Slashdot Mirror
Why a Hard Disk Is a Better Bargain Than an SSD
Lucas123 writes "While solid state disks may be all the rage, what's often being overlooked in the current consumer market hype is that fact that hard disk drive prices are at an all-time low — offering users good performance and massive amounts of capacity for 10 to 30 cents a gigabyte. And in a side by side comparison of overall performance of consumer SSDs and HDDs, it's hard to justify spending 10 times as much for a little more speed."
Aren't hard disk prices always at an all time low? Have they ever gone up in price?
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
From the article: "(Random access was a jaw-dropping 7ms.)" 7ms random access time is not "jaw dropping"...in computer terms it's an aeon. This fascination with sequential read and write speeds has got to stop. A ssd with 40 mb/sec read and write but 0.1ms random access time will fell faster than a 200mb/sec hard drive for a large number of applications. In the enterprise world, random access time is even more important. Performance critical databases run on giant storgage systems with dozens of disks not for storage reasons, but because of limitations of the spinning platter. SSDs stand poised to revolutionize computing by drastically raising the slowest (and most important) component in the computer a couple of orders in magnitude of performance.
If I have an SSD in a laptop and I drop the laptop, what are the chances that even if my screen goes splat, my keyboard gets crumbled and the case splits open that my data is still safe? Pretty good. On the other hand, if the same laptop had a hard disk, you are looking at some pretty expensive data recovery plans to get data off of it. Sure, SSDs may have other issues (such as you can only write to a certain sector so many times till it becomes read-only) but with SSDs now and in the future you shouldn't have unpredictable failures like what happens to so many HDs.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
but burst speed measured with HDTach is the only metric that's important when you wish to make your point that traditional rotating platter based hard drives are "nearly as fast" as quality SSD drives.
seriously.....
is there anyone by now that HASN'T seen the extensive test by Anandtech that completely DESTROYS this bullshit article?
All that matters in the real world for HDD performance is Random read and write speeds.
And the difference in the two is an order of magnitude or more using the very fastest consumer drives (WDVR) and a quality SSD (Intel X-25).
This benchmark shows Intel's X25-E SSD beating a 15k Seagate Cheetah SAS drive by over 50MB/s read and 10MB/s write speeds. I'd hardly call this "a little more speed." The SSD seems even better when you figure in the noise and heat generated by the 15k RPM Cheetah.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
I'll go for capacity every time
Will you? Even when your primary objective is one of the following?
If you just need storage, I would agree with you. My file server uses an array of traditional 1TB HDD like everybody else, but when you have a file server with all your data, none of the other computers in your house will need significant amounts of their own capacity. Why target capacity on basically a thin client when you can get something smaller with so many better attributes?
And for contrast:
/mythtv
:)
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/mythvg-mythtv 658G 645G 14G 98%
Or: Pick the right tool for your job.
There are, actually, a lot of areas where flash based storage is a bargain(though, they don't tend to be areas where SSDs are used).
If you quote the cost/gig of magnetic storage based on the price of a basic OEM drive in whatever the sweet spot happens to be at the time, it looks like an incredible deal. 10 cents/gig seems to be the going number these days. However, that is for a 1TB+ drive. What if you only need 4GB, or 1GB, or 16MB? You can get a 1TB drive for $100; but you can't get a 1GB drive for 10 cents, or even $10. Traditional hard drives have comparatively high fixed costs("fixed" in the "these costs are more or less the same between the lowest capacity and the highest capacity" not in the strict economic sense). The cheapest HDD you can get(new, quantity one, not off the back of Honest Yuri's truck) is $25-$30, no matter how small a drive you want. For roughly the same price, you can get an 8GB flash drive under the same conditions.
For any application at or under 8GB(a number that is way higher than it used to be, and will probably keep rising) flash is actually cheaper than HDD, because of HDD's high fixed costs. Not to mention all the applications where a full hard drive is undesirable for other reasons. This certainly doesn't include file servers(unless IOPs are a big consideration) and it doesn't yet cover most desktop/laptop scenarios(though it is much closer than it used to be, and it does cover a fair few netbooks); but it does include the overwhelming majority of PMP, appliance, and embedded applications.
Next I transferred a 1GB folder filled with photos and video files to the drives from a USB drive. Both the SSD and the HDD accomplished the file transfer in about 50 seconds (the Seagate was 2 seconds slower).
Hmm, interesting that they both performed exactly the same. I would have expected the HDD to be faster transfering sequential data, except they were probably both limited by the transfer rate of the older, generic USB drive you were using. Way to go, you've successfully benchmarked the transfer rate for a USB drive that you weren't even reviewing.
Or this:
A lot depends on how you expect to use your computer. If you're a college student writing papers and surfing the Internet for information, the advantages of an SSD are negligible, but if you're downloading video and using multiple applications at the same time, an SSD will give you a very noticeable performance boost, Wong said.
This is exactly backwards. The college student downloading video will need the extra hard drive space, where the college student writing papers and surfing the internet is going to have a much better experience with storage that performs better under random io workloads. But then again, what college student these days doesn't have an external usb hard drive for all their media?
They also mention that consumers will likely look for larger storage regardless of the type of underlying technology. But the consumers likely to care are the same as those likely to know the difference between HDD and SDD in the first place. The consumer that doesn't is more likely to make a purchase based on "wow 20 second bootup" and "MS Office starts in a snap, and everything goes faster" than anything else.
For interactive workloads nothing beats SSD.
Back maybe 5 years ago there were articles like this talking about how CRTs still had so much to offer and how they were so cheap and how LCD displays were still new and expensive...
Somehow I expect this article to have a similarly short shelf life and will look at best amusingly quaint in about 2-3 years when SSDs start getting really price competitive with spinning platters. Probably not cheaper, but close enough that people will be willing to pay the extra for the rather substantial performance improvement.
I read the internet for the articles.