• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

10k vs SSD

R

Rossi~

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
3,479
10,000 rpm drive VS an 80Gb SSD

Im think of waiting for SATA3 to settle in a bit then im going to replace my motherboard and move to SATA3 for my main drive.
I really need around 160Gbish for OS, games and overflow to be honest, so i can either get 2x80Gb SSD in RAID-0, 1x160Gb SSD or the 10k rpm HDD in RAID-0.

HDD will be cheaper
SSD is newer and less risk involved with RAID-0

This will probably happen end of Q1 next year so prices will change a bit.
 
pro's: everything
cons: cost, and perhaps, data retention if you ever decide to archive somthing on it for more then several years (flash memory loses its retention after a number of years IIRC)

I vote SSD over 10K.

Also vote 160GB Intel G2 over 2x 80GB RAID0.
 
Rossi~ said:
How much faster is SSD over HDD then? That good huh?
Click to expand...

I take it you haven't read any of the discussions or reviews. The "enthusiasts" have been migrating over to SSD for the past 8 or 10 months, though quite a few are still waiting for price drops.

In your situation i'd start with the 160gb, then when you get bored with that you can tack on a second 160gb when prices are more reasonable.
 
SJetski71 said:
I take it you haven't read any of the discussions or reviews. The "enthusiasts" have been migrating over to SSD for the past 8 or 10 months, though quite a few are still waiting for price drops.

In your situation i'd start with the 160gb, then when you get bored with that you can tack on a second 160gb when prices are more reasonable.
Click to expand...

Not recently no, i didn't bother since the prices of them are ridiculous. Just checked out one on SSD 6Gbps..... i want.
I was thinking also whether i should get a new motherboard with SATAIII 6Gbps and USB3 or jsut get controller cards. At the moment they are expensive but will fall in price next year.
Im thinking i may save and blow it on a 6gbps controller card and 2x160Gb SSD . Then at somepoint when i want to use USB3 with a USB 3 device i may have i'll just buy a card with a could of points.
 
I'm doubtful you'll need RAID 0. One good SSD, especially if your waiting till SATA3, will be so much faster than 7.2k drives. Heck probably beat my 2 15kdrives in RAID0 too! (And they were FAST!)

Personally, I find the number of people opting for RAID0 off the bat with SSD's a bit sad, does no one think of mirroring? Or at the very least keeping a 250-500GB drive to clone your OS drive to every week or so? SSD's can die too.
 
For general comparison sake a decent not great but decent ssd will blow a raided raptor system out of the water they are that much faster. Not to mention power consumption, heat, etc...
 
If im going to dish out a lot of money on my rig im going to do it over the top a little, i usually do. That said, i may as well buy 2 identical good 160/120 gb SSD's SATA3 and raid0 them.
No need for mirror etc as all is backed up frequently anyway to a large HDD in the same machine and also on the file server we have.
 
Not to mention the noise! My Raptor is by far the loudest device inside my Mac Pro... at least until 2009/12/24 ;-)
 
My X25-M 80gb is faster in day to day tasks than my 15k.6 Cheetah.
 
my single OCZ Vertex 60GB smoked my 4x 15k Savvio RAID-0 in subjective everyday usage scenarios. They also can't touch the SSD in latency and load times. If you have $500, then your choice is harder (because you can afford either option). If you don't, your choice is easy, because you don't currently have one.

Oh, and save yourself the headache, if you go SSD, get one that supports TRIM and GC.
 
OCZ Vertex specs:

Performance
Max Shock Resistance 1500G
Sequential Access - Read Up to 230 MB/s
Sequential Access - Write Up to 135 MB/s

Sustained Write: Up to 70MB/s
MTBF 1,500,000 hours
 
All I can say is please do a bunch of research. You'll never get a straight answer from "enthusiasts" who just sank a ton of money into a part and mainly run benchmarks.

Just look into the issues around degradation of performance over time, why it happens, the status of TRIM, the differences between MLC vs SLC, the impact of different revs of firmware, etc.

My data needs go well beyond SSD on my gaming machine, but I do have a premium SSD (OCZ) on my laptop.

I'm not blown away by the performance at all vs very high speed disk setups (HW RAID with 10K drives) and Im not sure Id make a big investment in SSD for a desktop until the technology settles more.

Most sites benchmark these devices on brand new systems and never come back. They have a very high e-peen factor so the "l33t" swoon. Very few sites are doing performance degradation studies and trying to peel away the hype of these things. Those that do tend to come to the conclusion of "well, worst case is blow the drive away periodically and reimage - no worse than defragging"

Personally, I find that is BS. I have to do it on my laptop. Its annoying. Defragging, on the other hand, I never do at all. And performance doesnt degrade that much. You cant compare the task of defragging a magnetic disk with needing to reimage an SSD as a result of the impact of write leveling and the erase cycle because there is no commonality between them on the physical layer.

