http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWLaKfUhEXw&fmt=18
XP loads before the chime can even start]]>May 5th 2009 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 3:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.disklessangel.com/

Your welcome....]]>May 5th 2009 3:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
You can accomplish the same thing by using MOA 2.4 for free -> http://www.sanbarrow.com/

You're all welcome again.... ]]>May 5th 2009 3:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
and on the diskless angel side my school has used a similar product called centurion iirc that loads from disk but saves chances into a ramdisk overlay... even if you try to download anything or run any large programs you quickly run out of ram]]>May 5th 2009 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
Have you used the program? Trust me, try it then comment back. I have used it on multiple machines and it works insanely fast when completely loaded. You can run all programs and install everything to a usb drive and boot directly into RAM. and all for zero dollars... How exactly is that not all that it's cracked up to be???

As for diskless angel... no there is no other software that is like it... none exists that does what this program can. Trust me. I've been in the game for along time.]]>May 5th 2009 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
I don't see why a current RAID controller provider or motherboard manufacturer couldn't make this. Just take one of their lower-end commodity SATA RAID designs, replace the SATA ports with SDHC connectors, make the RAM capacity equal to disk capacity, and maybe increase the battery backup size. Many low-cost RAID controllers already have RAM cache slots and battery-backup capability. They just have to change their BIOS to use RAM IO all the time instead of just as cache. The only time the system needs to load-from or flush-to disk is when the external power status changes.]]>May 5th 2009 6:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_5_6000]]>May 5th 2009 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Storage/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2180

]]>May 5th 2009 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 12:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 12:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
Waste of PCIe slot. Then again, 1x slots are pretty useless anyway...]]>May 5th 2009 1:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
Servers have 64GB+ unless they are heavily used, then we usually just buy what ever the maximum amount of ram is, usually 128GB or 256GB.

but still, those are handling multi-terabyte databases and wouldn't lend themselves to being stored in ram easily. I get your point though. If you have a tiny 4GB database, this would probably speed up your access time exponentially. A ram disk is a better and more expandable option if you can work out the power loss issue. ]]>May 5th 2009 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
And it doesn't take drivers, or any kind of configuration: a sensible kernel (e.g., Linux) will use any RAM that's not being used as a disk cache. And, yes, it'll work in 32-bit mode, too; the kernel can manage up to 64GB of RAM, even if no process can have more than 32GB.

The only way this thing can possibly make sense is if your motherboard is maxed out on RAM.]]>May 5th 2009 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 3:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/Please?]]>May 5th 2009 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
You do realise that SATA uses the PCIe bus don't you ?]]>May 5th 2009 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 3:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Storage/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2180

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480]]>May 5th 2009 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/
http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/

I own one of these already. Can never go back....]]>May 5th 2009 1:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/hardware.htm]]>May 5th 2009 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 1:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.acard.com/english/fb0101.jsp?type1_idno=13

it's $350 for the 8 slot and $250-230 for the 6 slot. Might be be easy to slap it into a 5in esata enclosure for another $50

-R]]>May 5th 2009 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 2:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 4:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/05/ddrdrives-ram-based-ssd-is-snappy-costly/May 5th 2009 5:42PM