IDC: SSD performance gap 'small' - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 17th Jul 2008, 09:17

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07...ce-gap-small/1

Research house IDC has published results of a test demonstrating that the performance differential between SSDs and traditional drives is a lot smaller than previously thought.

Dr. Strangelove · 17th Jul 2008, 09:47

If the SSD's could match the performance of the faster (less energy efficient?) mechanical drives would we not be seeing SSD drives for desktops already?

Gareth Halfacree · 17th Jul 2008, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

If the SSD's could match the performance of the faster (less energy efficient?) mechanical drives would we not be seeing SSD drives for desktops already?

The 2.5" SATA SSDs work fine in a desktop - but are much more expensive per gigabyte. If you're asking why there aren't any 3.5" SATA SSDs, it's because it's a relatively small market currently (the main advantage for SSDs, shock resistance, doesn't apply to desktop computing) and because there's no need to make a bigger unit that will only fit in a desktop when you can make a smaller unit that fits in both laptops and desktops.

Liquid K9 · 17th Jul 2008, 10:05

SSD's are still as-good-as-theoretical while the price per gigabyte gap is so immense....

Quote:

1TB Seagate 3.5" 'regular' Hard Disk Drive - approx 120eur (0.12c per gigabyte)
128GB 2.5" OCZ Solid State Disk Drive - approx 400eur (3.11eur per gigabyte)

thats a difference of 2.99eur per gigabyte - or a 2,400% premium. still sound like a viable option to you? not me.

iwod · 17th Jul 2008, 11:07

One reason would be none of the current OS has optimization for SSD.
SSD has a future for much greater speed. Intel has said their SSD is going to be 200+ MB/s ... although it still hasn't appeared yet.

wuyanxu · 17th Jul 2008, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwod

One reason would be none of the current OS has optimization for SSD.
SSD has a future for much greater speed. Intel has said their SSD is going to be 200+ MB/s ... although it still hasn't appeared yet.

Windows is optimised.

putting Vista on Raptor greatly increases Windows smoothness, so putting on a high performance SSD should increase it even more.

the "small gap" is just saying in comparison to high speed HDD, it's not a large improvement. after-all, current high speed HDD (veloci-Raptor) is already very fast

Gareth Halfacree · 17th Jul 2008, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuyanxu

Windows is optimised.

In no sense of the word is Windows 'optimised' for anything, much less SSDs. By default, Windows writes a large quantity of temporary files to the boot volume - along with a pagefile containing data swapped out of RAM. This constant read/write cycle impacts on the SSD due to the limited number of writes available to Flash memory. Basically, running an unmodified OS on an SSD will result in an expensive paperweight in a short length of time.

Now, you can turn the pagefile off and reduce the number of temporary files created (or move both to a mechanical volume), but that's something you have to do. Likewise, you can do the same in Linux and, I assume, MacOS. That doesn't make either of those 'optimised' for SSD use either - unless someone has already done so and released a special version, such as the SSD-optimised Eeebuntu Ubuntu variant designed for the Asus Eee PC.

chicorasia · 17th Jul 2008, 13:16

All speed and lifecycle issues aside, has anyone ever tried to recover data from a damaged SSD?

If a controller chip burns out, can you still recover your data? Is there such a thing as a block-by-block clone of the SSD? How do software tools such as Data Rescue II cope with SSDs?

desertstalker · 18th Jul 2008, 02:52

The manufacturers specify 10s of years if you write the entire contents of the SSD each day, (ie if you have a 128GB device and write 128GB of data to it each day it will last 10+ years). The problem of flash wearing out is almost a non issue these days.

The wear levelling algorithms will ensure that individual sectors do not get prematurely destroyed by pagefiles etc.

17th Jul 2008, 09:17	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,940	IDC: SSD performance gap 'small' http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07...ce-gap-small/1 Research house IDC has published results of a test demonstrating that the performance differential between SSDs and traditional drives is a lot smaller than previously thought. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

17th Jul 2008, 09:47	#2
Dr. Strangelove Supermodder Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dundee Posts: 306	If the SSD's could match the performance of the faster (less energy efficient?) mechanical drives would we not be seeing SSD drives for desktops already? __________________ If it isn’t broken, fix it. If it is broken, mod it till it looks like it's meant to be broken.

17th Jul 2008, 11:07	#5
iwod Minimodder Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 44	One reason would be none of the current OS has optimization for SSD. SSD has a future for much greater speed. Intel has said their SSD is going to be 200+ MB/s ... although it still hasn't appeared yet.

17th Jul 2008, 13:16	#8
chicorasia Multimodder Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 83	All speed and lifecycle issues aside, has anyone ever tried to recover data from a damaged SSD? If a controller chip burns out, can you still recover your data? Is there such a thing as a block-by-block clone of the SSD? How do software tools such as Data Rescue II cope with SSDs?

18th Jul 2008, 02:52	#9
desertstalker Modder Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 53	The manufacturers specify 10s of years if you write the entire contents of the SSD each day, (ie if you have a 128GB device and write 128GB of data to it each day it will last 10+ years). The problem of flash wearing out is almost a non issue these days. The wear levelling algorithms will ensure that individual sectors do not get prematurely destroyed by pagefiles etc.