FYI: pricedrops on SSD and RAM incoming

Probably low value. By the time they get it implemented correctly (it takes ms forever to do the simplest thing); there will be no reason to buy HD any longer. While the exact timeline is hard to predict I suspect that in less than 5 years HD will only be purchased by the most naive consumer. It just won't be cost effective to go the hd route any longer in the consumer market.
-
Btw i was serious about your lab guy being an idiot. He should have understood the technology and where it was headed given your description of his position.

Lucky Day said:
I've actually done this. What I'm getting at is there should be an option for hybrid installs during the install itself. We are already getting cloud storage pushed down our throat, so something like this would be useful when your D drive is there.

They should also optimize the ProgramApps better. I'm sure all those files don't need to be there for optimum application speed. Some of those could stay in Program Files.

The other problem, of course, is when stupid apps hardcode installs to the C drive. There ought to be a law against that.
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
you said:
Probably low value. By the time they get it implemented correctly (it takes ms forever to do the simplest thing); there will be no reason to buy HD any longer. While the exact timeline is hard to predict I suspect that in less than 5 years HD will only be purchased by the most naive consumer. It just won't be cost effective to go the hd route any longer in the consumer market.
-
Btw i was serious about your lab guy being an idiot. He should have understood the technology and where it was headed given your description of his position.
Click to expand...

Not really. 8 years ago? Back then they weren't faster in all aspects. Especially with simultaneous reads, and had horrible reliability, and they still even now need to mature more to work properly in large raid arrays. It will eventually happen. But even 5 years from now, they're not going to be swapping HDDs in a large data-center array with a mismatched SSD, and re-doing the whole array won't be cost effective, even with power consumption taken into account. Especially when they have enterprise drives that can actually give a hint that it's going to die, before it actually does. Data recover is also going to be much harder. If a HDD drives, most of the time the data is still on the platter. If an SSD dies. It's dead period. Obviously that's what backups are for, but that doesn't help much if you're doing version control calculated by seconds instead of days. The "lab guy" wasn't an idiot. He was speaking to his audience. No doesn't mean never. It means, "not during my career". It would be the same nuance as if someone asked in the 80s (or even decades earlier) if electric cars would become mainstream.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Get a clue before you speak. I was using ssd heavily 8 years ago in the enterprise market and know damn well they were much faster. We had 3 products based exclusively off of ssd servers (not because we could but because we required the raw i/op].
-
The ones we used were pretty damn reliable. they were not cost effective for arrays 8 years ago but they are getting their. The high end enterprise ssd are quite durable today.

Caddy said:
Not really. 8 years ago? Back then they weren't faster in all aspects. Especially with simultaneous reads, and had horrible reliability, and they still even now need to mature more to work properly in large raid arrays. It will eventually happen. But even 5 years from now, they're not going to be swapping HDDs in a large data-center array with a mismatched SSD, and re-doing the whole array won't be cost effective, even with power consumption taken into account. Especially when they have enterprise drives that can actually give a hint that it's going to die, before it actually does. Data recover is also going to be much harder. If a HDD drives, most of the time the data is still on the platter. If an SSD dies. It's dead period. Obviously that's what backups are for, but that doesn't help much if you're doing version control calculated by seconds instead of days. The "lab guy" wasn't an idiot. He was speaking to his audience. No doesn't mean never. It means, "not during my career". It would be the same nuance as if someone asked in the 80s (or even decades earlier) if electric cars would become mainstream.
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
you said:
Get a clue before you speak. I was using ssd heavily 8 years ago in the enterprise market and know damn well they were much faster. We had 3 products based exclusively off of ssd servers (not because we could but because we required the raw i/op]
Click to expand...

Triggered! As well as taking things out of context. You missed the all-aspects part.

Also, don't get upset at me for making a poor product.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
you said:
Given your lack of knowledge why should I care if you made a poor product?
Click to expand...

You made the poor product, not me. Please continue though. I make a living off people who pretend to know what they’re talking about.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Yea whatever. At least i now know for certain you have no tech knowledge. Anyway have fun. Just stop giving people poor advice.

Caddy said:
You made the poor product, not me. Please continue though. I make a living off people who pretend to know what they’re talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
I like how you called "[my] lab guy" an "idiot" at the end of your post so I wouldn't stop reading so soon.

My idiot lab guy kept 60 years of data stable and active to all servers as news super computers get installed in buildings (and buildings built to house them complete with their own power generators) with 100's of 1000's of processors that are turned on and off while fending of 32 billion attacks from China daily.

You can't fathom that his spinner array is so optimized that flash memory improvement would be negligible, but qualified that by saying a cache might see improvement? Yeah, my lab guy is an idiot.