There is a lot of misinformation too. People genuinely believing that if they just leave "buffer space" on their SSD they will be fine. Or people insisting that they have NEVER sufferered degradation even when the manufacturer of their SSD has issued FW updates to correct degradation.

This is already too much info... Basically... do a lot of reading before you drop your benjamins is the net net here.
 
On your laptop, are you running a trim enabled drive? From what I've read most of the degradation issues have been addressed with trim.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Dont SSD still have bad write speeds?
Click to expand...

You asked this question in the thread about the Seagate Pulsar.

No, they don't

In response to your question I tested my Patriot Torqx SSD against my WD SE16... which is supposedly a fairly zippy 7200 rpm drive... my Torqx thoroughly hammers it.

Thoroughly.

mlambert890 said:
All I can say is please do a bunch of research...<snip>
Click to expand...

I've a couple of quick questions:
Which OCZ SSD? Vertex? Agility?
Which firmware on said SSD? 1.3? 1.4?
What operating system? XP? 7?
Does the wiper tool work on your system?

If you're running one of the Indillinx Barefoot drives there's no reason for you to need to regularly re-image your system. Update your firmware to one which supports TRIM if you're running Windows 7 or to the latest firmware which supports Garbage Collection if you're running any other operating system. Then you can just let your system idle from time to time and it will keep it's performance nice and zippy.
 
For large sequential files, a good HDD can beat an SSD. However, in random reads and writes, SSDs are an order of magnitude better than HDDs. HDDs simply have the mechanical limitation of the read/write head needing to move around to specific spots on the platter, while the SSD is just a bunch of flash chips that can all be accessed nearly instantly. For things like an OS, random access is king. For saving/copying ISO files, SSDs won't really be anything special.

Read Anand's articles on SSDs. There's a lot of info there, so you can understand why things happen and what's done to avoid those weak areas. For example, the degradation happens because NAND flash can't overwrite data, it has to erase then write. When the drive is brand new, it has lots of clean blocks it can remap data to. As long as you have some free blocks, writes will be almost instantaneous. Once you've filled up every block with data, writes require the SSD to cache the existing good data in the block, then erase the block, then write the previous valid data plus the new data. Obviously that's a lot more work than simply writing the data. TRIM and Garbage Collection systems allow the SSD to be notified when files are deleted and mark those pages as no longer holding valid data. The drive can then erase those pages/blocks as it comes across them, making them instantly available for writing when needed. This also leads to less invalid data being rewritten which should increase the lifespan of the flash as well.

Even a fully degraded SSD is still way faster than a 10k VelociRaptor.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=13
Anand said:
To put things in perspective, look at these drives at their worst compared to Western Digital’s VelociRaptor. The degraded performance X25-M still completes write requests in around 1/8 the time of the VelociRaptor. Transfer speeds are still 8x higher as well.
Click to expand...
 
DD_nVidia said:
I'm doubtful you'll need RAID 0. One good SSD, especially if your waiting till SATA3, will be so much faster than 7.2k drives. Heck probably beat my 2 15kdrives in RAID0 too! (And they were FAST!)

Personally, I find the number of people opting for RAID0 off the bat with SSD's a bit sad, does no one think of mirroring? Or at the very least keeping a 250-500GB drive to clone your OS drive to every week or so? SSD's can die too.
Click to expand...

I agree, with SSD there is no need for RAID. It will not increase your random read speed noticably. RAID does increase your Sequential speed which does not affect your day to day use only you copy or move large I meant large file.

I say it again, no mechanical HD whether RAID or 15K RPM can launch your program like a single SSD does and only SSD put your system to sleep and wake up almost instant.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned and really probably isn't a factor for most people. Most SSD's on the market will ackownledge a write complete before it has actually been written to the flash. This can result in data corruption in some senario's especially power loss. This isn't really a problem for most consumers but in enterprise situation it can be very bad.
 
true. most ssds are write through, instead of write back. it can cause corruption, yes.
 
draksia said:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned and really probably isn't a factor for most people. Most SSD's on the market will ackownledge a write complete before it has actually been written to the flash. This can result in data corruption in some senario's especially power loss. This isn't really a problem for most consumers but in enterprise situation it can be very bad.
Click to expand...

Interesting..



Ok guys, thank you all for such an overwhelming bombardment of information, brilliant :) .I have taken a look at some reviews and benchmarks and i can agree that 1x160Gb SATA3 SSD would be more than fast enough for my needs, i will go down that route with a couple of large HDD's for mass storage that doesn't require so much speed (Videos, Music and Downloads) so probably a 500Gb for music and 1.5Tb for the rest, both of which will be copied externally for backup along with contents of the SSD.

I will be doing this no earlier than end Q1 pending pennies... and also to let the SSD market open up a bit more and also SATA3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top