Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SSD Storage: 2018 in review

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#121

Post by gammateam »

detaro wrote: post #119
gammateam wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Figured someone would say that I can get 400 megaBYTES per second on my iphone from external sources Inside my network I can get faster Dont want the NAS to be a bottleneck for my wireless convenience edit: still megabits

iPhones "only" support WLAN with a theoretical max of 867 Mega bit per second (802.11ac with 2x2 MIMO), so no, you don't get 400 Mega bytes data transfer to it.

Youre right, lets keep dividing by 8

The point is that I am trying to avoid bottlenecks and Im not sure my NAS with SSDs does that

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#122

Post by JohnTHaller »

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #72
arcticbull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the new Apple RAM surcharge — remember back when Apple let you swap out DIMMs, they would charge 3-5x market rate betting you wouldn’t. Now they’re doing it on SSDs but you can’t get away :) If you follow the r/buildapcsales it’s pretty eats to get a 1TB 2.5” SSD from a top manufacturer for under $120, and M.2 for $20-30 more. I just got a Crucial MX500 1TB for $114 all in.

I would counter that the SSD's aren't entirely the same. The most comparable consumer NVME M.2 would be the 960 pro and it's still around $300. Definitely cheaper than Apple, but it's also not in the $150 range for the same performance.

970 Pro is faster than the Apple Macbook SSDs and about 1/3 the price. $349.99 direct from Samsung for 1TB with 3,500MB/s Seq. Read and 2,700MB/s Seq. Write

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#123

Post by llampx »

WilliamEdward wrote: post #107
SyneRyder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile Apple is charging $1,200 for a 1 TB MacBook upgrade. This is specifically one of the reasons I ended up switching to a Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, even though I'd planned to buy the new MacBook Air. The Thinkpad's SSD is officially user-replaceable and I bought a 2TB WD Blue SSD for less than a third of the cost of Apple's upgrade. Even an NVMe SSD would have been half the price of Apple. One caveat is that…

At the end of the day if you're buying apple for the hardware you were doing something wrong to begin with. MacOS is one of the few good reasons to get apple products, otherwise it should be a given that you get an alternative device. Combine this with the fact that Apple has made it impossible to get stuff repaired, and what you've just said, I don't see why anyone would buy an apple laptop for the hardware alone.

For a long time, Apple had the best laptop hardware on the market. Since the web revolution and fewer people needing Windows to work, its no wonder that Mac sales have exploded. I believe that's coming to an end though. Macbook Pros have gone too far into the direction of compromise for the sake of design and are on the road to nichedom again.

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#124

Post by franciscop »

akvadrako wrote: post #83
franciscop wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not, I linked to the external Thunderbolt SSD (last one) so there are many more pieces involved in the Samsung SSD. But it's true that the Apple one is a lot faster since it's internal.

I have one of those drives - it's not Thunderbolt, just USB 3.1 gen 2. It's also not a 2.5" drive since it's obviously smaller.

Oops, that's on me :)

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#125

Post by btgeekboy »

qilo wrote: post #114
vetinari wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another shop: https://www.alza.de/samsung-970-pro-1tb-d5319060.htm 276,47 EUR w/o VAT, 329 EUR with VAT. Currently, that's some 377 USD.

On Samsung's US website it's $350 (free s/h): https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/memory-storage/solid-st...

Yeah, that link I posted isn’t sold by Amazon but some random person. It’s probably marked up a bit.

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#126

Post by philliphaydon »

Infinitesimus wrote: post #95
philliphaydon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just bought the X1 Extreme with 256gb ssd and 16gb of ram because I can upgrade it later.

How long have you had it /how do you like it so far? I've been considering getting the 4k version but I worry about battery life. Seems there's a bios/driver bug that keeps the Nvidia GPU running always

Just bought, waiting for it to arrive.

There's update bios to fix that issue according to reddit.

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#127

Post by Fronzie »

ggm wrote: post #36
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get that SSD don't implement S.M.A.R.T Despite the S.M.A.R.T data is less predictive on SSDs, they do have it, at least for SATA disks...

In which case, even less reason to hate on SSD for home storage in RAID shells. I have a spun-down RAID farm as longterm. It's worrying me that the unit the disks are in is a SPARC based motherboard now over 10 years old. Those caps don't last forever.

and the magnetized bits on an HDD have an expected livetime of 25 years. Unless read-and-rewritten every so many years

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#128

Post by dylan604 »

agildehaus wrote: post #78
dylan604 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the $200 1TB SSD linked above is just a standard 2.5" SSD where the Apple SSDs are M.2 with triple the I/O speeds. These Apple(s) can't be compared to the list of oranges above.

NVME, not M2. All Macbook drives are now soldered straight to the motherboard.

Thanks. I confused the M.2 form factor with the NVME chips.

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#129

Post by [deleted] »

stephenr wrote: post #109
stephenr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> performance between different SSDs is basically unnoticeable Spinning rust drives will likely give you up to ~110 MB/sec. A SATA SSD will likely give you to up ~550 MB/sec, a 5x increase. An NVMe SSD will double the write and quadruple the read speed of a SATA SSD, in 1/3 the size. Yes, any SSD is likely good enough for your average user to feel like a computer is fast. If anything you do is even remotely heavy on…

Downvotes, for the speeds of various storage media? Well done HN, just when I thought you couldn't get more ridiculous, you one upped yourself again.

[deleted]

Re: SSD Storage: 2018 in review

#130

Post by JohnBooty »

vehementi wrote: post #79
ganoushoreilly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would counter that the SSD's aren't entirely the same. The most comparable consumer NVME M.2 would be the 960 pro and it's still around $300. Definitely cheaper than Apple, but it's also not in the $150 range for the same performance.

99% of the time SSDs are a boolean: "Do you have a SSD? Yes/No" and performance between different SSDs is basically unnoticeable. Change my mind

Generally, yeah, but the exceptions are pretty significant.

Whether or not these use cases are common enough to disprove the "99% of the time" claim is debatable (these kinds of use cases may be far less than 1%) but regardless, check these out:

https://www.storagereview.com/samsung_970_pro_1tb_review

- 10x latency improvement in SQL Server stress tests between slowest and fastest SSD

- 3x rendering time improvement from slowest to fastest SSD

Now, for anything I do in my daily life as a software engineer? Yeah, SSDs were fast enough years ago. Only time I even scratched the surface of their performance was when I copied a VM from one drive to another.

Post reply on HN