//drops mic
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Lucky Day --
I worked in a pair of national labs for a few years (usa). My comment was directed at his understanding the direction of emerging technology. I'm sure he had lots of experience with mechanical drives - and I can fathom a lot because we frequently dealt with situations where sub 5ms access time had a major impact on performance.
-
The array has fantastic tput 'cept that it was probably bus limited. The last 10 years there has been significant changes to bus standards to deal with the fact that modern storage is out-pacing established standards.
-
The sad thing is that when you consider just how slow token ring and fiber optics protocols were 10 years ago compare to what consumer off the shelf parts are now delivering it is mind boggling just how quickly the technology is moving compared to a couple of decades of near flatline performance (for storage).
-
Anyway until a few years ago mechanical drives were still competitive with ssd for raw linear tput and naturally an array had much better performance but that parallelism isn't going to help a lot with the initial seek time for the first byte.
-
I can't give too much specific examples of some of the problems we faced because there is a bit of a challenge weeding out the company specific details and the generalities but technology as always is changing and right now storage is seeing some love. I'm hopeful that the last array i built with mechanical drives has occurred and the next time I need an array large ssd (10tb or larger) will be readily available.
-
Btw google and facebook are both doing some really interesting stuff in their data centers; probably more interesting from a technology perspective than the national labs where the focus is on both hard and applied science.

Lucky Day said:
I like how you called "[my] lab guy" an "idiot" at the end of your post so I wouldn't stop reading so soon.

My idiot lab guy kept 60 years of data stable and active to all servers as news super computers get installed in buildings (and buildings built to house them complete with their own power generators) with 100's of 1000's of processors that are turned on and off while fending of 32 billion attacks from China daily.

You can't fathom that his spinner array is so optimized that flash memory improvement would be negligible, but qualified that by saying a cache might see improvement? Yeah, my lab guy is an idiot.

//drops mic
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
you said:
Yea whatever. At least i now know for certain you have no tech knowledge.
Click to expand...

dawson_crying.jpg
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
I'm debating. not sure I can get everything from my current laptop to the drive and whether it will work 100%
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
The 1tb version of that is $119 but they have another Sandisk one for $100

https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SSD-PLUS-Internal-SDSSDA-1T00-G26/dp/B07D998212/

That's not listed as 960gb either (though it could be, you know how they like to fudge the facts over 1000 and 1024)

Other than that, what is there to look for in SSD's theses days?

What's better and what's to avoid? My friend at Intel is reporting he has less failures with SSD over "rotational drives" as he called HDD's (I said "spinners" back in the day).

I know that NAND versions were supposed to be better but one he showed me was "V-NAND".

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5994439&CatId=9703
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Depending on how you use the ssd the following might be important:

1) rewrite cycles (usually expressed as total writes - there are actually two number - the one that will void the warranty and the one that the drive can handle - the second one is harder to find)
2) sustain write rate - a lot of the cheaper drives have small cache that will allow small fast writes but slow down significantly for large chunks of data - not relevant if you don't write large chunks of data - most (but not all) drives have fast read times .
3) warranty - this might or might not matter but better drives tend to have longer warranty - typically low end drives have 3 year; mid range 5 years and high end 7 to 10 years.
4) max sustained read/write rate on nvme drive vs sata drive. If you read large chunks of data (several 10s gigs/s frequently) nvme drives can be a lot faster. Note that most people read small chunks of data (check how large typical save file is for example) and those won't really take advantage of nvme full speed. Btw true nvme drives that can operate at nvme speed tend to be a lot more expensive. 3d drives that are showing up this year tend to have fast read speed (sata) but very slow sustained write speeds - most people don't write a lot so this might not be an issue for yourself and they are a *lot* cheaper.


Lucky Day said:
The 1tb version of that is $119 but they have another Sandisk one for $100

https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SSD-PLUS-Internal-SDSSDA-1T00-G26/dp/B07D998212/

That's not listed as 960gb either (though it could be, you know how they like to fudge the facts over 1000 and 1024)

Other than that, what is there to look for in SSD's theses days?

What's better and what's to avoid? My friend at Intel is reporting he has less failures with SSD over "rotational drives" as he called HDD's (I said "spinners" back in the day).

I know that NAND versions were supposed to be better but one he showed me was "V-NAND".

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5994439&CatId=9703
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I've used SSD's for over 10 years. The first ones were quite tiny in size but not really super expensive if you take performance into account.. (long) before that i had SCSI disks in raid0.

I remember how many people said to me they were gonna break, weren't the least reliable etc.. not true in my case.. i had 3 in raid0 and they never broke, eventually i bought bigger ones, i sold the last one of these (found it in a drawer) for $50 (lol, i can't help if people want 10+ year old ssd's…)
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
I've had my SSD for over five years now, and cannot imagine going back to a regular hard drive. It cost me quite a bit but I suspect the next time around I'll get double the capacity for less than half of what I initially paid, or maybe even less.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,979
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom