Solid state drive growth and pricing

Saman said:
The great thing about SSD's for me are that they're completely silent (and of course, cool). Perfect for an HTPC :cool:, except the price :(
Click to expand...
Comsume less power too

SSD have a MTBF of 1 million hrs and regular drives 50 000 hrs.
I/O intensive operations like in Oracle databases are perfect to put your REDO logs, TEMP tablespaces, UNDO tablespaces, INDEXES on SSD drives and leave your Datafiles on regular drives. Perfect for Write operations

This is a start, just make sure your Hardware that runs the SSD drives does not get congested (on F/O) with other traffic.

http://storagesearch.com/
 
Last edited:
kilos said:
Comsume less power too

SSD have a MTBF of 1 million hrs and regular drives 50 000 hrs.
I/O intensive operations like in Oracle databases are perfect to put your REDO logs, TEMP tablespaces, UNDO tablespaces, INDEXES on SSD drives and leave your Datafiles on regular drives. Perfect for Write operations

This is a start, just make sure your Hardware that runs the SSD drives does not get congested (on F/O) with other traffic.

http://storagesearch.com/
Click to expand...

see you are getting all ITIL on us :cool:
 
P0is3nIvy said:
Wow, imagine an SSD on a USB 3.0 bus!
Click to expand...

A usb 3.0 bus?...A universal serial bus bus? :p

Seriously though I thought SSD's had lifespan issues as well as the data loss experienced on them. I mean Intel had to recently recall their latest SSD release because of firmware issues causing a all data on the SSD to become irretrievable. (as I recall it occurred when a user reset the BIOS password)

While SSD's are coming along nicely there are still a few too many bugs for my liking. I know these will be ironed out, but for now I don't feel comfortable running anything critical on them.

Please before I get bombarded with criticism from SSD fanbois note that I really do like SSD's, I just don't like the reduced lifespans, the niggly bugs or the high prices.
 
one of the problems and contributor to cost is radiation free silicon, otherwise you will get random soft errors - would be nice to see a SATA 3 solid state array should do a throughput of 500 MB/s
 
HDD are magnetic, with some mechanical parts, while SSD are semiconductors. What then is the difference between SSD and normal RAM? Why does SSD have limited write cycles and I/O speeds in the 200 MB/s region while RAM doesn't have limited write cycles, I/O speeds in the 1000 (?) MB/s region but seems to be limited to smaller capacities? Are these essentially the same things with slightly different designs optimised for storage vs. random access?
 
love the drive (want it) price kinda heavy, but just imagine 4 of them in raid6?
 
PeterCH said:
There are known issues with 'wear leveling' algorithms. The thing works in theory on SSDs with lots of free space but once you go down to little available space you end up having to rewrite the same sectors over and over again plus you can't erase and overwrite SSDs as easily as magnetic HDDs.
Click to expand...

You can't?

Please link me to that peter, my drive says i can delete and write for the next 10 years with no problems. Peter how long have you had your ssd for again? O wait you have never had one or even seen one yet you always make these claims :D

Borrels i think the difference is RAM does not have to keep the data, once you reboot the ram is clean, ssd's need to keep the data obviously :D
 
Last edited:
Some people don't seem to realise that there are different types of SSDs on the market.
DRAM (or RAM) SSDs are not the same as Flash SSDs.

DRAM SSDs are typically battery backed up or backed up to a solid state device or hard disk with battery power when you switch them off. They're much faster than Flash based SSDs and much more expensive but they do not wear out.

Flash based SSDs are not suitable for disk intensive IO applications (such as databases).
Even with the wear leveling algorithms they will not last long with thousands of write cycles per hour. For IO intensive apps use DRAM based SSDs.

DRAM based SSDs :
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-ram.html

Specs of the RamSan-440 DDR RAM SSD
Over 600,000 random I/Os per second
4500 MB/s random sustained external throughput
$290k for the 0.5TB model :)
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-7.html

I'm giving the flash based SSDs a skip - I'd rather spend the money on a decent striped RAID array that have my data disappear at random.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
You can't?

Please link me to that peter, my drive says i can delete and write for the next 10 years with no problems. Peter how long have you had your ssd for again? O wait you have never had one or even seen one yet you always make these claims :D
Click to expand...
So says the man that believes his SSD when it tells him it can erase and write to this drive for the next 10 years. Where does it get these mystical powers that allow it to predict that their won't be a drive failure over the next 10 years?

I would love that power as it would mean my backup regime could be far less intense. That drive is like an electronic Nostradamus. :D
 
PeterCH said:
There are known issues with 'wear leveling' algorithms. The thing works in theory on SSDs with lots of free space but once you go down to little available space you end up having to rewrite the same sectors over and over again plus you can't erase and overwrite SSDs as easily as magnetic HDDs.
Click to expand...

