Want to see blinding speed for a boot drive. Take 2 or 3 SSDs and build a RAID 0 array!
A good external RAID card usually works better than motherboard RAID as the processing is off loaded to the card.
Only downside is that you lose TRIM on raid arrays. (or is that fixed now in the latest Intel SATA driver release?)
EDIT:
I found this: In the release of IRST 11.1.0.1006, the Windows IRST GUI help documentation has contained the following statement:
• TRIM
This feature provides support for all pass-through solid-state drives (SSDs) in your storage system that meets the ATA-8 protocol requirements. Also, support is provided for SSDs that are part of a RAID 0 array. This feature optimizes write operations, helps reduce device wear, and maintains unused storage area on devices as large as possible.
Funny how I missed the Intel memo. Can someone confirm?
98 second edition was the first working version of 95 released to the public
Of all the 9x versions, I had the least amount of problems out of ME.
Really? ME was one constant crash after another for me, I had constant problems with ME and was constantly having to re-install everything, hated it. XP was a huge improvement and everything since has gotten more and more stable with Windows 7 being almost rock solid stable.
With prices falling on SSD I have been really thinking of putting one in my self built music server. I will probably go with one by either Crucial or Intel when I do, they seem to have the best reputation for reliable SSD's.
-- Klipsch Speakers -- RF-5 fronts -- RC-7 center -- RS-3 II surrounds (4) -- RT-10d sub -- Onkyo PR-SC885 processor -- Emotiva XPA-5 & XPA-2 amps -- XLR -15db attenuators (7) -- Panasonic TH-50PH9UK plasma display -- Windows 7 HTPC 4-tuner DVR, Blu-ray and Digital Music Server -- Onkyo DX-C390 CD -- Pure AV PF60 power conditioner -- URC MX-850 and MX-800 remote -- Insteon Home Automation Lightin
Joined: May 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 347 Location: Abington PA
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #44 on Aug 10, 2012, 12:17pm »
I got one a few years ago its a massive 30gb. LOL I installed windows 7 ultimate it has been running fine. Only OS installed on it - everything else on a hdd. My next build will have an even better ssd in it.
98 second edition was the first working version of 95 released to the public
Of all the 9x versions, I had the least amount of problems out of ME.
Really? ME was one constant crash after another for me, I had constant problems with ME and was constantly having to re-install everything, hated it. XP was a huge improvement and everything since has gotten more and more stable with Windows 7 being almost rock solid stable.
With prices falling on SSD I have been really thinking of putting one in my self built music server. I will probably go with one by either Crucial or Intel when I do, they seem to have the best reputation for reliable SSD's.
If you're willing to pay the Intel price, probably the most reputably reliable, high speed, consumer-level SSD is Samsung. They used to cost 1.5-2.5x but have come down to realistic prices recently. See my above pic. The Samsung 830's are the most consistently, highly-rated SSD drives on Newegg. I've never seen any storage product consistently rated 4 or 5 stars with ZERO 1 star ratings - ever. These do.
I also have a Crucial M4 256GB SSD. It isn't nearly the performance of the Samsung 830, but it's been pretty reliable. They aren't notrious for being the most reliable mfg in the past, but their recent shipments all seem to have come in line with reliability. I also just ordered a new M4 mSATA drive (since I have the space in my laptop). It will replace my 2.5" M4 (which I'll give to my brother). Crucial has been optimizing the Marvell controller for years, so they get better-than-average performance from it and seem to have really achieved a great price/performance/reliability because of sticking to one component controller and getting to know it well.
Intel's enterprise SSDs are unquestionable, but their consumer side is relatively on par with the upper end of the pack, but not nearly as revered as the Samsung 830 series. Solid products, though. They're also a good choice if you want to encrypt and don't have a newer processor with AESNI support. Apparently, they have a 128-bit AESNI offload built in. That's pretty cool, but my laptop has it in the processor, so no huge benefit there. (Tangent: I am unable to max out writes to my 830 as of yet, using 3 source drives copying to it, their READS were peaked before the 830's maximum write MB/sec sustained - I achieved >300MB/sec sustained writes to the 830 with software LUKS encryption.)
Another solid player with their recent lineup is Sandisk. They seem to be highly rated and have also recently come down to some of the lower end pricing models. A-Data has also jumped into the scene with some extremely high-performing SSD offerings, but it seems they're having some firmware issues and when they try to address reliability, the performance suffers. Overall, it's one to watch. Brands I just wouldn't buy at this point include OCZ and Mushkin. While they have always been fine companies from a customer perspective and RAM perspective, they just don't seem to have the quality on the SSD side.
Really? ME was one constant crash after another for me, I had constant problems with ME and was constantly having to re-install everything, hated it. XP was a huge improvement and everything since has gotten more and more stable with Windows 7 being almost rock solid stable.
