Solid state for storage

[hhhd1]

I am looking to use some solid state drives for storage instead of my aging (close to die - bad smart values) mechanical drives.

I do not need allot of writes, it will be mostly reading, so the currently famous SLC or MLC drives are allot over spec'd based on what I need ..

Any cheaper (I need much cheaper) flash based drives like TLC that i read a while ago supposed to be rated for something like 700 write cycles ?

My main concerns are in that order:
-Price
-Reliability
-Vibration and heat (will run in a pretty hot environment)
-Power usage

 

[Coup27]

To my knowledge there are no TLC NAND based SSD's on the market yet. Your best option is the cheapest reliable MLC SSD you can get your hands on.

You want to look at the Intel 320, Crucial m4 or Samsung 830.

 

[hhhd1]

You want to look at the Intel 320, Crucial m4 or Samsung 830.

Too expensive for just storage ...

I even checked usb flash memory, their gb/$ prices is close to some cheap ssds ...

 

[jaydee]

I am looking to use some solid state drives for storage instead of my aging (close to die - bad smart values) mechanical drives.

I do not need allot of writes, it will be mostly reading, so the currently famous SLC or MLC drives are allot over spec'd based on what I need ..

Any cheaper (I need much cheaper) flash based drives like TLC that i read a while ago supposed to be rated for something like 700 write cycles ?

My main concerns are in that order:
-Price
-Reliability
-Vibration and heat (will run in a pretty hot environment)
-Power usage

SSD's are great for priorities #2, #3 and #4 and terrible for #1. How much storage are you looking for?

 

[lehtv]

Too expensive for just storage ...

Then any SSD is going to be too expensive for storage. How much space do you need and how much are you willing to pay per gigabyte? Since you didn't list speed among your priorities, an SSD wouldn't make a lot of sense. An SSD trades $/GB for speed with the added perks of vibration immunity and very low power use. As long as your environment is stable enough to not kill hard drives due to vibration, just get HDD storage.

 

[Coup27]

Then any SSD is going to be too expensive for storage. How much space do you need and how much are you willing to pay per gigabyte? Since you didn't list speed among your priorities, an SSD wouldn't make a lot of sense. An SSD trades $/GB for speed with the added perks of vibration immunity and very low power use. As long as your environment is stable enough to not kill hard drives due to vibration, just get HDD storage.

This.

The m4 is not only one of the cheapest SSDs around but it is also one of the most reliable.

If you wind back a generation, the X25-M G2 will still probably be more than an m4 and thats if you can find them. SF1200 based drives had shocking reliability so I wouldn't look at them.

Bottom line is an SSD brings far more to the table than just storage and their price reflects that.

 

[thelastjuju]

SSD for storage?

Unless you have an incredibly small amount of storage , its ridiculously impractical because of the GB/$ ratio at this point in time.

Besides, it defeats the purpose of an SSD anyway. You use an SSD to reduce LOAD TIMES where they would otherwise exist on an HDD. Meaning boot times, programs, games with long load times, etc.. all the load times vanish when placed on an SSD as opposed to an HDD.

For storage though, whether its a bunch of MP3s/FLACs, AVIs/MKVs, or JPEGs/PNGs, it won't make any difference whether you launch off a ten year old IDE HDD or the most cutting edge SSD... because these types of files will launch immediately, without any hesitation on either.. so whats the point?

 

[Cerb]

Any cheaper (I need much cheaper) flash based drives like TLC that i read a while ago supposed to be rated for something like 700 write cycles ?

Cheap USB thumb drives would be the easiest way. I'm pretty sure most cheaper Sandisk drives use TLC, and they're awfully reliable.

OCZ was going to release some TLC NAND SSDs, but I'm not sure the status on that.

If you have more than maybe 50GB, just get multiple new HDDs.

 

[ALIVE]

I am looking to use some solid state drives for storage instead of my aging (close to die - bad smart values) mechanical drives.

I do not need allot of writes, it will be mostly reading, so the currently famous SLC or MLC drives are allot over spec'd based on what I need ..

Any cheaper (I need much cheaper) flash based drives like TLC that i read a while ago supposed to be rated for something like 700 write cycles ?

