OMG.... SSD is such bullshit. I have never seen anything with so much propaganda that is only hyping a crappy product. Or should I say, crappy with respect to how good it was supposed to be. In some ways an SSD is WORSE then a spinning hard drive.
I, like many others, had a 6ft boner when I heard about these devices and was nearly ready to kill to get my geeky hands on them.
What a TOTAL letdown.
The NUMBERS are NOT REAL. They are giving you a super rosy picture about how well they could operate under 100% ideal conditions. Solid State sounds good, since they always talk about a hard drive falling. That's like someone slipping on a banana peel. We have all heard about it, seen cartoons with it happening, but have you ever heard of someone actually doing it? I have never actually heard about anybody losing data from a hard drive because it fell on the ground. Not once. Seriously. I know it may have happened to some people, but I don't know them. Does not sound to me like a reason alone to move to Solid State, more like fear mongering advertising tactics. I have a cream which will keep your pecker from getting SMALLER too. Just send 5 dollars to.... :)
MTBF?
Based on ideal conditions, like performing a couple of read/write operations every day. I bet they are only using less then 10% of real world conditions for estimating their MTBF. They are not clear about what percentage of the memory is unusable either, since it is kept for bad blocks, or to replace bad blocks that inevitably appear due to the inherent write fatigue in flash memory. We only use flash memory occasionally to transfer large files around. Try using it as a professional under heavy use. They wear out. Using it as a main volume for an OS would take that to a use that is well above and beyond the normal use for one of these things. So the MTBF would have to take into account the inevitable wear on the memory and lost memory blocks. That means the hard drive would SHRINK. Try including that in the MTBF. Maybe it's up for interpretation to say a hard drive has failed when 20% of its space has disappeared.
I do know this. RAID does not like hard drives who change their sizes. Not a big concern over the course of a couple months, but 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? I dunno. We will have to wait and see how they really perform over that time period. At least MTBF on spinning hard drives has been evaluated for more then 10 years.
We also don't really know what measures they are taking to address this yet. It's all 1st gen anyways. I just know that the real world results of these things NOW is not as good as it was supposed to be.
Read Speeds? Latency or Throughput?
Any layperson can understand that a spinning hard drive is like a 4 lane freeway doing 60 mph and memory is like the Millennium Falcon doing the Kessel Run in less then 4 parsecs. Yawn. Of COURSE read speeds are going to be faster. The latencies are just sick. They could push more then 100 MBS (throughput), but that is not a limitation of SSD, but rather a limitation of the interface, SATA, PATA, etc.
They may state 80MBS as a write speed, but lets see an actual 3rd party independent benchmark test doing sustained writes. 4K, 16K, 64K, 256K, etc. Let's see how it really operates under light, normal, and heavy conditions.
I have seen actual tests that show that SSD's can be up to 8X SLOWER then a spinning hard drive with random writes less then 50K. Google for it.
This is being over hyped to the consumer, specifically gamers, that it is a great solution for sick performance levels. The read speeds to do help load those levels. That's true. However, OS load times are not that much better according to people I have actually talked too that own one. It's just not worth that much money to get a fraction of the space of a spinning hard drive.
Corporations? Forget about it. I can run firebird databases with 250 million rows in them on a 15K SCSI SAS ARRAY that will STILL outperform an SSD RAID array. Why? Reading the index on a database like that will happen a LOT quicker on an SSD. However, that will only affect reads on a database. Inserts and Updates will actually happen slower. A database of any considerably size under normal use also generates a lot of IO's. Bad for flash. The constraints and triggers on your inserts and updates may happen faster, since the reads improve, but that is all taken away with the slower write performance. If an SSD is really 20X faster on the reads and 8X slower on the writes, do the math. 1 second for reading and 1 second for writing. 2 seconds total normally. SSD will make it 1/20th of a second for reading and 8 seconds for writing. 8.05 seconds total. Now that may be overly simplistic, but prove me wrong with real tests :)
I just wish some of these websites would start posting articles with links to real world tests and stop hyping the bullshit.
Let's see Engadget post an article referencing the REAL performance levels of SSD's.
Type "MTron" into the search area at youtube.com.... I don't think you're gonna find a "Spinning" drive boot XP in 6 seconds from BIOS post. There are plenty of videos for you to check out for proof of SSD performance. Talking about load rates changing performance??? We're talking about a product that doesn't move, and it's called "Solid State"... It's just "there". There's no burst rate, and no changes. It's a consistant rythem that never changes.
Your just like all the rest. "Proof of SSD Performance"
Okay. Would you mind breaking that down into WRITE SPEEDS and READ SPEEDS?
The fact that is Solid State is irrelevant. It could be Tapioca Pudding State, Or Millenium Falcon Marshmallow State, or even Strawberry Shortcake Yummy Goodness State.
If we are going to look at performance, you need to look at write speeds and read speeds, among many others.
You cannot get around it. If you actually perform any tests on a 1st Gen SSD drive, you will find write speeds performing POORLY.
