Would you buy such a disk?

[velis]

I have a chance to create and manufacture a flash based disk. The storage itself would be fully configurable using CF cards.
I can lessen the 100.000 flash write cycle problem so that cards would be usable a long enough time before failing.
The disk itself (box) would be SATA or PATA 5.25 unit.

I myself would love to have such a disk in my computer if it's lifetime would be acceptable. The cost is a bit of a worry though. I can only get CF cards at about $85 per 2GB here in Slovenia. That would mean some $700 for a 16GB disk + the cost of the device itself.
It's still way cheaper than i-ram though and using 8 or maybe even 16 CFs in paralell just about as fast.

Anyway:
Would you buy such a disk?
How much would you be willing to pay for such a product (bare, sans CF cards)?
Should I use another card type (SDs seem to be cheaper on NewEgg - $40 vs $52 for CF)?

Edit: Added "Would not buy"
AFAIK CF is 8 R / 6W MB/s. So if you operate 8 of them in paralell, that should be quite fast, or not?


Let me just state the question pro & contra way:
Pros (in no particular order):
- Zero seek time
- Relatively high speed (some 50MB/s using 8 cards)
- Zero noise
- Relatively low power consumption
- Fully configurable - any number of cards of any supported size

Cons:
- Shorter lifetime (need to replace failed cards), but with advance warning so that no damage would be done
- Possible data corruption due to a card failing 100% at a particular moment (no time for card failure warning)
- Probably not usable for usage scenarios where huge areas would be modified frequently (database servers, etc)

 

[GrammatonJP]

You know cf is a lot slower than hdd which is slower than iram ?

Its too bad you're not in US.. 1gb cf is like 20 bucks..

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: GrammatonJP
You know cf is a lot slower than hdd which is slower than iram ? Its too bad you're not in US.. 1gb cf is like 20 bucks..

Agree about the speed, but decently fast CF cards are more than double your quoted price - is that wholesale?

Anyway, to answer the basic question - No, I would not buy such a disk unless it were user configurable with CF cards on hand.

CF

 

[ForumMaster]

u need to add an "i wouldn't buy it" option for your poll. CF is slow. not to mention the limited write/read times and it sucks.

 

[velis]

Added "would not buy".

corky: The drive would be totally configurable. up to 8 cards of any size.
forumMaster: i know a way around write cycle limit (or at least how to lessen the problem significantly)

I'm having that feeling about me being unclear again...

 

[Bobthelost]

CF is slow, but if it were arranged in some sort of RAID0 style array then the speed issue may well be less.

Probably not, but check out the people @ SPCR, there'll be a few there who want absolute silence.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
CF is slow, but if it were arranged in some sort of RAID0 style array then the speed issue may well be less.

Probably not, but check out the people @ SPCR, there'll be a few there who want absolute silence.

Great.... 8-way RAID 0 on an unreliable storage medium. Back to the drawing board!

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
CF is slow, but if it were arranged in some sort of RAID0 style array then the speed issue may well be less.

Probably not, but check out the people @ SPCR, there'll be a few there who want absolute silence.

Great.... 8-way RAID 0 on an unreliable storage medium. Back to the drawing board!

Unreliable eh. Care to back that up?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
CF is slow, but if it were arranged in some sort of RAID0 style array then the speed issue may well be less.

Probably not, but check out the people @ SPCR, there'll be a few there who want absolute silence.

Great.... 8-way RAID 0 on an unreliable storage medium. Back to the drawing board!

Unreliable eh. Care to back that up?

Sure. Commercially available flash cards are less reliable than hard disks. Ask any digital photographer who's lost photos due to this-- it's probably the majority. It's a common complaint. One of the stumbling blocks to developing a flash hard disk is unreliability of the medium, not just the limited number of reads and writes.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Sure. Commercially available flash cards are less reliable than hard disks. Ask any digital photographer who's lost photos due to this-- it's probably the majority. It's a common complaint. One of the stumbling blocks to developing a flash hard disk is unreliability of the medium, not just the limited number of reads and writes.

I've had a CF card that was submerged under 8 meters of salt water, with the camera turned on. Unsurprisingly the camera was useless, but the CF card lived. Ipod shuffles have survived being put into washing machines. In terms of physical shock damage they are far superior to conventional hard drives.

I can't find a reference to this well known fact about flash memory (while the write limitation is well documented), a brief bit of googling hasn't found anything to back it up and there is no mention of it on the flash wikipedia. So either it's not a well known fact and you need to find a link to back it up, or you're wrong.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Sure. Commercially available flash cards are less reliable than hard disks. Ask any digital photographer who's lost photos due to this-- it's probably the majority. It's a common complaint. One of the stumbling blocks to developing a flash hard disk is unreliability of the medium, not just the limited number of reads and writes.

I've had a CF card that was submerged under 8 meters of salt water, with the camera turned on. Unsurprisingly the camera was useless, but the CF card lived. Ipod shuffles have survived being put into washing machines. In terms of physical shock damage they are far superior to conventional hard drives.

I can't find a reference to this well known fact about flash memory (while the write limitation is well documented), a brief bit of googling hasn't found anything to back it up and there is no mention of it on the flash wikipedia. So either it's not a well known fact and you need to find a link to back it up, or you're wrong.

