CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Yeah, I just hope it will perform with more consistency than the Plextor M5 Pro which uses the same controller, otherwise it will be close to useless in a server.
The under $600 price is very competitive on a per GB basis to smaller drives. I'm also thinking SSDs may eventually align themselves both for performance and bulk storage markets, with the latter being much less expensive because absolute speed isn't a priority. Even if access times are 100 us instead of 10 us, that's still two orders of magnitude faster then mechanical drives, not to mention you also have lower power consumption, plus zero noise. What's interesting also is if we can make 1 TB SSDs in a 2.5" form factor, then we could probably make put 5 or 6 GB in a 3.5" form factor if only the market was there (and the flash chips were cheap enough).
Nothing exciting from what I can see. Prices seem to have stopped dropping, at least for the time being. I'm patiently waiting until terabyte class SSDs hit the $100 mark but I suspect that won't be for a few years at least.Is there any news on the SSD front? I could really use a 1 TB so another drive can be switched around.
I've seen a few 500GB SSDs at $250 - $260 with rebates. Prices are moving for the higher capacity drives now. Surely that's a good sign.
Micron says they are only sampling now. Link
After the GB comes the TB. 40GBx365x5 gives 73,000...GB, so 73TB. 73PB would be 73,000,000GB. I've only seen enterprise-SSD be advertised with PB endurance.I looked at the spec sheet and it appears to be correct. That number is repeated several times and they even do an endurance calculation with it saying that that produces 40GB/day for 5 years. However, my calc. of 40GBx365x5 produces 73PB. PetaBytes endurance is a much more normal number for a large SSD.
After the GB comes the TB. 40GBx365x5 gives 73,000...GB, so 73TB. 73PB would be 73,000,000GB. I've only seen enterprise-SSD be advertised with PB endurance.
Fusion iO introduced Ddrueding's upcoming desktop drive : 9.6 million i/o per second out of a single drive.
I love those guys...the most bad-ass stuff imaginable. But a bit out of my budget
Approx. 8.5 months ago. This Thursday will be 37 weeks and counting
Good luck. Hang in there to the both of you.
The problem with not having a MHD is that SSDs die without any warning at all. One day they work and the next day they don't. In a managed environment with shared resources and such, that might not be a big deal, but for home users and typical laptop systems, that's a huge, huge problem. Windows 7+ has libraries now specifically to address the need to move or split special folders (why "Downloads" is not a library by default I have no idea. Particularly since they move the location of the option around with different versions of IE), and it does actually have a fairly robust backup tool now, but almost no one knows how to use that stuff. Many IT guys I know aren't even aware what libraries on Windows 7 are for, let alone end users.
Anyway, an SSD dies and there's just no recovery from that. So user data needs to be elsewhere. And that's the main reason why the magnetic drive needs to be there.
MHDs often have issues well before they finally shuffle off. SMART errors, changes in characteristic noises etc. All of those things are something more than nothing, which is the totality of what an SSD will do. I'm not arguing against backups or against SSDs. I just don't think they're an appropriate place for important user data that isn't being properly administered.
I noticed that too when I first installed Win7. I immediately disabled hibernation and turned the page file off. Windows generally sets the page file to equal the amount of physical RAM.
If you have a desktop with an SSD, you NEED to have a traditional drive as well. Use it for backups, use it for your pagefile. Use it for hibernation. If you're using Windows 7 or anything *nix, put your home directory on it as well.