On 9/5/2010 8:49 PM, Bill, W6WRT wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:44:38 -0500, Kevin<rkstover@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> SSD's are not without their own unique problems.
>> They are based on NAND Gate Flash and will eventually "wear out" from
>> continued program/erase cycles, 1 to 2M per device. MTBF doesn't apply
>> in the traditional sense.
Paraphrased It's really "the device is expected to last this long"
>> The fuller an SSD gets the slower the read
>> write access times.
Like most memory, although unlike regular RAM it's on a much slower buss.
>> Same thing applies to traditional drives but I've
>> never seen anyone fill up a 500GB hard drive. I could fill half your
>> SSD with the music on my IPod.
>>
You should see mine. I do a lot of photography, AVI work, and
programming, along with site development and maintenance for a number of
domains which includes backups for those sites. One machine also serves
as a DVR in addition to its other duties.
My external back up drives are 2T with two of them nearly full. I'd have
to do a count, but IIRC there are about 25 drives total with the
smallest being 400 Gig. I'm phasing anything under 1T out. (Except for
the ones holding the operating systems) I also do a rolling back up
across the network and had to go with a wired network to get a
reasonable speed.
If I unload a site, the whoever owns it gets the backup drive.
Unfortunately a lot of that is volunteer work. IOW "Unpaid".
This computer alone has about 4.5T resident.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Disadvantages
> REPLY:
>
> Interesting article. I was surprised to learn SSDs do not need
> defragmenting, in fact it can actually be bad for them.
>
> Time will tell which drive is best. If SSDs come down in price as much
> as HDs have over the last decade. they should be a bargain.
>
> At the request of another group member, I just did a test of write
> speed compared to a mechanical HD. Copying a 6.038 GB file from
> another HD, the mechanical drive took 4 minutes 48 seconds, while the
> SSD took 5 minutes 7 seconds. The mechanical HD was faster by about
> 7%.
"You get what you pay for" was never truer than for SSD drives. IIRC
the R/W speeds vary over a tremendous range.
Wait until the SSD runs on the memory buss instead of the FSB.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> I also tested the bootup time from power on to logon sound. I
> re-imaged both the mechanical HD and the SSD so they would have
> identical software and partition size on both.
>
> The mechanical HD took 51 seconds vs 40 seconds for the SSD. The SSD
> was faster by about 28%.
>
> Hope this info is useful.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|