[mythtvnz] SSD versus rotational HD pricing

[Solor Vox]

Feel I should chime in here.

I've got some insight here since I've got dual SSD Samsung in a RAID-0 on
one of my systems.  I've been using it for 1 1/2 years now so I can comment
on a few things about them.

1) They are fantastic for reads 150MB/s, 0.3ms access times, no defrags,
etc.
2) Their performance (read and write) degrades over time
3) Their space degrades over time

That said, my write is horrible now.  Often times slower then a single
normal HD.  This is due to a few factors such as not having support for TRIM
and overall design of flash drives in my case.  As the drives get older,
they start to wear out the flash blocks.  Even with "wear-leveling", these
blocks get marked as bad and the drive's space decreases.  Cheaper/older SSD
that didn't support TRIM command is even worse.  So making sure both your
drive and OS/filesystem support TRIM is key.  And it's also important to
point out just like HD, not all are created equal.  Intel's X25-E are crazy
fast, but some cheap models like the X25-M or -V are much different.  Many
good (read more expensive) SSD have reserved space to offset the performance
and space limitation.

As much as people debate it, cost drives sales.  I just got some 1.5TB disks
for $189 each.  In a RAID setup, they offer much more speed than is needed
for doing multiple HD streams.  Sure SSD would be nice, but why waste money
if standard drives can meet your needs and more space?

If you haven't seen this, might be a reason why...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/04/19/1544256/Why-Arent-SSD-Prices-Going-Down

I agree they are great, but they are not the end all of storage solutions
either.

Cheers
sV

On 20 April 2010 15:26, Daniel Giddens <daniel at acsdata.co.nz> wrote:

>  The Point I was originally making is that using these drives are mind
> blowing. The speed of boot, loading applications, multitasking (unraring 3
> rars at same time with no performance hit etc etc) That is why I bought them
> and at sub $300 they are worth it. I wouldn't spend more than that
> regardless of capacity or technology.
>
> WHEN! the 1TB drives drop below $300 then I will upgrade my back end
> storage as well. But right now they have and will continue to be my main
> boot drives and application drives due to performance and nothing to do with
> price.
>
> Steve have you used and SSD ?? Actually anyone commenting on here have you
> had the pleasure?? ..... We run Myth ... we aren't normal people,
> performance and doing crazy off the wall things with technology is why we
> are here ... if it was price then we would by MySky or something similar
> boring and broken heh :)
>
> All I was trying to say was using SSD's for the first time was mind blowing
> ... it reminded me of the first voodoo graphics card, doom, 720p/1080p, all
> things that changed my 30 plus years in computing. whether it was waiting
> for a spectrum tape to load or windows to boot 32 seconds now reduced to 10
> ... we have been stuck at 60MB/s for years and now finally we can have
> 300+MB/s with multiple threads .... no more defragging!!!! and way more....
> and sub $300 for usable space. ..... if you haven't tried them all I am
> saying is you should before you fall into the $$/MB argument for not as it
> nothing to do with $$ its all about mind blowing new technology at a sub
> $300 price.
>
> I feel sorry for anyone that waits 2 years or even 6 months before they
> discover what an SSD drive does technology wise over a standard mechanical
> drive.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ourshack.com/pipermail/mythtvnz/attachments/20100420/16ce8975/attachment-0001.htm