Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 3 Sep 2010.
I expected better performance.. Lame.
Are these SSDs faster than that old Gigabyte RAMdisk?
Ah, I remember the RAMdisk.
IIRC, reviews put it somewhere around 100MB/sec, which is much slower than SSDs. Remember, that was 'ancient' PC-3200 DDR memory. Hey, that might even be in F3 territory.
Now I feel like an old fart for remembering how excited everyone was when we moved from PC-2400 to PC-2700 and then PC-3200. And the big move from 100mhz to 133mhz FSB. Now my RAM is like PC3-12800 or something silly like that.
Edit - Checked another benchmark site. Surprised me. RAMdisk is still significantly faster than anything mechanical, and on par with some older SSDs.
Glad I didn't get too carried away with the hype and buy one of these then! It usually is worth waiting for a bit-tech or custom PC review before buying.
Silly Question #1 - Can it be used as the boot drive? Can see a possible use is a tiny HTPC with a PCI-Ex riser and a Mini-ITX board.
Silly Question #2 - Firmware upgrades, not sure if this is still that case, but the 1st Gen SSDs required that any RAID setup be unmapped for individual drive firmware upgades. How is that handled by this integrated solution? When I got my first SSD (1st Gen Vertex 120GB), firmware upgrades were a weekly release!
the fact that it doesnt support trim is acceptable
and that it suffers from performance degredation is an obvious byproduct
originally it was stated by ocz on their forums that trim wouldnt matter because it would be so fast.
but OCZ are essentially saying that they are not going to support the drive.
the review mentions nothing about the fact that they had to be recalled because they simply didnt work?
Why would you choose this instead of a normal SSD for use in a small HTPC? The SSD is smaller, doesn't require a PCI-e slot (or riser card) and will be significantly cheaper (for the same capacity).
Yes, it's 100% bootable, although the loading of the raid controller does add a few seconds to boot times.
Does anybody know why TRIM can't be passed to a RAID array, just curious.
Well, if you already have a micro/pico formfactor board that doesnt have Sata 6Gbps ports..
I'm talking really compact here, probably in a custom case.
You remove the power and SATA cable requirement and with a flexible riser you could position the card parallel (maybe even under) to mobo plane.
Maybe because TRIM is supported only by Windows Vista/7... In more professional environments SSDs are useless (price/negligible size/very short longevity under heavy stress) and I'm not surprised that no-one else cares about TRIM apart from Macroco$t.
In all honestly I couldn't care less about Revo or SSD as a whole. You can't escape from fact that it is a dead end. Want performance. Buy proper RAID card (at least 256MB on board cache for single array) plug 2 or 4 2.5" 7200rpm 160GB HDDs into RAID0 and forget about SSD. And if you need very fast disk for recent files when you work - buy plenty of RAM (e.g. for i7 24GB is max). Ditch swap/pagefile altogether just for a kick-off. And then create RAM disk. With 24 GB easily 12GB is enough. Running such setup for sometime, and 12GB is just enough for everything unless you want to record BlueRay or something like that. When you finish work synch data from RAM Disk to HDD and Voila (and if you don't have UPS you can setup synch command/program every minute so data won't be lost). Like I said it works perfectly, in particular with huge directories 50k, 100k and more files inside).
SATA6 SSD are interesting I admit, but faaar to expensive at the moment.
lol srsly Hakuren? and that you say will be cheaper than a "proper" SSD? I don't think so.
Proper RAID controllers are very expensive. Maybe you can get someone used. But other than that don't expect much performance from the cheaper range of RAID controllers. Also you would have a point if you went with something like VelociRaptor in RAID. Still inconvenient and not cheaper than just getting a SSD.
Also those Areca controllers are not sold everywhere. some of the better ones are difficult to get hold of. Sometimes have to source them from enterprise suppliers.
At least that is my impression of it.
do you even get what Trim does anyway seem more like an Rant where this is not
1 256GB SSD vertex based SSD (M225 or Trim supported SSD's but not JMmicron based SSDs) for out way the cost and speed (that your not likely notice) of ram Ramdrive setup and Ram it self, its like when you raid 2 SSD all your getting is more data rate and bit more random access (until the disk runs out of empty blocks then Write Tanks in speed) that only server Disk I/O loads loads is where you could tell an difference, Why i always say Buy the size of SSD you need Do not raid them or you lose TRIM support and in turn ends up slower then 1 SSD no matter how many SSDs you raid as each SSD with have an Write access time of 100+ when the drive is not trim'ed (OK yes Read access and random read would go to 300-800MB/s or random 100MB/s+ but Real would use you not notice that unless server Disk I/O loads are in play)
do note RAM drives are fast thought but have to be Very specific to use an system in that way
And windows 7 or maybe 2008 R2 server (as its basically win7 just optimised for server use) supports Trim, Not Vista or 2008 server or lower (even thought its not that hard to add Trim support to the NTFS.sys driver as its what does it when an delete command is processed)
Indeed, the golden rule here is.
Insofar as Haruken's post goes, it's so far off the mark for what any sensible consumer would buy I don't even know where to start.
SSDs are a dead end, only wannabe "enthusiasts" use them. If you need performance, you buy a proper RAID controller and several 10k or 15k disks - it seems expensive, but in fact the price per GB isn't much worse than SSDs, and you get useable diskspace.
Consumer SSDs don't make much sense, I can only see one good reason to use them - they're quiet. But to have some actual data you still need a mechanical HDD, so that advantage dies here, especially if you consider the cost factor of consumer SSDs.
Also, putting such emphasis on TRIM is silly. It's limited to one OS and the lack of it can be easily worked around.
makes no sense to me ...with a revo boot drive i get a 7.4 window exp. with a patriot 120 ssd as boot drive i get a 5.4....waz up wid dis.
Very cool but Im waiting until next year before I jump on the SSD bandwagon.
you can't think of any reasons other than the noise levels to use a single 2.5" SSD, consuming a couple watts of power and offering genuine benefits in terms of desktop user experience to and alternative of say, spending in excess of £2000 for a decent SAS RAID controller and around 2TB of usable space with 3.5" drives (and a huge case) or 1TB of usable space of 2.5" drives - that still wouldn't offer the user a desktop experience matching a single low capacity SSD in addition to a large SATA storage drive?
You're right, I can't think of any reasons the SSD is a valid option either
TRIM makes sense too. I should imagine an overwhelming majority of the target market for consumer SSDs, being "cutting edge" and all, is on Windows 7 anyway.
SSDs are far from dead, in fact they're only just starting to catch on in the enterprise sector.
I'm sorry to say that no amount of RAID'ing of 15K SAS drives is going to match a good SSD like the C300's or the newer Intel SSDs.
I use 15K 300Gb SCSI drives on one of my rigs and they are faster than regular 7,200/10,000rpm drives but not in the same ballpark as a good SSD (like my laptops Intel X-25M G2 160Gb).
STRIPING DRIVES DOES NOT REDUCE ACCESS LATENCY
Separate names with a comma.