-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Obsolete Hard drive
- Thread starter onesource
- Start date
visionsigns
New Member
Yeah you might want to wait a while until the prices come down a *little*.
Here's an 128GB solid state hard drive for only $3,249.00.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609245
Here's an 128GB solid state hard drive for only $3,249.00.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609245
John M
New Member
Here's some good reading:
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
While the $3300 drive may be more than you want to spend, a few $800 16 gig drives in RAID may be the middle ground you're looking for. It'd make a killer swap / temp drive!
The article shows the importance of choosing a good RAID controller too. 830 megs / second of sustained speed is downright amazing.
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
While the $3300 drive may be more than you want to spend, a few $800 16 gig drives in RAID may be the middle ground you're looking for. It'd make a killer swap / temp drive!
The article shows the importance of choosing a good RAID controller too. 830 megs / second of sustained speed is downright amazing.
Replicator
New Member
Waiting for a good firewire flash drive to carry around with me . . . !
B Snyder
New Member
Thats because your flash drive is running data through a USB port.
B Snyder
New Member
Why? Isn't USB 2.0 faster than firewire?
Replicator
New Member
Hell know !
USB is dependant on drivers and Firewire is Plug-n-Play . . . !
Much Faster !
TheSnowman
New Member
It distributes the packets differently. I do video on the side too, and I read up on that cause I can't capture video to a USB 2.0. They say it's "faster" but it's not for video. Whatever that means. I have the new firewire 800 I think it is, on my mac...and that's just like runnin' an internal HD. I'd LOVE to get my hands on a firewire jump drive that would run on that sucker!
John M
New Member
It's important to note that the speed of these solid state drives isn't any quicker than "normal" drives when used singly. Their advantage is that they scale nearly perfectly when used in RAID, something normal drives don't do.
Instead of 3 drives giving you twice the performance of 1, three drives will give you three times the performance and it grows as you add drives. By the time you reach 6 or 8 drives, that's some incredible speed and it isn't peak or burst -- it's sustained throughput of over a full CD worth of data every second.
Right now it's pretty expensive for not much (relative) storage. That'll change as time goes on. I'll bet that in a year or two it'll be common to see a few of these drives in higher end machines.
Instead of 3 drives giving you twice the performance of 1, three drives will give you three times the performance and it grows as you add drives. By the time you reach 6 or 8 drives, that's some incredible speed and it isn't peak or burst -- it's sustained throughput of over a full CD worth of data every second.
Right now it's pretty expensive for not much (relative) storage. That'll change as time goes on. I'll bet that in a year or two it'll be common to see a few of these drives in higher end machines.
Bogie
New Member
Why not...
I remember in the dark ages, we could set up virtual drives in RAM... You know - that 384K that we couldn't use between the 640K that Gates gave us, and the 1024 that we actually had paid for? In fact, I knew folks who were running 8 megabyte "cache drives" on their 286 machines...
I'm guessing that mommyboard memory, or even cardbased memory, would be faster than going out to a flash device, even one running over SATA?
I remember in the dark ages, we could set up virtual drives in RAM... You know - that 384K that we couldn't use between the 640K that Gates gave us, and the 1024 that we actually had paid for? In fact, I knew folks who were running 8 megabyte "cache drives" on their 286 machines...
I'm guessing that mommyboard memory, or even cardbased memory, would be faster than going out to a flash device, even one running over SATA?
John M
New Member
In 1987 I set up my Apple IIGS to use 800k of its 2 MB (upgraded) memory as a RAM disk. I then copied the boot disk to that area and rebooted. It only lasted till I turned the machine off but it was light years ahead of disk-based access -- and I had the ultra-moden dual 3.5 + dual 5.25 setup 
If you had enough raw RAM to use as a drive it'd be faster than just about any add-on card you can use. Thanks to your post I'll now be researching the idea of loading a motherboard w/ 8 gigs of DDR2 and then dedicating 5 gigs of it to a RAM disk, keeping XP happy with "only" 3 gigs available.
Here's a chart (not mine) showing the relative bandwidth of various connections & specifications: http://www.d-silence.com/articles/graphics/speedlg.jpg
If you had enough raw RAM to use as a drive it'd be faster than just about any add-on card you can use. Thanks to your post I'll now be researching the idea of loading a motherboard w/ 8 gigs of DDR2 and then dedicating 5 gigs of it to a RAM disk, keeping XP happy with "only" 3 gigs available.
Here's a chart (not mine) showing the relative bandwidth of various connections & specifications: http://www.d-silence.com/articles/graphics/speedlg.jpg