 to: FIREWIRE 400 SIIG CARD PCIE 1x - 65MB/s
from: FIREWIRE 800 to: FIREWIRE 400 T.I. ONBOARD CHIP - 38MB/s
from: USB 2.0 MINI to: USB 2.0 nVIDIA ONBOARD CONTROL - 31MB/s
from: FIREWIRE 800 to: FIREWIRE 800 SIIG CARD PCIE 1x - 65MB/s (to SSD not VR drive)
from: WD 1500HLFS to: INTEL G2 160GB SSD - 106MB/s

I'm setting this older system up as my new test/clone/clean/data recovery system and wanted to see what kinda transers I can expect.

 

[Pradeep]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storag...nts_New_Interface_for_Solid_State_Drives.html

600 MB/sec not enough?

20 GB/sec potential delivered.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting. I'll stick with PCIe for now.

 

[Bozo]

Using a RAM Disk to save writes to a SSD.

Tweaking Windows for SSD

 

[LunarMist]

There are better uses for RAMDisks. :spiderman:

 

[Bozo]

There are better uses for RAMDisks. :spiderman:

Hmmm... Like what? :scratch:

 

[jtr1962]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storag...nts_New_Interface_for_Solid_State_Drives.html

600 MB/sec not enough?

20 GB/sec potential delivered.

Interesting. The way I think SSD is eventually heading is towards dedicated M/B slots similar to RAM. In fact, I mentioned as much on storagereview.com years ago ( too lazy to look for the post ). This development seems to support that. And I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around 600 MB/sec transfer rates, never mind 20 GB/sec.

 

[ddrueding]

I think dedicated slots would be the wrong direction. We already have multi-purpose slots that work just fine (PCIe).

 

[Pradeep]

Interesting. The way I think SSD is eventually heading is towards dedicated M/B slots similar to RAM. In fact, I mentioned as much on storagereview.com years ago ( too lazy to look for the post ). This development seems to support that. And I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around 600 MB/sec transfer rates, never mind 20 GB/sec.

Actually I was mistaken. Its 20Gbit/sec, so 2.5GB/sec. Still, three times the speed of SATA 600 will come in handy for certain upcoming devices. For the mass market they will continue on with 100MB/sec rotating HDDs.

 

[Pradeep]

I think dedicated slots would be the wrong direction. We already have multi-purpose slots that work just fine (PCIe).

Yeah, any thing that unnecessarily takes up mobo space is not feasible going forward IMHO. I remember back to the days of 486/early Pentiums with a bunch of onboard cache taking up significant amounts of room.

This card is just virtualising multiple PCIe lanes into a larger link.

 

[sechs]

There are better uses for RAMDisks.

Better yet, it's unnecessary.

 

[Santilli]

David:
What is that Ramdisk program you are using? Can't find it.

Thanks

Greg
PS
This stuff works really well on my old laptop.

Wonder how it would work on the Beast?

 

[timwhit]

I have no idea why you mess around with ramdisks.

 

[Santilli]

For what I use most of my machines for, I generally don't use all the ram I have.

For instance, this laptop has 1.25 gig of ram. XP is currently using 400 MB/ram.
The ram disk on this computer is accessed at about 1.5 GIG/sec, in peak configuration, both read and write.

The SSD is around 30 MB/sec for both. Acess time is about the same.

I've got part of the page file on the ramdisk, and, the cache for Firefox.

Size is 100 MB, but, that is still enough to make a noticeable difference in speed, in most functions.

It makes a considerable difference on laptops, using XP Pro, and, with 12 gig of memory on the Beast, I could put the entire pagefile on the ram disk, without having to wear on the SSD's.

S

PS:
This is a carry over from the old days, when you used to be able to load your entire Mac OS onto a Ramdisk, making for a, at the time, blindingly fast computing experience.

 

[LunarMist]

Better yet, it's unnecessary.

If applications were all well written I would agree. It is less of an issue as 64-bit apps are becoming more common.

 

[LunarMist]

What is the difference between the SSDSA2M080G2XX and SSDSA2MJ080G2XX?

 

[Santilli]

This looks like the time to get in on an SSD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2510-_-EMC-062510-Index-_-SSD-_-20167025-L03B

Anything wrong with this version?
99 bucks?

 

[LunarMist]

Nothing, but it's not exactly the fastest. Go up a few pages in this very thread.

 

[Santilli]

Nothing, but it's not exactly the fastest. Go up a few pages in this very thread.

Perfect for computers with Sata 1, or even two. Great price, 40 gigs is big enough for most boot drives, access time is king.

Great way to breath life into a laptop, or older desktop.

 

[Sol]

The Crucial RealSSD was just announced in 64gb, looks like it's about $40-50 more than that Intel one. Half as much space again and right about 2x the speed (both read and write) seems worth the extra cash assuming it performs as specified... (Although you need sata rev3 to get full read speed)

 

[LunarMist]

Is the slower write speed the result of fewer flash chips/less channels or the marketing of a deliberately slower,cheaper drive?

 

[sdbardwick]

Fewer chips/channels. Basically left 1/2 the flash off the 80GB version.

 

[LunarMist]

Fewer chips/channels. Basically left 1/2 the flash off the 80GB version.

You mean 128GB? The 256GB drive is even faster.

 

[CityK]

No, he meant what he said -- he was comparing the Intel devices: 40GB X25-V v.s. the 80GB X25-M

 

[sechs]

If applications were all well written I would agree. It is less of an issue as 64-bit apps are becoming more common.

Maybe if you had a better understanding of how Windows used memory, you would.

 

[Striker]

I finally pulled the trigger on one of those PATA Kingspec drives.
It appears to work fine.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Santilli.