With prices falling on SSD I have been really thinking of putting one in my self built music server. I will probably go with one by either Crucial or Intel when I do, they seem to have the best reputation for reliable SSD's.
If you're willing to pay the Intel price, probably the most reputably reliable, high speed, consumer-level SSD is Samsung. They used to cost 1.5-2.5x but have come down to realistic prices recently. See my above pic. The Samsung 830's are the most consistently, highly-rated SSD drives on Newegg. I've never seen any storage product consistently rated 4 or 5 stars with ZERO 1 star ratings - ever. These do.
I also have a Crucial M4 256GB SSD. It isn't nearly the performance of the Samsung 830, but it's been pretty reliable. They aren't notrious for being the most reliable mfg in the past, but their recent shipments all seem to have come in line with reliability. I also just ordered a new M4 mSATA drive (since I have the space in my laptop). It will replace my 2.5" M4 (which I'll give to my brother). Crucial has been optimizing the Marvell controller for years, so they get better-than-average performance from it and seem to have really achieved a great price/performance/reliability because of sticking to one component controller and getting to know it well.
Intel's enterprise SSDs are unquestionable, but their consumer side is relatively on par with the upper end of the pack, but not nearly as revered as the Samsung 830 series. Solid products, though. They're also a good choice if you want to encrypt and don't have a newer processor with AESNI support. Apparently, they have a 128-bit AESNI offload built in. That's pretty cool, but my laptop has it in the processor, so no huge benefit there. (Tangent: I am unable to max out writes to my 830 as of yet, using 3 source drives copying to it, their READS were peaked before the 830's maximum write MB/sec sustained - I achieved >300MB/sec sustained writes to the 830 with software LUKS encryption.)
Another solid player with their recent lineup is Sandisk. They seem to be highly rated and have also recently come down to some of the lower end pricing models. A-Data has also jumped into the scene with some extremely high-performing SSD offerings, but it seems they're having some firmware issues and when they try to address reliability, the performance suffers. Overall, it's one to watch. Brands I just wouldn't buy at this point include OCZ and Mushkin. While they have always been fine companies from a customer perspective and RAM perspective, they just don't seem to have the quality on the SSD side.
Crucial is THE most reliable line available and have been for almost 5 year straight (failure rate is less than 1% with the current M4 as well as the C300 line) Intel was second and Gskill being 3rd. I have the page saved somewhere but i'm at work and I'll post it when I get home.
One thing everyone has to realize is that the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation. Once you have a SSd for your OS, it's impossible to go back to a platter.... I use my wifes laptop and I want to hulk smash it lol
Want to see blinding speed for a boot drive. Take 2 or 3 SSDs and build a RAID 0 array!
A good external RAID card usually works better than motherboard RAID as the processing is off loaded to the card.
Only downside is that you lose TRIM on raid arrays. (or is that fixed now in the latest Intel SATA driver release?)
EDIT:
I found this: In the release of IRST 11.1.0.1006, the Windows IRST GUI help documentation has contained the following statement:
• TRIM
This feature provides support for all pass-through solid-state drives (SSDs) in your storage system that meets the ATA-8 protocol requirements. Also, support is provided for SSDs that are part of a RAID 0 array. This feature optimizes write operations, helps reduce device wear, and maintains unused storage area on devices as large as possible.
Funny how I missed the Intel memo. Can someone confirm?
Yes Trim works on raid 0 and I'm pretty sure raid 1 also. Not sure about raid 2,3,4,5 or 6 though.
98 second edition was the first working version of 95 released to the public
Of all the 9x versions, I had the least amount of problems out of ME.
Really? ME was one constant crash after another for me, I had constant problems with ME and was constantly having to re-install everything, hated it. XP was a huge improvement and everything since has gotten more and more stable with Windows 7 being almost rock solid stable.
With prices falling on SSD I have been really thinking of putting one in my self built music server. I will probably go with one by either Crucial or Intel when I do, they seem to have the best reputation for reliable SSD's.
I know, right? Everybody hates ME but I had no problem with it. Installed it once and never looked back. Incredibly stable for me. When I replaced that computer with one that I built myself (2004) I used Windows 2000 first then switched to XP.
Crucial is THE most reliable line available and have been for almost 5 year straight (failure rate is less than 1% with the current M4 as well as the C300 line) Intel was second and Gskill being 3rd. I have the page saved somewhere but i'm at work and I'll post it when I get home.
SSDs of 5 years ago aren't even relevant to the SSDs of the last 18 months. I don't question that Crucial is pretty reliable, but I stand by the Samsungs as being the rock of modern SSDs. I actually can't find a report of a failed Samsung. I can easily find plenty of Crucial failure reports.