Well, that's just miraculous about the saltwater. In any case, it's such a well-known fact that I don't feel obligated to enlighten you. Maybe someone else can chime in. As a matter of fact, I'll run a poll.

 

[6000SUX]

OK, Bobthelost, we'll watch other people's answers roll in. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about with either CompactFlash or RAID. Owning a motherboard with onboard crappy RAID doesn't make you an expert.

Poll

 

[6000SUX]

Google is your friend, Bobthelost

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Well, that's just miraculous about the saltwater. In any case, it's such a well-known fact that I don't feel obligated to enlighten you. Maybe someone else can chime in. As a matter of fact, I'll run a poll.

Well then, let's see if you're right and that it is a well known fact, because so far you seem to be talking rubbish, a google search warning against cheap flash memory and a lot of bluster is all you've managed so far.

Edit: What an utterly shite poll that was too. Twit.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Well, that's just miraculous about the saltwater. In any case, it's such a well-known fact that I don't feel obligated to enlighten you. Maybe someone else can chime in. As a matter of fact, I'll run a poll.

Well then, let's see if you're right and that it is a well known fact, because so far you seem to be talking rubbish, a google search warning against cheap flash memory and a lot of bluster is all you've managed so far.

Edit: What an utterly shite poll that was too. Twit.

You are the one posting the idea that shows an utter lack of understanding. You also discount the zillions of webpages that will come up on a web search, pointing out just how many people have problems with their unreliable flash memory. And I can also give a first-hand testimonial about data corruption on compact flash cards; it's happened to me on two separate cards, fairly high-end ones at that.

Of course, you'll continue to sneer because you can't admit how stupid your idea is. Who's the twit? The body of Internet users who have first-hand experience, or you?

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You are the one posting the idea that shows an utter lack of understanding. You also discount the zillions of webpages that will come up on a web search, pointing out just how many people have problems with their unreliable flash memory. And I can also give a first-hand testimonial about data corruption on compact flash cards; it's happened to me on two separate cards, fairly high-end ones at that.

Of course, you'll continue to sneer because you can't admit how stupid your idea is. Who's the twit? The body of Internet users who have first-hand experience, or you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3939333.stm
My experiences with flash memory are far from unique.

Now, if there are so many accounts of unreliable flash then please, find me an article on it. Then tell me that you're using your flash memory in a situation where a non solid state storage system would be able to survive. You're yet to find me a single atticle that proves your point, instead posting up google links that give nothing useful. Untill or unless you can find one you're talking rubbish.

 

[6000SUX]

Bob, again, use a search engine. There's a whole lot of information out there-- it's like a web full of information, Bobthelost! In addition, I want to remind you that the OP is not talking about a high-end solution with a wear-balancing controller and the best memory that money can buy. He's talking about using commercially available CompactFlash cards.

I haven't seen a single person posting in response to your suggestion, thinking it's a good idea. If you'd ever used CompactFlash cards extensively OR used RAID 0 extensively, you'd never be able to propose your "solution". I have used both. No wacky stories about cards at the bottom of the sea, just many years of experience as a semi-pro photographer.

 

[Bobthelost]

I can't find a reference to this well known fact about flash memory (while the write limitation is well documented), a brief bit of googling hasn't found anything to back it up and there is no mention of it on the flash wikipedia. So either it's not a well known fact and you need to find a link to back it up, or you're wrong.

Well since you're not going to find me a link, and since i can't find one myself there is no point to continuing this discussion.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost

I can't find a reference to this well known fact about flash memory (while the write limitation is well documented), a brief bit of googling hasn't found anything to back it up and there is no mention of it on the flash wikipedia. So either it's not a well known fact and you need to find a link to back it up, or you're wrong.

Well since you're not going to find me a link, and since i can't find one myself there is no point to continuing this discussion.

I refer you to the link I posted, with the text "Google is your friend, Bobthelost". You must've gotten lost.

 

[velis]

Thanks for all the replies guys.
I'd wish for more votes though. I'm serious about this disk and would really like to see what people think about it.
As for the reliability issue that popped up, I too have had a card fail on me. But it didn't fail 100%, just some sectors of it. Unfortunately it was just the FAT sectors so the photos were unreadable 🙁
Like I said, I can make up for the bad sectors through reallocation so that doesn't seem too big a problem to me.

So let me just state the question pro & contra way:
Pros (in no particular order):
- Zero seek time
- Relatively high speed (some 50MB/s using 8 cards)
- Zero noise
- Relatively low power consumption
- Fully configurable - any number of cards of any supported size

Cons:
- Shorter lifetime (need to replace failed cards), but with advance warning so that no damage would be done
- Possible data corruption due to a card failing 100% at a particular moment (no time for card failure warning)
- Probably not usable for usage scenarios where huge areas would be modified frequently (database servers, etc)

 

[velis]

Oh, and another thing:
I don't think RAID0 would be any less secure than JBOD method for this.
If any card should fail, disk would be useless / in need of fdisk / format in both cases. It's just that raid0 would be way faster.