Slashdot Mirror
Four SSDs Compared — OCZ, Super Talent, Mtron
MojoKid writes "Solid State Drive technology is set to turn the storage industry on its ear — eventually. It's just a matter of time. When you consider the intrinsic benefits of anything built on solid-state technology versus anything mechanical, it doesn't take a degree in physics to understand the obvious advantages. However, as with any new technology, things take time to mature and the current batch of SSDs on the market do have some caveats and shortcomings, especially when it comes to write performance. This full performance review and showcase of four different Solid State Disks, two MLC-based and two SLC-based, gives a good perspective of where SSDs currently are strong and where they're not. OCZ, Mtron and Super Talent drives are tested here but Intel's much anticipated offering hasn't arrived to market just yet."
Yet another SSD review by clueless PC dweebs.
The whole point of SSDs is that they have no moving parts, so they don't have the seek time and rotational latency of spinning disks. That translates into faster random access. As the review says:
So what do they measure? Sequential transfer rates.
Gah.
Well, let's see:
- Magnetic hard drive = solid state (ICs, buffers, etc) + magnetic platter + mechanical (rotating platter(s) + moving heads)
- SSD = solid state
As soon as the price per GB of SSDs is at parity with the magnetic drives, I'm switching. It probably puts out less heat and require less power, meaning quieter drives too.
There are some steam trains out there that are running and are over 100 years old... do we really think that a CPU or a RAM or a motherboard can live that long?
I agree completely. I, too, am dismayed at the lack of development in steam-powered computing.
Someone wake me up when there's a 1TB SSD for $250 that can do unlimited rewrite ops.
Um, even mechanical hard drives cannot promise unlimited rewrite ops. Maybe you want lower your sights jut a tad?
Bearded Dragon
http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1211
RTFM? Shit... comments, articles, now I have to read a damn manual too. Jesus Slashdot is getting harder and harder these days.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It's a good point. SSDs are so new that we can't really say empirically that they'll last for a lot of years. If nothing else, though, they'll be relatively safe against dropping your laptop on the floor.
Are those steam trains really running with 100 year old parts?
Or do you regularly go in and maintain the various components of you hard drives?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
As soon as the price per GB of SSDs is at parity with the magnetic drives, I'm switching.
Actual price parity will likely only occur once the older technology become a rarity, and I suspect that for the next decade, magnetic drives will continue to be the cheapest mass storage out there. That being said, for me, I'll buy a SSD when I can get a decently rated 120 gig drive for less than $150.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Someone wake me up when there's a 1TB SSD for $250 that can do unlimited rewrite ops.
Let me guess, you want a car's drivetrain to promise "unlimited mileage" and your homes A/C refrigerant to promise "unlimited compression/decompression cycles".
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but words like "unlimited" are marketing words only. EVERYTHING is limited and finite. In this case, consumer protection laws state that 7 years of normal usage is long enough to be considered "lifetime" or "infinite" or "unlimited" and all sorts of other key words and tricky phrases.
Those mechanical drives you are comparing SSDs to? They don't offer "unlimited rewrites" except in the marketing sense. 7 years of normal usage. In that same sense, SSDs are already offering unlimited rewrites as they have enough rewrite cycles to last 7 years of normal usage. Just like the mechanical drives.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Lots. For a high-speed SLC (i.e. something that will equal a cheap 7200rpm spinning platter), you'll pay $400+ for a 64gb and $700+ for a 128gb at this point. Basically, they're completely economically infeasible at anything larger than the 4/8gb you see being used to store the OS and apps in netbooks, unless you have a critical need to access a lot of data at high speed while driving a truck over a small post-apocalyptic wasteland.
By what WITCHCRAFT would thou know the article contents?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Man, I just realized how old I'm getting ...
No you didn't. You realized that awhile back but forgot.
I got a Core 64GB. I build large java projects. This is for my workstation, not a laptop. Power and quiet were not the reasons for my experimental purchase.
I aimed to slash my build time for complex scenarios.
I thought the Compile -> Jar -> War -> Deploy -> Expand -> Launch would be greatly spead up as the files would be accessed quickly.
I hoped effectively for a much more targeted and capacious file cache/ RAM disk.
Unfortunately, the hype does not turn out to be true.
The enormous time cost of writing files smaller than 8MB (!) [see footnotes] completely counters any read speed increase. Building a proect is making thousands of 2KiB files : one of the most pathological cases for these drives.
So is it slow? No, it's just as quick as a sluggish 7K250, but then again I just coughed up £179 for the privelege of the same speed.
So I'm ebaying mine to someone who wants it for a light and quiet laptop, perfect.
-----------------
Some "Terrible small write performance" links I found during research:
* http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ssd-iram_6.html
* http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=106
[% slash_sig_val.text %]