Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Samsung's 24 x 220MB/s SSD RAID

<< < (3/7) > >>

Mark0:
Most of the perceivable speed increase from SSD don't come from the transfer rate (witch is multiplied with a RAID 0 setup), but simply by the near access time that's about 3 order of magnitude less than a fast HD.
Sometimes even my terribly underpowered Eee PC surprise me for some workload, thanks to the (slow!) flash drive.

There was an interesting Slashdot news some days ago, given DonationCoder's target:
Slashdot - Can SSDs Be Used For Software Development?
As usual with /., the good part is especially in some of the comments:

[...]
I use SSDs for my (both) development systems--the first was for the work system, and after seeing the improvements I decided I would never use spinning-platter technology again.

The biggest performance gains are in my IDE (IntelliJ). My "normal" sized projects tend to link to hundreds of megs of JAR files, and the IDE is constantly performing inspections to validate the code is correct. No matter how fast the processor, you quickly become IO-bound as the computer struggles to parse through tens of thousands of classes. After upgrading to SSD, I no longer find the IDE struggling to keep up.
[...]
--- End quote ---

Bye!

f0dder:
Decent SSD for OS + apps + sourcecode, RAMdisk for temporary files (and stuff like firefox profile, backed up of course), and a couple of raptors (or velociraptors :P) for disk-intensive stuff (you don't want to wear out your SSD erase cycles too fast) - coupled with a large amount of storage on a gigabit fileserver... that'd be awesome. I'm currently missing the SSD part, waiting for SSDs to become good enough, and cheap as well.

Btw, RAIDing 24 SSDs... what's the cost of that compared to a single ioDrive? That product is likely to give better transfer rate (since it's not dealing with IDE or SATA controllers) as well as perhaps latency.

cranioscopical:
I can start the four Office (2003) apps together in under a second on my system. I was hoping to see Windows starting up (post BIOS) in a couple of seconds or so.
-nosh (March 10, 2009, 03:06 PM)
--- End quote ---

Any truth to the rumour that Samsung boffins are working on an alternative rig that refuses to open MS-Office at all?

Mark0:
Another pseudo-random consideration: I think that startup time benchmark for this kind of comparisions is quite a bit unuseful. Eventually it can be of some interest for laptop users on the go (i.e., the ones that actually need to start / stop working), but surely isn't a very good indicator of the HDD vs SSD, because of all the pauses / fixed times needed for things like hardware initializations.

Also, simple load of one app often equal to just a transfer rate test, more or less.
Sometimes it can be more complex, for example with apps that then load lots of plugins (Photoshop, Acrobat Reader, etc.), or do a lot of I/O processing before showing something (Outlook, since it need to scan the mail & activity database, etc.); here the delta in favor of the SSD can be very noticeable.

As a (obvious) rule of thumb, whenever there's a lot of HD's heads trashing, an SSD can do wonders!  :Thmbsup:

Darwin:
Of course if you build a super computer it's going to be fast. I'd like to know how SSD drives work in your average consumer PC to see if it's worth all the hype to get one.
-Deozaan (March 10, 2009, 05:00 PM)
--- End quote ---

 :-[ Yeah, pretty much what I was trying to say. Fail.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page