This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

On 19/11/2014 03:24, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

You do need to choose wisely if intending to store highly compressed
binary images on them. Plenty of makers game the benchmarks by using on
the fly compression to get maximum headline read write speed.

Samsung 840 is pretty good and you generally want something sized at
256GB or above so that all the memory controller channels are populated.
You can RAID0 them too for scratch disks if you want more bandwidth and
are prepared to accept the increased risk of failure.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

On 19/11/2014 5:24 πμ, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives. I
have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

On 2014-11-19 03:24:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

With the OS and application software, plus home directory as well as
any active work files on the SSD and everything else on spinning rust I
have achieved storage nirvana. At least, until SSDs are so huge and
cheap that I can put everything onto one.

My current online storage needs are about 3TB, and it's too expensive
for me to put that all on SSDs. This sort of stuff gets cheaper all
the time so I can wait.

Recently I took the optical drive out of my wife's old Macbook (white
unibody, the "last macbook") and replaced it with an SSD as well as
cranking the RAM. Installed the latest OS X on the SSD and now she has
the same kind of SSD for active OS and files, and spinning rust for
storage that I do. She loves it and as her hard drive is set to
auto-sleep, she has found that her battery life increased by about a
third!

I see no benefit to those new-fangled "hybrid" drives (really just a HD
with a bigger, smarter cache) because the rust will still be spinning
all the time.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

| ... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
| capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
| pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.
|
| SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
| They take up less space.

The article, though, is mainly looking at what to buy
for business people buying hardware. That's not the
same thing as saying that you should replace your hard
disks with SSDs. And speed needs vary. I don't spend
my day moving photos from D drive to E drive. Other than
large data on USB sticks I never notice any sense of
waiting for data transfer. So the speed issue is relative.
A speed increase that might show up on a busy server
is not necessarily relevant on a PC.

So I don't see why there should be an "argument". SSDs
are up-and-coming. They're gradually getting cheaper.
The failure rates of both types are not encouraging. In
short, there are pros and cons. The biggest con, if you
don't already have SSDs but you do have hard disks, is
a large sum of money that you wouldn't otherwise need
to spend. Another quote from the same article:

"Similarly, SSDs are a terrible place to do a bunch of log file writes to;
eleventy squillion crappy little sub-K writes will burn out the SSDs in no
time."

So an SSD might make a good D drive, but probably not
such a good C drive. (Though I don't actually know how
much a "squillion" is. No surprise that the author is not one
of the British regulars at The Register. As much as the
British like to use their own slang overly much, at least
they don't talk like children. :)

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

and way more reliable, even if you're hammering it.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.

I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

In article , Oregonian Haruspex
wrote:

I see no benefit to those new-fangled "hybrid" drives (really just a HD
with a bigger, smarter cache) because the rust will still be spinning
all the time.

hybrid drives are actually not that great and only slightly better than
a normal hd. it's basically a big cache for recently used files, which
may not be the ones that matter.

apple's fusion drive is a much better solution because it intelligently
moves commonly used files to ssd and lesser used files to the hard
drive, but even that is not a significant improvement over a normal hd
unless you only use a small subset of files that ultimately are now on
ssd.

there's a huge, huge difference between an ssd and either of the above.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| ... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
| capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
| pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.
|
| SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
| They take up less space.

The article, though, is mainly looking at what to buy
for business people buying hardware. That's not the
same thing as saying that you should replace your hard
disks with SSDs. And speed needs vary. I don't spend
my day moving photos from D drive to E drive. Other than
large data on USB sticks I never notice any sense of
waiting for data transfer. So the speed issue is relative.
A speed increase that might show up on a busy server
is not necessarily relevant on a PC.

you *clearly* have never used a computer with ssd.

the difference is *huge*. apps launch almost instantly. file access is
much faster.

ssd can give a huge boost to older systems, although it tends to be
bottlenecked by the disk controller speed. newer computers use pci ssd
which eliminates sata entirely.

So I don't see why there should be an "argument". SSDs
are up-and-coming. They're gradually getting cheaper.
The failure rates of both types are not encouraging. In
short, there are pros and cons. The biggest con, if you
don't already have SSDs but you do have hard disks, is
a large sum of money that you wouldn't otherwise need
to spend. Another quote from the same article:

"Similarly, SSDs are a terrible place to do a bunch of log file writes to;
eleventy squillion crappy little sub-K writes will burn out the SSDs in no
time."

that's complete bull****.

even if you hammer an ssd, it will likely outlast the computer in which
it's installed.

you'd have to write many gigs of data *every* day for it to even begin
to be an issue. writing lots of little log files won't make a dent at
all.

not only that but you'll generally get a warning of impending failure
as the write limit is reached and at that point, it's likely it will
become a read-only device, so even if you do somehow reach the limit,
you won't lose data. it depends on the controller, but there's no
technical reason why it can't do that.

So an SSD might make a good D drive, but probably not
such a good C drive. (Though I don't actually know how
much a "squillion" is. No surprise that the author is not one
of the British regulars at The Register. As much as the
British like to use their own slang overly much, at least
they don't talk like children. :)

it's actually well suited for a c: drive because the apps, system and
access to other commonly used files is *greatly* accelerated. again,
the difference is staggering.

using ssd for a data drive is mostly a waste. the files are less
commonly used and/or not speed critical and there's generally a lot
more of them. an extra second to load a movie makes no difference when
the movie itself is an hour or two.

This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".
 

On 19/11/2014 5:30 μμ, nospam wrote:
In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.
I do！I have both, as I am writing after that (both a hard drive and an SSD)
I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Yep! I usually turn it off when I'm not using it. I just couldn't afford
even a 128 GB SSD (to the 120 GB I finally got) but it's enough, for
now. The barracuda １TB cost as much as the 120 GB SSD, also 62
euros-but the speed difference is tremendous、even with an AMD CPU.