My main concerns are in that order:
-Price
-Reliability
-Vibration and heat (will run in a pretty hot environment)
-Power usage

http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/e90457762/sandisk-ultra-sdxc-64gb.asp

sdxc
1) price better than ssd
4)power usage minimum

sdxc have the lock switch so you can use them as read only and save the write cycles
3)vibration sdxc is made for trasnport in device
speed 30mb/sec top
well you said you also checked usb drives so
what about lookign at sdxc??!?!?
the 64gb models have the best price for now

 

[Revolution 11]

My main concerns are in that order:
-Price
-Reliability
-Vibration and heat (will run in a pretty hot environment)
-Power usage

Where does storage capacity fall in this list? If it is #1 or #2 behind price, you should not be looking at SSDs. If price or capacity are less important than speed, get a SSD. Tell us what price and storage capacity is important to you.

Ok, that's a bit vague. What's your desired price point? What's the required storage amount? Can you compromise on storage to achieve the other requirements (power/heat, etc)? Can you tolerate a higher price to achieve the other requirements?

 

[hhhd1]

I was thinking, with some 500mb/s MLC SSD are dropping to lower than 1$/gb, I was hoping to see some lower quality flash storage with something like 0.1~0.25$/gb

Specially when comparing the prices of MLC to enterprise SLC.

note: when i say lower quality, i do not mean lower reliability, i only mean lower speed and lower write cycles.

 

[Revolution 11]

$0.10 to $0.25 per GB? Ha, thanks for the laugh.

If the price ever fell that low anytime this year, you can expect the SSDs to be out of stock almost perpetually at the current production levels. (Expect me to stockpile some for the whole family and friends)

That 500 MB/s is achieved primarily through firmware and the controller. The NAND is roughly similar. So there are no large cost savings between one MLC SSD and another in the flash NAND itself.

What you want is for NAND to become a commodity product like hard drives. To buy a SSD anytime soon, you will have to accept a much larger price/GB.

 

[tweakboy]

Why not ? but I recommend a backup image or whatever on a external drive which is usually off........... we dont know much about these SSDs but ya botching your comp maybe.. gl

I am looking to use some solid state drives for storage instead of my aging (close to die - bad smart values) mechanical drives.

I do not need allot of writes, it will be mostly reading, so the currently famous SLC or MLC drives are allot over spec'd based on what I need ..

Any cheaper (I need much cheaper) flash based drives like TLC that i read a while ago supposed to be rated for something like 700 write cycles ?

My main concerns are in that order:
-Price
-Reliability
-Vibration and heat (will run in a pretty hot environment)
-Power usage

 

[dave_the_nerd]

How much storage space do you need? If it's over 300GB or so, I'd say stick with a spinning disk. Easy enough to replace your existing drive with something newer. They last for years, too - don't get spooked by the moving parts just because your current drive died young. (SSDs do that too.)

 

[tweakboy]

I agree with dav the nerd... gl

 

[sgrinavi]

I'm doing the same thing in my laptops - I just got a pair of 480 gb Sandisks for $380 each, not a stellar performer, but way faster than the HDDs

 

[KentState]

Even at the enterprise level you don't buy SSD for mass storage. It's typically purchased for systems that require high performance first and foremost.

 

[thelastjuju]

I'm doing the same thing in my laptops - I just got a pair of 480 gb Sandisks for $380 each, not a stellar performer, but way faster than the HDDs

.. except only FASTER where it counts.

Boot times, heavy duty applications, long game loading times, file transfers..

I'm really hoping nobody here thinks say an MP3 is going to launch any faster on an SSD as opposed to an HDD.

 

[Cerb]

I'm really hoping nobody here thinks say an MP3 is going to launch any faster on an SSD as opposed to an HDD.

Why? The HDD will take 5-20ms, depending on how much FS info is in RAM (1 screen refresh or so), while the SSD will take <1ms.

 

[thelastjuju]

Every 0.001 second counts alright :thumbsup:

Think of how much more music you'll be able to listen to by shaving off the nanoseconds each time the track changes.

:sneaky:

 

[Cerb]

Every 0.001 second counts alright :thumbsup:

Think of how much more music you'll be able to listen to by shaving off the nanoseconds each time the track changes.

:sneaky:

Exactly. You can save many milliseconds per day from those long next/random button delays!

 

[sgrinavi]

.. except only FASTER where it counts.

Boot times, heavy duty applications, long game loading times, file transfers..

I'm really hoping nobody here thinks say an MP3 is going to launch any faster on an SSD as opposed to an HDD.

Mostly large CAD files, load & save times are down significantly.