• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why SSDs are cheaper

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Rubycon said:
Point is whether you have one drive or 48 if ONE dies you go down. This is why you have backups. Here we're heavily SAN'd so no worries. Even so in the period - over a decade - of running various RAID0 setups I've never been seriously burdened by a drive failure. The SSD arrays (running since late 2008) have been superb. I've had a few glitches with dual ported backplanes and SAS cabling but no data loss, thankfully.
Click to expand...

I could say nearly the same, minus the SAN.

I find the redundancy of backing up my R0's with more R0's as the ultimate speed demon way to improve my chances at reducing the potential losses associated with R0.

Then add the speed increases associated with recovering data to an ultra-fast array?.. and I often save more time than those folks who use slower raids or single drives do.

Plus.. I rarely store data on my OS arrays.. so big whoop if that volume goes down with all 30 gig's of my data. I can easily secure erase multiple drives and reimage a newly created R0 volume in 10 minutes flat. And with that in mind.. I don't even usually troubleshoot driver/software conflicts anymore. R0 quite literally allows a "wipe and go" attitude. lol
 
ultimatebob said:
If SSD's are getting cheap, why are laptop manufacturers still raping us if you try to add one as a factory installed option?
Click to expand...

You have to watch them for deals. When I got my wife's dv7tqe last november, I bought the ssd separately b/c it was so much cheaper (and larger/faster/etc). I think it was about $480 for a 128gb ssd in fact. However, a month later they started offering a 128gb ssd for ~ $240. Not the deal of a lifetime, but probably cheap enough that I would have bought it that way from the factory if that deal had been available. Right now on their website it costs $200 more to get a 160gb ssd (presumably intel which is nice) in lieu of the base model 1 tb hdd. That's more expensive than it should be, but not outrageously so. If I bought one today and I wasn't so comfortable with ssd install on laptops, then I would probably buy the ssd from the factory and just let her use the 3tb external for data storage.
 
Smoblikat said:
I disagree, ive used RAID 0 SSD's and see little to no difference in anything except a few less seconds bootup.
Click to expand...

groberts101 said:
there are more and more users trying raided SSD's than ever before.. and most of them would surely disagree with you too. I know I sure as hell didn't spend $1,200 bucks on my 6 drive SSD array to only get "a few less seconds bootup". lol

And it's very well known by most that adding a raidrom into the post sequence generally doesn't make your boot time any quicker despite the added performance potential added from the R0.
Click to expand...

Count me in the category of people who "surely disagree's" with Smoblikat. All I do is heavy game and internet surfing, yet my user experience has been transformed first by my x25m g2 in 2009, and now again by RAID 0 m4's.
 
Right click 4.7 DVD iso on desktop, drag, copy here.

Windows: Hmm I need to start drawing a copy progress dialog.... oooook never mind then.

I/O > *

Nothing else really matters in a PC any more in these days of both over powered CPUs and GPUs and bloated software, multitasking, and obese data sizes when you are loading programs and data from what amounts to a modern day version of a 1950s tape drive at kilobytes per second. Magnetic R/W heads DO NOT belong in a computer, they belong in museums next to stone chisels and punch cards. The only exception I can make for use of HDDs is to replace backup tape and in data centers where there are so many of them aggregated and virtualized behind dedicated hardware that they can actually be pretty fast.

Some day I'll be able to afford enough SSDs to match quad channel DDR3 bandwidth, chipset DMI/QPI back bone allowing.

Why?

Because I, a biological animal, should NEVER EVER have to wait under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES on an ELECTRONIC MACHINE capable over over a TRILLION OPERATIONS PER SECOND. This is PRECISELY the exact reason man invented computers in the first place.

Hour glasses, progress bars, disk access lights and that all familiar STUPID STUPID "stack of platters/cylinder" icon next to it on PC cases and laptops need to go away forever. I want to first gouge my eyes out, then hang myself, every time I have to sit at a computer that not only has that icon, but has a solid lit light next to it. I seriously want to punch babies every time a computer I have to use comes to a complete stop for 10 seconds because I accidentally moused over "control panel->" on the start menu... let alone install a 2 GB 100,000 file application. Seriously how freaking long does it take to fetch a couple kilobytes in two dozen or so 16x16 icons? I can't believe how terribly crippled our technology is as a species because of our lack of sufficient data storage technology to feed it.
 
Last edited:
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I still can't even bring myself to spend $100 on a top of the line 128GB ssd that's been showing up in hot deals. Maybe a 256GB for $100 and we'll talk.
Click to expand...
Personally, I want maintenance-free solid state drives with robust data recovery techniques. Amount of gigs, is secondary to me. This tech is yet to see its maturity.
 
Last edited:
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I still can't even bring myself to spend $100 on a top of the line 128GB ssd that's been showing up in hot deals. Maybe a 256GB for $100 and we'll talk.
Click to expand...



i am with you here. I bought a 32gb SSD when they first starting to come out (so i spent right at 100), I need something bigger in the worst kind of way, but I will be looking to get more for my money this time around.
 
groberts101 said:
I could say nearly the same, minus the SAN.

I find the redundancy of backing up my R0's with more R0's as the ultimate speed demon way to improve my chances at reducing the potential losses associated with R0.

Then add the speed increases associated with recovering data to an ultra-fast array?.. and I often save more time than those folks who use slower raids or single drives do.

Plus.. I rarely store data on my OS arrays.. so big whoop if that volume goes down with all 30 gig's of my data. I can easily secure erase multiple drives and reimage a newly created R0 volume in 10 minutes flat. And with that in mind.. I don't even usually troubleshoot driver/software conflicts anymore. R0 quite literally allows a "wipe and go" attitude. lol
Click to expand...