No problem with my Samsung. My drive is full quite often.

porchrat said:
Seriously though I thought SSD's had lifespan issues as well as the data loss experienced on them. I mean Intel had to recently recall their latest SSD release because of firmware issues causing a all data on the SSD to become irretrievable. (as I recall it occurred when a user reset the BIOS password)
Click to expand...

No problems with Samsung SSD's.
 
no sodding way am i putting a drive in my machine where the drive costs more than the rest of the machine collectively lol
 
porchrat said:
So says the man that believes his SSD when it tells him it can erase and write to this drive for the next 10 years. Where does it get these mystical powers that allow it to predict that their won't be a drive failure over the next 10 years?

I would love that power as it would mean my backup regime could be far less intense. That drive is like an electronic Nostradamus. :D
Click to expand...

I said it could do it without a problem i never said anything about it failing, so obviously if the drive does not fail it can read and write for the next ten years, what don't you understand about that?

You also know that ssd's have no moving parts which means they are far less likely to break. I would rather have my data backed on an ssd than a mechanical drive and one day this will be possible. The reason they mention that is because the first SSD's that hit martet could only be written to x amount of times where as now ssd's can be written to for 10 years if not longer(provide they do not fail OBVIOUSLY)

Porchart just as seagate, maxtor and WD in the past have had dodgy drives, some ssd's will have the same problems.

Do you know how many .11 seagate 500 and 1tb drives died? So you will have problems with any technology and it can go very wrong, it does not mean because intel have a problem that other the 20 ssd manufacturers will have the same problems.

Samsung and WD did not have tons of failing 500gb and 1tb because they are different companies.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
I said it could do it without a problem i never said anything about it failing, so obviously if the drive does not fail it can read and write for the next ten years, what don't you understand about that?

You also know that ssd's have no moving parts which means they are far less likely to break. I would rather have my data backed on an ssd than a mechanical drive and one day this will be possible. The reason they mention that is because the first SSD's that hit martet could only be written to x amount of times where as now ssd's can be written to for 10 years if not longer(provide they do not fail OBVIOUSLY)

Porchart just as seagate, maxtor and WD in the past have had dodgy drives, some ssd's will have the same problems.

Do you know how many .11 seagate 500 and 1tb drives died? So you will have problems with any technology and it can go very wrong, it does not mean because intel have a problem that other the 20 ssd manufacturers will have the same problems.

Samsung and WD did not have tons of failing 500gb and 1tb because they are different companies.
Click to expand...

Dude you need to chill out and stop taking things so seriously.

If you had bothered to actually take the time to fully comprehend my post instead of just lashing out like some sort of rabid echidna and claiming that I didn't understand then you may have noticed that I was merely pointing out the irony of your statement, not attacking the reliability of SSDs or you as an individual.

I can see that you need me to explain it in a little more detail so I will now provide you with said details: You said that PeterCH has never owned an SSD and that therefore his comments carried less weight (which I can understand and I completely agree), but then you comment on the drive being able to read and write for the next 10 years when you have not owned an SSD for 10 years and really have no knowledge as to how they arrived at that number. I found it amusing and pleasantly ironic, but maybe I'm just weird that way.

Believe me I know full well that current HDDs fail, I had a Seagate crash on me last year after a mere 2 years of usage. Taking into account the fact that SSD is such a new technology it is amazing that they have the reliability figures that they do and I am certain that SSDs are the storage medium of the future.

However I am not prepared to pay the amounts they currently ask for these things. Prices will come down and lifespans will go up and when they do I will purchase one, but for now I will stick with my HDDs.

No need to get hostile mate. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I am not hostile, sometimes i appear to be i guess.

Well there are loads of things we get told and we believe so i am not going to think the ssd companies are just taking a figure out of thin air :), in the beginning they said this drive would only last x amount of writes, if they were going to be dodgy they would not have mentioned it from the get go :)

It does make me feel better when i spent 3k on my g.skill that i could write to it as much as i like :D

I have no problems spending 3k on a hdd, i spent 5k on a vga before and 3.5k on a cpu and 1.8k on a case, so having a really fast hdd will fit into my system well :), means nothing is slowing me down.

Now i need to get an i7 system dammit :D.
 
PeterCH said:
There are known issues with 'wear leveling' algorithms. The thing works in theory on SSDs with lots of free space but once you go down to little available space you end up having to rewrite the same sectors over and over again plus you can't erase and overwrite SSDs as easily as magnetic HDDs.
Click to expand...
Actually, modern wear levelling algorithms swap out sectors in the background to recycle those sectors that are infrequently written to (in other words, have a low write count), thus eliminating the issue you describe there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X