SSD is slow...

Guest2

Guest2

Guest2

Soldato
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
20,133
Think ill wait a bit and get a DDR SSD (or 2 and RAID 0 them if possible)

It fires up Windows XP in 2 seconds from the splash screen to the desktop with nForce4/5 Mobos. It fires up Windows 2003 Server in 2 seconds (although in both cases it is hardware polling and device driver timing loops that take up most of that 2 seconds). So it is "instant on" and gives you an "instant desktop".


http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/hardware.htm#hyperosHDIIproduct
 
wow, how dumb, firstly these have been around for ever, they aren't solid state.

Essentially SSD's are useful because they KEEP THEIR DATA WHEN TURNED OFF. DDR, does not keep its data, its an always on device. People have had Ram drives for ages, Gigabyte had an i-ram years ago.

How much was ddr2 at its cheapest, £30 for 4GB, so a proper memory drive will cost you £480 for a 64gb ddr2 ram drive, which offers very little real world performance.

doubling your hard drive speed, doesn't, in ANY way double the speed of your system, 98% of what people do on their computers aren't hard drive limited, hence a double to 10 times faster HDD offering minimal game loading performance increases.

Thats before you take into account the systems that can use them basically have to be always on systems, that HAVE to have battery backups, which won't last long and a single power outage will wipe ALL your data making it fairly useless.

Its also not instant on or instant OS desktop, your cpu still has to do things, load drivers, drivers have to process requests and to things, yes it will load fast, but it will barely increase performance for most things.

The majority of things you do that are HDD limited, like recording uber high def video or editing/manipulating high bit rate data of any kind, will run into massive size limits to any DDR based hard drive, which makes them fairly useless anyway.

Should you want you can create a ram drive, install a game on a ram drive, run it from there, and see almost no performance improvement at all. You either save your ramdrive image to a mechanical hard drive when you shut down or lose the data, meaning when you reboot and want to play the game again, you either load the image from disc, which will take a while anyway as it has to load the ENTIRE game image to ram before it can load the game, or you install from scratch.

They are impracticle, expensive, not reliable in any way and offer no performance improvement to 99.9% of users. They've also been around for, 5-10 years, before flash drives were available and no one had them, because they were pointless.


EDIT:_ You do of course realise that the box is £299, WITHOUT memory, up to a max of 64gb of ddr2, which would set you back a further £500. Infact they sell dimms for £20 for 2gb sticks, so thats £160 + £299 for a 16gb ddr drive thats

3x faster than a $2000 desktop at booting and clicking around the desktop and opening applications and all other IO intensive operation
Click to expand...

Then who doesn't want to be 3x faster at booting, and clicking around the desktop and opening firefox in 1 instead of 3 seconds, woo hoo. For a 64gb drive, considering it only has 8 memory slots, you'd need 8GB sticks, considering 8GB sticks are like, I dunno closer to £200 than £20, you're looking at probably almost £2k to make it a full 64gb drive, to make your desktop faster at clicking around.

EDIT:- the cheapest 8gb stick I've found so far, is £370, so thats only £3259 to make a 64gb ddr2 drive, wow, you almost sold me on that.
 
Last edited:
best read all day, very informative. Someone ought to offer the OP a hot sweet cup of tea before they lapse into shock :p

I used to use RAM drives back in the days of my amiga 1200 when hdd were slow small and very expensive. That said 4mb of RAM cost me £150. That was something like 15 years ago.
 
Ram disks are very handy for certain applications (stick photoshop's swap file on there and it flies) but as drunkenmaster says, they're no good for use as a hard drive.
 
Hyperdrives rely on a battery to keep the data, lose power for 3 hours and all your data is gone, unless you drop another £300 on a 64GB compactflash card.

A fusion IO drive is a much better option for that sort of money - bigger, non-volatile, much higher throughput, and they even have higher IOPS than that drive.

For datacenter environments you can't beat a RAMSAN performance wise, but it's not viable tech in the home.
 
capriboy1978 said:
best read all day, very informative. Someone ought to offer the OP a hot sweet cup of tea before they lapse into shock :p

I used to use RAM drives back in the days of my amiga 1200 when hdd were slow small and very expensive. That said 4mb of RAM cost me £150. That was something like 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

That's cheap, I paid the same for a 192k RAM disk for my BBC Micro in 1984.
 
Guest2 said:
Think ill wait a bit and get a DDR SSD (or 2 and RAID 0 them if possible)
Click to expand...

drunkenmaster said:
...so thats only £3259 to make a 64gb ddr2 drive, wow, you almost sold me on that.
Click to expand...

Guest2 said:
I only skim read it and posted here as it sounded interesting
Click to expand...

Oh!!! It sounded like you'd made a purchasing decision with your first post - maybe you hadn't thought it through, or otherwise money is no object on an item you've not researched (£6,518 on a pair of these for 128gb in RAID0) ;)
 
namnoc said:
That's cheap, I paid the same for a 192k RAM disk for my BBC Micro in 1984.
Click to expand...

:) those were the days. These young uns don't know there born :p

oh an ouch btw, looking back I htought my 4mb ram / 68030 daughter board (£400?) was expensive. Do you still have it? My amiga won't run with the daughter board in, it was prob borked when machine was vandalised, so i'm thinkin of incasing it in resin and hanging it on the wall...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom