Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The State of Solid State Storage

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the see-get-it-i-repeated-the-word-to-give-the-title-a-punch dept.

carlmenezes writes "Pretty much every time a faster CPU is released, there are always a few that are marveled by the rate at which CPUs get faster but loathe the sluggish rate that storage evolves. Recognizing the allure of solid state storage, especially to performance-conscious enthusiast users, Gigabyte went about creating the first affordable solid state storage device, and they called it i-RAM. Would you pay $100 for a 4GB Solid State Drive that is up to 6x faster than a WD Raptor?"

9 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Let me think. by gandell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Would you pay $100 for a 4GB Solid State Drive that is up to 6x faster than a WD Raptor?

    Nope. I'd rather wait longer and have more capacity for less money. After all, I use Windows as my primary OS. I'm used to waiting.

    Truthfully, though, if the price came down, I'd be interested in this for a Windows install, and then install all my apps and save all my docs to an external IDE.

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
    1. Re:Let me think. by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the other reply mentioned, it's an SATA drive so limited to 150MB/s (100MB/s in practice). The latency is very low, yes, but that's not the only factor. There is only so much you can do with double the bandwidth, no matter how low the latency is.

      I also wonder if the benchmarks were done with drive caches on or off. I would imagine that this drive would be faster with caches off. With what might as well be zero latency on disk accesses, the benefit of a cache is lost; reading ahead probably will only waste bandwidth reading stuff we may not need.

      I'm very disappointed that the article didn't mention SATA2 (300MB/s), which is already available in most new motherboards. With double the bandwidth it would have made a big difference. It's very likely the device doesn't support SATA2. However the Anandtech article makes NO MENTION at all of SATA2, not even to the point of saying "We'd like to see this drive with SATA2 support."

  2. More than $100... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The card itself goes for $150, not including any RAM. So add 4 1GB sticks of RAM and you are looking at $500+ for the whole setup. So that is about $125 per GB...ouch!

  3. Am I getting old? by iguana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember seeing this sort of thing way back in the DOS days. Battery backed RAM on an ISA card. Product died out because RAM was more expensive than HD.

  4. Eh by Tranquilus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The performance numbers Anand came up with on this are a little disappointing, in my view. It's nice, of course, to get a few seconds quicker startup of apps or level loads, but I doubt this is really worth it to most of us at this stage (aside from the coolness factor). Once capacity of these rises enough to make them capable of replacing HDs, though, they might be really nifty in the entertainment/HTPC space due to that silent operation. Basically, an interesting concept, still not quite ready for prime time, but getting a lot closer. Worth a quick read, anyway...

  5. Darn straight I would/will! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    FreeBSD allows you to allocate a dynamically resizable filesystem out of swap (see: md, mfs). I'm thinking of mounting the whole thing as a super-fast swap partition - basically, as a giant L4 cache - and mounting /tmp and a few other speed-critical filesystems out of there.

    Mmmm, hyper-fast builds that don't depend on the latency of moving parts...

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Darn straight I would/will! by slashdot.org · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FreeBSD allows you to allocate a dynamically resizable filesystem out of swap (see: md, mfs). I'm thinking of mounting the whole thing as a super-fast swap partition - basically, as a giant L4 cache - and mounting /tmp and a few other speed-critical filesystems out of there.

      Mmmm, hyper-fast builds that don't depend on the latency of moving parts...

      This doesn't make sense. I suspect that you were misled by the incorrect summary. You don't get 4GB of solid state storage for $100.-. That would actually be a really good deal. All you get is a card which has SATA on one side and RAM slots on the other side.

      So instead of buying this card you could take the $100 towards a motherboard that supports > 4GB of RAM. Then the RAM will be sitting on a bus that can actually sustain datarates WAY higher than SATA.

      Since you don't need persistent storage for cache it makes little sense to stick it on a bus that can theoretically do, what, 150 MB/s? When you can stick it on a bus which can do several GB/s.

      I don't really see the point of this card, since it will only keep the data for 16 hours if not powered. In other words, if you leave for a weekend and for some reason the power to your PC is turned off, your tough out of luck.

      Other cards that I have seen in the past that make more sense, actually have a normal drive for persistent storage. If power fails, there's enough backup power to write everything to disk. That's basically like having cache on the disk equal to the size of the disk.

      Bottom line; this is a rehash of what's been done many times before, didn't really take off then, and considering a relatively stupid implementation, probably won't take off now.

  6. Re:No Way! by peculiarmethod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't agree. I record music on at least 8 tracks at a time into a single cpu. I NEED higher transfer rates. If it's 4 gigs, thats enough to keep it recording without a drop in an entire days worth of recording. Then I can dump all that data to a slower, larger drive. It may not fit everyone's needs.. but this is PERFECT for me.

    --
    ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
  7. ramdisk comments by NASAdude · · Score: 5, Informative

    I submitted this as a story back on June 4. Since it was rejected (too verbose?), I posted it to my /. journal. My main question to other folks relates to how this would compare to using a regular ramdisk. The main deficiency with a ramdisk is that you'd have to reload the contents every time you reboot. Here's my article, with all its links:

    Giga-byte Technology recently came out with a DRAM-based PC card that operates as a SATA hard drive. The product, iRAM, uses power from the motherboard to keep memory active when the system is shut down. During power outages, the product uses a on-board battery to retain memory for up to 90 minutes. The iRAM card is being talked about in the news (InfoWorld, itWorldCanada, engadget, PCWorld, multiplay forum) as a means of booting Windows faster. That is, you install Windows onto the iRAM drive to take advantage of the RAM's faster read-access time. Just hope that you don't lose power for more than 90 minutes.

    Is boot time really that important, since many computers are on all the time? A ramdisk might have better uses, perhaps for caching frequently-accessed files such as databases and webservers. Or, if you insist on having faster bootup, instead of putting Windows on the iRAM disk, why not just store the hibernation file there?

    I implemented a RAM-based database for an internet tool in 1998 to alleviate the read/write load on my local hard drive. It turned out to be a simple solution for the problem. At the time, it was just a matter of using a DOS-based ramdisk driver (ramdisk.sys). On application startup, it copied the database files to the ramdisk. During operation, everything was read/written to the ramdisk, and periodic backups were made to the physical disk. There are some inherent risks, such as loss of data during a crash since data isn't immediately written to a physical hard drive, so it may not be a great solution for a mission-critical production database. The iRAM product would make this type of database even more stable, in that the risk of loss of data is much less.

    That was a while ago, so I thought I'd look into setting up a ramdisk in XP for some amusement. Follows are the results of that search. It seems that the options are relatively sparse beyond the DOS-based driver. A few freeware and commercial packages are available, though. One key factor beyond price is the size limit of ramdisk.

    Microsoft's ramdisk offerings since Win2k are limited. Included with the XP OS is a ramdisk sample driver that "provides an example of a minimal driver. Neither the driver nor the sample programs are intended for use in a production environment. Rather, they are intended for educational purposes and as a skeletal version of a driver." Installation isn't simple enough for most users to benefit.

    Alternatives include a shareware ramdisk, AR ramdisk (archive link: http://web.archive.org/web/20041011170408/http:/ww w.arsoft-online.de/products/product.php?id=1) (freeware, 2GB limit, discontinued, available for download here), a freeware (64MB limit) and shareware (2GB limit) version here,