21–30 of 47 posts
So, given that demo, does a single SSD perform substantially better enough on a normal laptop to warrant the expenditure yet? (Last I heard, standard advice was to wait until the price drops.)
Desktop performance with solid-state drives is less interesting to me than server performance -- specifically databases and other services where seek time is more important than throughput. Has anyone done performance tests with MySQL on low-latency storage devices? As another commenter suggested for the desktop, strategies of using solid-state for latency bound activities and traditional disks for throughput intensi…
Currently, SSDs' limited number of rewrite cycles make them unsuitable for that type of server application.
It's actually quite clever marketing on behalf of Samsung, and impressive to seek them using 'geek marketing' in this way. However, given that a 64GB Samsung SSD drive goes for about $500, 24 of them (plus RAID card for that many) is still looking quit steep!
Desktop performance with solid-state drives is less interesting to me than server performance -- specifically databases and other services where seek time is more important than throughput. Has anyone done performance tests with MySQL on low-latency storage devices? As another commenter suggested for the desktop, strategies of using solid-state for latency bound activities and traditional disks for throughput intensi…
Currently, SSDs' limited number of rewrite cycles make them unsuitable for that type of server application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently, SSDs' limited number of rewrite cycles make them unsuitable for that type of server application.
That's a myth. Enterprise flash drives are rated for years of constant writes.
To put those ratings in context, consider that a Western Digital VelociRaptor has a 160 year MTBF.
It's funny how they never say how much RAM this computer has. Vista has a feature called 'superfetch' which pre-caches applications in memory so they're never actually loaded from disk. Also, it's hard to tell, but if this computer has sufficient RAM, you could conceivable load everything directly from memory. Also, the fragmentation test was a little dubious. A computer that new would have very little file fragmenta…
Fragmentation test... well, it is a marketing video, after all. The real question is "why defragment an SSD at all?"
Wow. Simply -- wow. I was amazed at really seeing the HD bottleneck minimized this way. I always knew about it, but -- wow.
And I daresay that in three or four years, this will indeed be considered "normal performance", if SSDs continue to develop.
All hail the SSDs! Maybe in a couple of years we actually will be able to feed our octo-cores some data to work on!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a myth. Enterprise flash drives are rated for years of constant writes.
The problem with those ratings is that you're only exposed to one side of the potential deviation from the mean. A MTBF without standard deviation is meaningless. To put those ratings in context, consider that a Western Digital VelociRaptor has a 160 year MTBF.
The IT guy from the video is a poster there, so there is some useful information if anyone is interested.
It's funny how they never say how much RAM this computer has. Vista has a feature called 'superfetch' which pre-caches applications in memory so they're never actually loaded from disk. Also, it's hard to tell, but if this computer has sufficient RAM, you could conceivable load everything directly from memory. Also, the fragmentation test was a little dubious. A computer that new would have very little file fragmenta…
ans yes, i totally agree (re Superfetch)... even with XP, after loading an app once, windows was able to fetch the data again much faster the second time. They should have showed the tests from power to boot to tests.