One thing everyone has to realize is that the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation. Once you have a SSd for your OS, it's impossible to go back to a platter.... I use my wifes laptop and I want to hulk smash it lol
In my very real world, I copy a lot of data. I move a lot of media around, I build, backup, snapshot, copy for others to use, lots of VMs, etc. I also back up much of this data on a very regular basis. The difference in sustained writes of 100MB/sec, 200MB/sec and 400MB/sec is VERY, VERY REAL to me. Perhaps many people won't see the difference in performance between most modern SSDs, I experience it on a daily basis. SSDs are also still not mainstream, I imagine most people buying them DO experience performance differences between them or they wouldn't be custom-installing them to start with. That isn't always the case, but making the sweeping statement that "the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation", from a performance perspective, aren't apparent, is disagreeable at best.
Really? ME was one constant crash after another for me, I had constant problems with ME and was constantly having to re-install everything, hated it. XP was a huge improvement and everything since has gotten more and more stable with Windows 7 being almost rock solid stable.
With prices falling on SSD I have been really thinking of putting one in my self built music server. I will probably go with one by either Crucial or Intel when I do, they seem to have the best reputation for reliable SSD's.
I know, right? Everybody hates ME but I had no problem with it. Installed it once and never looked back. Incredibly stable for me. When I replaced that computer with one that I built myself (2004) I used Windows 2000 first then switched to XP.
Me too. I had no problems with ME on my homebuilt PC.
Joined: Mar 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 653 Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #53 on Aug 11, 2012, 12:59am »
Quote:
SSDs of 5 years ago aren't even relevant to the SSDs of the last 18 months.
5 years straight isn't the same thing as 5 years ago.
Quote:
That isn't always the case, but making the sweeping statement that "the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation", from a performance perspective, aren't apparent, is disagreeable at best.
Perhaps he should have said, "The vast majority of people using a computer won't notice the differences between different SSD speeds for every day use". This, I imagine, would be a fairly accurate statement. I had an OCZ drive(crap) before my M4 and without running benchmarks I would be hard pressed to notice a difference in every day (where random I/O is the important thing) usage.
Quote:
SSDs are also still not mainstream
What do you consider mainstream? They're standard on nearly every ultrabook on the market.
I know, right? Everybody hates ME but I had no problem with it. Installed it once and never looked back. Incredibly stable for me. When I replaced that computer with one that I built myself (2004) I used Windows 2000 first then switched to XP.
Me too. I had no problems with ME on my homebuilt PC.
Hated ME most unstable OS for me, I spent nearly as much time fixing it as using it.
A lot of people complained about Vista, I was an early beta tester for Vista and was using it long before its offical release and I always liked it. Windows 7 has been my favorite of all though. From the little I have seen on Windows 8 and its touch screen form it does not interest me at all.
As for the SSD debate my first choice is Crucial and that is most likely what I'll be getting when I make the switch to SSD.
-- Klipsch Speakers -- RF-5 fronts -- RC-7 center -- RS-3 II surrounds (4) -- RT-10d sub -- Onkyo PR-SC885 processor -- Emotiva XPA-5 & XPA-2 amps -- XLR -15db attenuators (7) -- Panasonic TH-50PH9UK plasma display -- Windows 7 HTPC 4-tuner DVR, Blu-ray and Digital Music Server -- Onkyo DX-C390 CD -- Pure AV PF60 power conditioner -- URC MX-850 and MX-800 remote -- Insteon Home Automation Lightin
Crucial is THE most reliable line available and have been for almost 5 year straight (failure rate is less than 1% with the current M4 as well as the C300 line) Intel was second and Gskill being 3rd. I have the page saved somewhere but i'm at work and I'll post it when I get home.
SSDs of 5 years ago aren't even relevant to the SSDs of the last 18 months. I don't question that Crucial is pretty reliable, but I stand by the Samsungs as being the rock of modern SSDs. I actually can't find a report of a failed Samsung. I can easily find plenty of Crucial failure reports.
One thing everyone has to realize is that the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation. Once you have a SSd for your OS, it's impossible to go back to a platter.... I use my wifes laptop and I want to hulk smash it lol
In my very real world, I copy a lot of data. I move a lot of media around, I build, backup, snapshot, copy for others to use, lots of VMs, etc. I also back up much of this data on a very regular basis. The difference in sustained writes of 100MB/sec, 200MB/sec and 400MB/sec is VERY, VERY REAL to me. Perhaps many people won't see the difference in performance between most modern SSDs, I experience it on a daily basis. SSDs are also still not mainstream, I imagine most people buying them DO experience performance differences between them or they wouldn't be custom-installing them to start with. That isn't always the case, but making the sweeping statement that "the differences between any of the SSD's is not going to be noticeable in ANY real world situation", from a performance perspective, aren't apparent, is disagreeable at best.