That's not RAID 0, that's RAID01. It's mirrored so there is actual redundancy to prevent whatever is running on it from dropping. Things like databases can't tolerate a wipe and go mentality...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I927 using Tapatalk 2
 
npaladin-2000 said:
That's not RAID 0, that's RAID01. It's mirrored so there is actual redundancy to prevent whatever is running on it from dropping. Things like databases can't tolerate a wipe and go mentality...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I927 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Technically, RAID 10, but lets all please remember that RAID IS NOT A BACKUP. 🙂
 
exdeath said:
Right click 4.7 DVD iso on desktop, drag, copy here.

Windows: Hmm I need to start drawing a copy progress dialog.... oooook never mind then.

I/O > *

Nothing else really matters in a PC any more in these days of both over powered CPUs and GPUs and bloated software, multitasking, and obese data sizes when you are loading programs and data from what amounts to a modern day version of a 1950s tape drive at kilobytes per second. Magnetic R/W heads DO NOT belong in a computer, they belong in museums next to stone chisels and punch cards. The only exception I can make for use of HDDs is to replace backup tape and in data centers where there are so many of them aggregated and virtualized behind dedicated hardware that they can actually be pretty fast.

Some day I'll be able to afford enough SSDs to match quad channel DDR3 bandwidth, chipset DMI/QPI back bone allowing.

Why?

Because I, a biological animal, should NEVER EVER have to wait under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES on an ELECTRONIC MACHINE capable over over a TRILLION OPERATIONS PER SECOND. This is PRECISELY the exact reason man invented computers in the first place.

Hour glasses, progress bars, disk access lights and that all familiar STUPID STUPID "stack of platters/cylinder" icon next to it on PC cases and laptops need to go away forever. I want to first gouge my eyes out, then hang myself, every time I have to sit at a computer that not only has that icon, but has a solid lit light next to it. I seriously want to punch babies every time a computer I have to use comes to a complete stop for 10 seconds because I accidentally moused over "control panel->" on the start menu... let alone install a 2 GB 100,000 file application. Seriously how freaking long does it take to fetch a couple kilobytes in two dozen or so 16x16 icons? I can't believe how terribly crippled our technology is as a species because of our lack of sufficient data storage technology to feed it.
Click to expand...

"Gathering information"...

That dialogue one sees whether installing OR un-installing on a Windows system...

Ok just what is it gathering? With multiple teraflops, ability to access billions of bits of information per second, this computer could have gathered the library of congress a million times by now and you, Mister Peter Norton, are still gathering information to uninstall your useless software from my system? GTFO and don't come back! :biggrin:
 
Rubycon said:
"Gathering information"...

That dialogue one sees whether installing OR un-installing on a Windows system...

Ok just what is it gathering? With multiple teraflops, ability to access billions of bits of information per second, this computer could have gathered the library of congress a million times by now and you, Mister Peter Norton, are still gathering information to uninstall your useless software from my system? GTFO and don't come back! :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Someone who understands, yay!

My other favorite "preparing to ..." for 15 minutes while the useless progress bar resets 10 times.

Quit preparing and just do it already.
 
Last edited:
Thank God you can turn off the "are you sure you want to install " and "delete" questions!
 
There is the classical trade-off between size and processing (or whatever); you can use things like compression to save space, but then you need to spend CPU cycles to decompress/compress.

I think games use compression, so when you load it up, the computer needs to process all the compressed graphic data.

So, it's not just slowed down by the storage system, but also the CPU.

And when you get a faster CPU/storage system, the programmers will be like "lets put an order of magnitude more data/compression, the computers can take it!" and so the dance begins again...
 
Interesting article this morning. With charts!

http://hexus.net/tech/news/storage/39853-ssd-price-war-full-swing/

Could be seeing SSD price war get more aggressive in 2nd half of 2012 as major players "initiate a price war in an effort to maximise market share and squeeze out some of the smaller providers. This strategy, coupled with lower pricing for NAND flash memory, has seen the cost of popular drives tumble in recent weeks."

256GB Samsung 830 for $225 is certainly a sign. Love my 830's.
 
GoStumpy said:
^ Tell us how you really feel.

😉
Click to expand...

I was going to type that exact thing.

Exdeath had a bad experence in the past with an hdd. It has scarred him for life 😉

mashumk said:
Interesting article this morning. With charts!

http://hexus.net/tech/news/storage/39853-ssd-price-war-full-swing/

Could be seeing SSD price war get more aggressive in 2nd half of 2012 as major players "initiate a price war in an effort to maximise market share and squeeze out some of the smaller providers. This strategy, coupled with lower pricing for NAND flash memory, has seen the cost of popular drives tumble in recent weeks."

256GB Samsung 830 for $225 is certainly a sign. Love my 830's.
Click to expand...

This had been known for weeks. Things will really heat up when samsung/intel get down under $200 for their $256/240 gb ssd's.
 
Last edited:
I have this issue as well at work who are running a right mixed bag of computers from Semprons up to an i5, all with disk drives.

They've finally signed off a new IT project, new SBS2011 server with new PCs for everybody. i3+Samsung 830 all round!
 
I said I'd wait, I said SSD was too expensive, I said it wasn't large enough for me.

Guess what? I have two 128GB Crucial M4s now and I couldn't go back. They are as fast as people say, they weren't that expensive, and I actually find that 128GB for my OS and apps and user folders is plenty and the other 128GB is plenty for my Games.
 
HDD's hit $1/gb in 2000 iirc. That's a side note though.

What I find amusing is the effect a crappy ocz ssd had on me. Yes I noticed the difference when it died and I had to put a regular HDD in there but it wasn't significant enough for me to look forward to another SSD. Not with that level of reliability. Then again it ran at 50% of the advertised speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top