Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425
in [Storage]
|
From: Timothy Daniels on 11 Aug 2010 19:47 "Lynn McGuire" <lmc(a)winsim.com> wrote in message news:i3lbc6$mts$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> That hybrid RAID system sounds intriguing (out of my league, but >> still intriguing). Was all the software/firmware commonly available, >> or did you author some of it yourself? Care to share pointers with >> others here who might want to do the same or similar? > > Also see this new Seagate hybrid hard drive: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591 > > Lynn And ready for SATA III are new SSDs made by Crucial: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=636&Tpk=ssd *TimDaniels*
From: Arno on 11 Aug 2010 19:51 DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > In message <8cgfd8F3elU1(a)mid.individual.net> "Rod Speed" > <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote: >>Timothy Daniels wrote >>> Lynn McGuire wrote >> >>>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 >> >>>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. >> >>> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) >> >>Thats the last thing you should put on one unless you plan on replacing it often. > Why? > The pagefile is a perfect example of something that can and should be > placed on a modern SSD. Pagefile performance is critical when you're in > a low-memory situation, and an SSD will help speed things up > sigificantly. I agree. In fact I have the page-file on my SSD. For traditional FLASH that was a sure way to kill the device fast. But with modern wear-leveling, it is going to take several years of constant pageing to kill the device. And constant pageing is a pain even with an SSD. What benefits most in my case is when I switch focus between different Apps. That has gotten a lot faster. Note that this applies to MS OSes. On Linux you have sharing for most things anywasy and a lot lower memory requirements in general. It has been some time that I saw any swap usage at all. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno(a)wagner.name GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
From: Arno on 11 Aug 2010 19:52 Percival P. Cassidy <Nobody(a)notmyisp.com> wrote: > On 08/05/10 01:32 pm, Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 >>> >>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. >> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) > It was suggested to me recently that, because of the finite number of > writes that SSDs will survive, the only thing for which they are really > suitable is something that will seldom be written but frequently read -- > i.e., the OS itself. Historic information. Not correct anymore. Still relevant to a degree for USB flash. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno(a)wagner.name GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
From: Rod Speed on 12 Aug 2010 01:41 DevilsPGD wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Timothy Daniels wrote >>> Lynn McGuire wrote >>>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 >>>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very close. >>> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) >> Thats the last thing you should put on one unless you plan on replacing it often. > Why? Because its used more than the rest of the drive for writes, in most real world situations. > The pagefile is a perfect example of something > that can and should be placed on a modern SSD. Wrong, it makes a lot more sense to have more physical system ram instead so the page file doesnt get used at all. MUCH cheaper and much faster too. > Pagefile performance is critical when you're in a low-memory situation, So it makes a lot more sense to not have a low memory situation instead. > and an SSD will help speed things up sigificantly. Enough system ram so the page file doesnt get used will speed it up MUCH more for a lot less money. >> And it makes a lot more sense to replace the use >> of the page file with more system ram anyway. > True, to a point. Its always true unless it isnt possible to add more system ram for some reason. > If you've maxed out your hardware's capabilities You hardly ever are in that situation and it makes a lot more sense to replace the hardware so it doesnt have that situation than to go for an expensive SSD for the page file anyway, because enough system ram so the page file doesnt get used costs a lot less even if the motherboard has to be changed to allow that. > or only need to catch rare/occasional edge cases, Then the speed isnt a problem, so there is no point in an expensive SSD for just the page file. > a pagefile will do the job nicely. Wrong, its either a completely fucked kludge if the page file is used a lot or a complete waste of money if its hardly ever used. > If you're talking day to day in-use application memory being paged > out, you really need more RAM before bandaiding over the problem. What I said in a lot more words.
From: David Brown on 12 Aug 2010 03:46
On 12/08/2010 07:41, Rod Speed wrote: > DevilsPGD wrote >> Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Timothy Daniels wrote >>>> Lynn McGuire wrote > >>>>> Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425: >>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167017 > >>>>> OK, this is getting very close to my buy point. Very >>>>> close. > >>>> Personally, I'd get two (one for the page file). :-) > >>> Thats the last thing you should put on one unless you plan on >>> replacing it often. > >> Why? > > Because its used more than the rest of the drive for writes, in most > real world situations. > As has already been noted, modern SSDs have effectively unlimited write lifetime, unless you are doing something truly exceptional. So please stop worrying about writing to flash drives. >> The pagefile is a perfect example of something that can and should >> be placed on a modern SSD. > > Wrong, it makes a lot more sense to have more physical system ram > instead so the page file doesnt get used at all. MUCH cheaper and > much faster too. > Physical ram is faster - no doubts there. But cheaper? That's only true if you are talking about a GB or 2. But since most people are running 32-bit OS's, upgrading beyond about 3.5 GB means installing a whole new 64-bit OS - buying an SSD is going to be a lot cheaper if you value your time. And once you already have 6 GB or 8 GB, a memory upgrade probably means buying a full new set of DIMMs for a lot more than an SSD. >> Pagefile performance is critical when you're in a low-memory >> situation, > > So it makes a lot more sense to not have a low memory situation > instead. > If you are living in a Windows world, that's the case - swap is only used if the OS runs out of real memory. But with Linux, swap space is used if the real memory can be used for other purposes. Thus little-used programs may be moved from memory to swap to free up space for more disk cache. And it can be particularly useful for using tmpfs for temporary directories - the temporary files will then be in ram, and moved into swap if ram space is getting low. >> and an SSD will help speed things up sigificantly. > > Enough system ram so the page file doesnt get used will speed it up > MUCH more for a lot less money. > >>> And it makes a lot more sense to replace the use of the page file >>> with more system ram anyway. > >> True, to a point. > > Its always true unless it isnt possible to add more system ram for > some reason. > I find cost, memory slots, and 32-bit OS limitations to be pretty good reasons. Roughly 3.5 GB is the limit for 32-bit OS (depending on the graphics card memory space), and 8 or 12 GB is the practical and economic limit for 64-bit OS unless you are talking about serious workstations or servers. >> If you've maxed out your hardware's capabilities > > You hardly ever are in that situation and it makes a lot more sense > to replace the hardware so it doesnt have that situation than to go > for an expensive SSD for the page file anyway, because enough system > ram so the page file doesnt get used costs a lot less even if the > motherboard has to be changed to allow that. > Changing motherboard is seldom going to be cheaper, unless you happen to have a particularly limited motherboard and there's a simple upgrade path while keeping other components the same. In most cases, changing motherboards is a time-consuming and risky process, while adding an SSD is generally quick, simple, and low risk. And if you already have 4 GB installed and a 32-bit OS, getting more memory is very costly. >> or only need to catch rare/occasional edge cases, > > Then the speed isnt a problem, so there is no point in an expensive > SSD for just the page file. > You wouldn't use an SSD /just/ for swap. Even if you don't want to go through the process of moving the OS or program directories over to the SSD, you can easily move things like temporary directories and browser caches to speed things up (these are read and written more than swap in most cases). Data files are also typically painless to move, and may benefit from the extra speed. >> a pagefile will do the job nicely. > > Wrong, its either a completely fucked kludge if the page file is used > a lot or a complete waste of money if its hardly ever used. > You're a windows man to the core, aren't you? Historically, swap was - as you say - a kludge when it was added to windows. For other systems, swap has always been seen as a layer in the hierarchical memory system and it is still useful today. It is true that swap is not as relevant now (especially with windows) on most systems as it used to be - the key reason being that the speed difference between ram and disk has increased dramatically making swap even slower (relatively speaking). |