Common man, I never said samsung isn't a great drive because it is but get real if you think because you haven't read about one failing, that none have. I bet in the last 5 years I've installed 1000 ssd's easy. I've been building gaming rigs for almost 10 years now. I've put in every SSD I think there is on the market from raid 0 to raid 6 with the new asrock extreme. The differences are moot in anything but moving data like you are doing. I guess I should have said in "every day" usage like Entity said
BTW SSD's are very main stream their sales are up 2,660% from 2011 in the same amount of time. Over 25 million shipped so far this year and predicted to be in the 100 millions next year. Sure platter HDD;s are clicking along at around 300 million for this year but SSD's are for sure main stream, more enthusiast mainstream but still.
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #56 on Aug 15, 2012, 12:36pm »
The perceived performance difference is obviously relative to what you're doing with the drive. Fair enough. But, from that perspective, the average web browsing, Facebook-posting, document-writing individual gains very little actual benefit going from a spinning disk to an SSD. There might be some boot time wow factor, and after that, things just sit idle, regardless of which disk you're using.
As for reliability, if you honestly believe all SSDs are equally reliable, then I don't know what to say. If you also aren't familiar with the legendary reliability of the Samsung 830 series, then you're not even paying attention. The two most known reliable SSDs are Intel's enterprise offerings and Samsung's 830 consumer offering. I'm pretty sure in your 1000's of SSDs you weren't selling 830's, until just a few weeks back, they were running largely a 2x price premium, and most people wouldn't pay it. Go type Samsung 830 failure into Google, let me know what you find. Or, put Samsung SSD failure in, find me the numerous reports. Now, type ANY OTHER VENDOR + ssd failure in. So, you're telling me, that people complain about all the vendors, but despite the fact that in your opinion Samsung 830's are no more reliable, the folks owning them have clammed up, despite paying a massive premium, and decided to not talk about their extensive failure rate? Honestly?
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #57 on Aug 15, 2012, 12:40pm »
I should further clarify my performance statement. If you are performing operations throughout the day in your computing activities where there is a significant, perceivable difference in performance between rotational and SSD drives, then it is very likely you are performing the sort of daily activities where you will notice a performance improvement going from an older/slower SSD to a newer/faster SSD.
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 3,467 Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #58 on Aug 15, 2012, 6:07pm »
I never said all SSD's were equally reliable, they most surely are not. The samsung has been out since Nov of 2011. You can't compair the reliability of the 830 vs pretty much any other established drives on the market because the other drives will out number them 20-1. You think there is as many 830's in the wild as M4's, vertex 3's, etc. No there is not, not even close. If you add in the sales that they have on all these new drives, the numbers must be crazy. The 830 x 128 gig has been going for $100 for months now off and on. They drives didn't even start gaining popularity until these sales. If you want the king of speed, it's the muskin chronos deluxe.
I'm not saying it's not reliable but I am saying you're crazy if you think because you can't find failure info, there is none.
Re: Do we really Need Hard Drives? « Reply #59 on Aug 15, 2012, 6:58pm »
I'm saying that if in over 8 months of sales, there aren't at least a few dozen people complaining somewhere, on a forum, on a sales site, at Samsung's own product feedback page, that it has shown to be one of the most reliable SSD's on the market. You said you've been doing SSD since the beginning. Are you telling me that Crucial went 8 months with nary a twitter about reliable? Again, I'm not all-out knocking Crucial (I just bought another one). I'm also not claiming that Samsung is the fastest thing out there (I never did). What I did say is that the Samsung's, by any reasonable person's observations, have proven themselves to be by far and away the most reliable consumer SSD's I've seen. I don't think the product is perfect, but I also don't think it isn't worthy of the merit its achieved. As someone said earlier, when an SSD fails, it's pretty much done. My data is valuable enough to me to spend the premium on the drive I feel as least likely to fail (within reason). I cannot see any data out there that would lead me away from an 830 and to an M4 with that purpose in mind.
![[Home]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/homeBtn.jpg "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/newBtn.jpg "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/helpBtn.jpg "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/searchBtn.jpg "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/loginBtn.jpg "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://emotiva.com/images/lounge/registerBtn.jpg "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://home.comcast.net/~bootman/files/mr.inredible.gif "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://emonatics.com/images/Emonatics-Logo2x.png "[avatar]"){kind=small}
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://emonatics.com/images/Emonatics-Amplifier-Logo.png "[image]"){kind=logo}
![[avatar]](http://www.petitesweets.com/teddy-and-bunny.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/AFCOL/TUSKEN%20RAIDER%20PROJ/Finished/forblog11.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://s273856667.onlinehome.us/avatarredsox.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i368/stiehl11/IMGP6912.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://home.comcast.net/~geebolt/vp1.jpg "[avatar]")