Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

SSD, the end of HDD.


Ponch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Still expensive, but

http://www.sohodiffusion.com/produit.asp?num=9495

-128GB for $539.90

-incredible 120-143 MB/s 80-93 MB/s read/write speeds and seek times of less than 0.35ms

-Excellent 1.5 million hour mean time before failure

:blink: that's 171 years... how do they test that ?

And how do you make it unreadable ;) ?

Edited by Ponch
Link to comment
Share on other sites


...and the last real-world test (in the UK magazine CustomPC) showed a write speed only one-quarter of what OCZ claims.

Also, life is limited by how many times you write to the drive, not just how long it is plugged-in.

So, as crahak says, "not mainstream soon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see it happen to laptops sooner rather than later. Netbooks already tend to use SSDs mainstream. Hard drives have much less capacity with a smaller form factor due to the way the data is stored. Therefore you will have a better deal in getting a 2.5" SSD vs a HDD compared to a 3.5" SSD vs a HDD. I'm not saying 2.5" SSDs are better than HDDs yet, but they are slowly getting there.

As for desktops, not likely anytime soon. Perhaps after at least 5 years, but given the current trend of how fast the capacity of hard drives are going up, they could remain competitive for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i also want a lifespan based on normal read/write occurrences that at least equals a HDD before I'll even consider dropping more money for less GB. They have a ways on that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to drop a HDD for it to get corrupted. They do it on their own. they are the most replaced part of PCs.

That only being a huge advantage, SSD also seem to be already faster, and don't need defragmentation.

Downside for the moment are still capacity and price/capacity. I'm sure all laptops have one in a year on. With a blue ray disc and Windows 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is the advantage to have SSD over HDD other than be able to drop the thing and data will not get corrupted?

speed. that's it really for me at least, as a desktop user.

i will eventually have at least 2 of them in raid0 in my desktop along with a single hdd for storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the end of HDD thanks to SSD and SDXC cards will only starts to happen around 2015.

HDDs will be as bigger as 10 to 15TB, and cheaper until around 2013 when SSDs and SDXCs starts to getting cheap, this is why.

Gradius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still expensive, but

http://www.sohodiffusion.com/produit.asp?num=9495

-128GB for $539.90

-incredible 120-143 MB/s 80-93 MB/s read/write speeds and seek times of less than 0.35ms

-Excellent 1.5 million hour mean time before failure

:blink: that's 171 years... how do they test that ?

And how do you make it unreadable ;) ?

MTBF was invented by militars on WW, and is very inaccuracy and unreliable.

http://www.knowledgetransfer.net/dictionar...en_Failures.htm

http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/f...html/index.html

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/35386

IEEE and companies are trying to come with a new standard, a lot better than undated MTBF.

Gradius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue Ray is going nowhere. It's going to end up the same as laser disk.

While I very much dislike (and the words are very weak) everything Blu-Ray stands for:

  • Region coding
  • AACS encryption
  • BD+ DRM that can be re-secured & already has been...
  • offering feature-incomplete players (i.e. profiles)
  • making stuff I see as essential merely optional (like support for "better" codecs)
  • very slow, buggy and overpriced players
  • overpriced titles (movies/discs)
  • going with java nonsense over simple and elegant markup like HD DVD did
  • overpriced burners and discs (with not enough layers to really be worth it anyways)

(etc), I don't think it's going to die. They're slowly getting some market share, albeit mostly due to the PS3, and the fact that there's nowhere else to go HD-wise... I wish H.264 in mkv files would get even more popular though (DivX 7 just moved on to that, which may help speed up things). I won't be sad if it goes the way of LaserDiscs though.

HDDs will be as bigger as 10 to 15TB, and cheaper until around 2013 when SSDs and SDXCs starts to getting cheap

Well, when our choice is between Intel's X-25E -- 32GB @ $600 for extreme performance (cheaper options are for the most part crap, often slower than HDs!), when you can get like 6TB of space for the same price... For a lot of us the choice is obvious. The gap may be narrowing, but it's still huge. The previous raptor-buying enthusiasts may soon start to buy smaller SSDs for use as OS drives, but that's an extremely small, tiny market.

MTBF was invented by militars on WW, and is very inaccuracy and unreliable.

Not only it doesn't really mean much, but 1.5 million hours isn't impressive at all, considering it has no moving parts yet it's almost no better than purely mechanical devices: WD RE series drives claim 1.2M hours (and enterprise class SAS drives and the like claiming even more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
You don't need to drop a HDD for it to get corrupted. They do it on their own. they are the most replaced part of PCs.

That only being a huge advantage, SSD also seem to be already faster, and don't need defragmentation.

Downside for the moment are still capacity and price/capacity. I'm sure all laptops have one in a year on. With a blue ray disc and Windows 7.

SSDs also use less power and generate less heat. Lower power consumption may or may not be of of interest to you, depending on the price of electricity in your region. Here in the UK, energy prices go up when the price of oil goes up, go up when the price of oil goes down, go up when the Queen of Sheba farts, go up when there's a vowel in the month etc. Lower heat generation will help maintain reliable system temperatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here my proposal to accelerate hard disks:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...t=0#entry378273

and also download addresses for disk speed testing software.

I was strongly disappointed by how slow flash memory is as compared to hard disks, though the access time looks so promising. The reason behind it is that the OS doesn't organize data randomly on a disk. Since Win98, Defrag (at least the original one by Microsoft - competitors are worse) groups files used simultaneously by one application or by Win; and since Xp, the prefetch mechanism loads these files in Ram before the application requests them, and even issues simultaneous multiple access requests to the disk, allowing Ncq to reoptimize the access sequence.

In that way, the mean access time is a horribly pessimistic measure, as accesses aren't random on the disk. Since Win98, the application will find nearly all its files contiguous on the disk, and since Xp the application finds its files in the Ram before requesting them - Xp improves it further by reading them when they are easily accessible instead of waiting the application's request.

So the mean time spent waiting for a file access is much less than needed to move the arm - the arm moves very little in fact. It is even lower than half a platter rotation with Xp - this explains why Xp accepts slower disks than W2k does.

This brutal optimization brings little to flash memory. That's the reason why most flash Cf (even Slc) and Ssd are slower than a good 3.5" 7200/min disk and compete only against 2.5" 5400/min disks. Figures shown by HdTach or HdTune certainly look good for flash but don't reflect experienced computer speed. Atto is much better at predicting the experienced speed if you observe the throughput near 16kB files and keep an eye on write speed. For instance, Atto explains the experienced difference between Slc and Mlc Flash.

For its measurements, Atto takes a file on the disk (the user should choose it near the size of his application) and issues requests (multiple requests, chosen by the user) to the disk. Q=1 is nearly what Win98-Me-2k do, Q>1 resembles Xp-2k3.

By the way, defragmenting a Cf helps an awful lot as an experimental fact, whatever the reason is. I still haven't tried NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate, it might improve Flash performance on Ntfs as writing delays are so long.

Slowness issues with Flash are rather well-known and I hope some manufacturers (Intel?) have answered them, but be careful there are huge differences (look first at Slc / Mlc) and Flash does by no mean guarantee speed.

Pointertovoid, aka Enthalpy

Edited by pointertovoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I understood some of the stuff because SSDs are generally *much* faster than HDDs for sequential/random reads and sequential writes. Where they falter is at random writes, and some software solutions are already available to address that to an extent.

http://downloads.diskeeper.com/pdf/HyperFast.pdf

Operational longevity of SSDs is ofcourse yet to be determined.

The OS has no hand in organizing data physically on the disk...that is done by the disk's controller. OS organizes data only at a logical level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...