Cheap, but slower than molasses. Running an OS off of a Compact Flash card would be torture. Even real SSDs have trouble keeping up with hard drive transfer speeds.
There are stats that SSDs are considerably slower at read/write for single large files... like 4GB ISO images etc It's the read/write of small files which gives SSDs a speed boost... because of the tiny seek/access times relative to those of HDDs
I think anyway :)
When I can buy a 64GB SSD for £150 ($300) then I'll be all over this
The earlier test reflect results of a single CF setup ... this setup seems to promise RAID capabilities using 3 CF's ... so does anyone have the results of this setup in RAID?
Anandtech tested a MacBook Pro with a $4k 128GB SSD, and in many cases it was actually a little slower than a 7200 RPM laptop drive. The application loading times were about twice as fast, however, but it's probably not worth 4k just to have Final Cut open a few seconds faster. As far as reliability goes, for $4k you could take a second MacBook Pro along as a backup and you'd still be $2k ahead in price.
The SSDs from Mtron are pretty much the only ones that can outperform current hard drives. Other SSDs might be able to beat a Raptor at read speeds, but not write speeds. The fastest Compact Flash cards available have R/W speeds of about 40MB/s, which is at least twice as slow as top-of-the-line SSDs.
The fast access times might make it faster for some applications, but unless you're migrating from a 1.8" drive, you're going to take a hit running an OS off of a Compact Flash card.
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.
Cheap, but slower than molasses. Running an OS off of a Compact Flash card would be torture. Even real SSDs have trouble keeping up with hard drive transfer speeds.
Pass that crack pipe you're smoking.
How come my EEE PC boots XP in 30 seconds then?
[quote=Howard]Even real SSDs have trouble keeping up with hard drive transfer speeds.[/quote]
Please post a link. That statement conflicts with all I've heard.
Because it has a fresh install of XP on it?
There are stats that SSDs are considerably slower at read/write for single large files... like 4GB ISO images etc
It's the read/write of small files which gives SSDs a speed boost... because of the tiny seek/access times relative to those of HDDs
I think anyway :)
When I can buy a 64GB SSD for £150 ($300) then I'll be all over this
The earlier test reflect results of a single CF setup ... this setup seems to promise RAID capabilities using 3 CF's ... so does anyone have the results of this setup in RAID?
Here's a link:
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3287&p=5
Anandtech tested a MacBook Pro with a $4k 128GB SSD, and in many cases it was actually a little slower than a 7200 RPM laptop drive. The application loading times were about twice as fast, however, but it's probably not worth 4k just to have Final Cut open a few seconds faster. As far as reliability goes, for $4k you could take a second MacBook Pro along as a backup and you'd still be $2k ahead in price.
Here's a link to a review of pretty much the fastest SSD available: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3064
The SSDs from Mtron are pretty much the only ones that can outperform current hard drives. Other SSDs might be able to beat a Raptor at read speeds, but not write speeds. The fastest Compact Flash cards available have R/W speeds of about 40MB/s, which is at least twice as slow as top-of-the-line SSDs.
The fast access times might make it faster for some applications, but unless you're migrating from a 1.8" drive, you're going to take a hit running an OS off of a Compact Flash card.