Following the commercial success (and technical disappointment) of the original Wildfire -- which featured a miserly 528MHz CPU and QVGA display -- HTC has returned with the Wildfire S.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
OMG.... SSD is such bullshit. I have never seen anything with so much propaganda that is only hyping a crappy product. Or should I say, crappy with respect to how good it was supposed to be. In some ways an SSD is WORSE then a spinning hard drive.
I, like many others, had a 6ft boner when I heard about these devices and was nearly ready to kill to get my geeky hands on them.
What a TOTAL letdown.
The NUMBERS are NOT REAL. They are giving you a super rosy picture about how well they could operate under 100% ideal conditions. Solid State sounds good, since they always talk about a hard drive falling. That's like someone slipping on a banana peel. We have all heard about it, seen cartoons with it happening, but have you ever heard of someone actually doing it? I have never actually heard about anybody losing data from a hard drive because it fell on the ground. Not once. Seriously. I know it may have happened to some people, but I don't know them. Does not sound to me like a reason alone to move to Solid State, more like fear mongering advertising tactics. I have a cream which will keep your pecker from getting SMALLER too. Just send 5 dollars to.... :)
MTBF?
Based on ideal conditions, like performing a couple of read/write operations every day. I bet they are only using less then 10% of real world conditions for estimating their MTBF. They are not clear about what percentage of the memory is unusable either, since it is kept for bad blocks, or to replace bad blocks that inevitably appear due to the inherent write fatigue in flash memory. We only use flash memory occasionally to transfer large files around. Try using it as a professional under heavy use. They wear out. Using it as a main volume for an OS would take that to a use that is well above and beyond the normal use for one of these things. So the MTBF would have to take into account the inevitable wear on the memory and lost memory blocks. That means the hard drive would SHRINK. Try including that in the MTBF. Maybe it's up for interpretation to say a hard drive has failed when 20% of its space has disappeared.
I do know this. RAID does not like hard drives who change their sizes. Not a big concern over the course of a couple months, but 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? I dunno. We will have to wait and see how they really perform over that time period. At least MTBF on spinning hard drives has been evaluated for more then 10 years.
We also don't really know what measures they are taking to address this yet. It's all 1st gen anyways. I just know that the real world results of these things NOW is not as good as it was supposed to be.
Read Speeds? Latency or Throughput?
Any layperson can understand that a spinning hard drive is like a 4 lane freeway doing 60 mph and memory is like the Millennium Falcon doing the Kessel Run in less then 4 parsecs. Yawn. Of COURSE read speeds are going to be faster. The latencies are just sick. They could push more then 100 MBS (throughput), but that is not a limitation of SSD, but rather a limitation of the interface, SATA, PATA, etc.
They may state 80MBS as a write speed, but lets see an actual 3rd party independent benchmark test doing sustained writes. 4K, 16K, 64K, 256K, etc. Let's see how it really operates under light, normal, and heavy conditions.
I have seen actual tests that show that SSD's can be up to 8X SLOWER then a spinning hard drive with random writes less then 50K. Google for it.
This is being over hyped to the consumer, specifically gamers, that it is a great solution for sick performance levels. The read speeds to do help load those levels. That's true. However, OS load times are not that much better according to people I have actually talked too that own one. It's just not worth that much money to get a fraction of the space of a spinning hard drive.
Corporations? Forget about it. I can run firebird databases with 250 million rows in them on a 15K SCSI SAS ARRAY that will STILL outperform an SSD RAID array. Why? Reading the index on a database like that will happen a LOT quicker on an SSD. However, that will only affect reads on a database. Inserts and Updates will actually happen slower. A database of any considerably size under normal use also generates a lot of IO's. Bad for flash. The constraints and triggers on your inserts and updates may happen faster, since the reads improve, but that is all taken away with the slower write performance. If an SSD is really 20X faster on the reads and 8X slower on the writes, do the math. 1 second for reading and 1 second for writing. 2 seconds total normally. SSD will make it 1/20th of a second for reading and 8 seconds for writing. 8.05 seconds total. Now that may be overly simplistic, but prove me wrong with real tests :)
I just wish some of these websites would start posting articles with links to real world tests and stop hyping the bullshit.
Let's see Engadget post an article referencing the REAL performance levels of SSD's.
Type "MTron" into the search area at youtube.com.... I don't think you're gonna find a "Spinning" drive boot XP in 6 seconds from BIOS post. There are plenty of videos for you to check out for proof of SSD performance. Talking about load rates changing performance??? We're talking about a product that doesn't move, and it's called "Solid State"... It's just "there". There's no burst rate, and no changes. It's a consistant rythem that never changes.
@ Mr. Deeds.
Your just like all the rest. "Proof of SSD Performance"
Okay. Would you mind breaking that down into WRITE SPEEDS and READ SPEEDS?
The fact that is Solid State is irrelevant. It could be Tapioca Pudding State, Or Millenium Falcon Marshmallow State, or even Strawberry Shortcake Yummy Goodness State.
If we are going to look at performance, you need to look at write speeds and read speeds, among many others.
You cannot get around it. If you actually perform any tests on a 1st Gen SSD drive, you will find write speeds performing POORLY.
Period.