Page 1 of 1
Well now that`s fast.
#1
Posted 02 May 2009 - 11:00 AM
Toasty could correct me and this could be nothing, but to me this is just fucking insane..
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/09/v...ung-ssd-ra.html
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/09/v...ung-ssd-ra.html
#3
Posted 02 May 2009 - 06:15 PM
Not in the first 3 pages (therefore over a fucking year) so please fuck off.
#4
Posted 02 May 2009 - 09:06 PM
Wasn't that a bit of an overreaction, Skidz? He was merely pointing out that you weren't posting anything new....
#5
Posted 02 May 2009 - 09:52 PM
It's actually a fairly old video. Came out a few months ago.
Regardless, almost any model of SSD could be used to get insane speeds in a setup like that (save for the cheap off-brand ones, or just any SSD under $200), but it's still impressive.
I don't know if you guys realize it or not, but 2GB/s (not 2Gb/s, which is 8 times slower), is really ****ing fast.
But there's an SSD that a company strapped to a PCB and designed it to be put in a PCI-e slot that gets similar performance without using multiple disks.
The main problem I see with it though, is that since the guy is using RAID0 with no parity or redundancy, if any one of those drives fail, the whole thing's shot to hell and your data is unrecoverable (well, pretty much. Especially if your using 24 drives).
But then again, SSD's are actually very durable (no moving parts means MTBF's of incredibly long times), and this test wasn't meant to last long anyway. It was just meant as a marketing stunt to show how fast these drives could be.
Regardless, almost any model of SSD could be used to get insane speeds in a setup like that (save for the cheap off-brand ones, or just any SSD under $200), but it's still impressive.
I don't know if you guys realize it or not, but 2GB/s (not 2Gb/s, which is 8 times slower), is really ****ing fast.
But there's an SSD that a company strapped to a PCB and designed it to be put in a PCI-e slot that gets similar performance without using multiple disks.
The main problem I see with it though, is that since the guy is using RAID0 with no parity or redundancy, if any one of those drives fail, the whole thing's shot to hell and your data is unrecoverable (well, pretty much. Especially if your using 24 drives).
But then again, SSD's are actually very durable (no moving parts means MTBF's of incredibly long times), and this test wasn't meant to last long anyway. It was just meant as a marketing stunt to show how fast these drives could be.
#7
Posted 03 May 2009 - 02:55 PM
Drizzy Drake, on May 2 2009, 10:00 AM, said:
Toasty could correct me and this could be nothing, but to me this is just ****ing insane..
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/09/v...ung-ssd-ra.html
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/09/v...ung-ssd-ra.html
G-DUB 3000, on May 1 2009, 11:41 PM, said:
Compare dates.
I do beat you to everything. That was even my second time posting it on these boards.. soooo. I find it funny though, that we both posted it so close together. The only reason it was fresh on my mind is because I showed it to someone who was talking about getting an SSD.
#8
Posted 03 May 2009 - 08:26 PM
Fuck, didn`t notice the dates. Weird though; hoenstly didn`t see your other post.
#10
Posted 04 May 2009 - 09:07 AM
Well that actually lended to me posting before you, but alas the dates make that irrelevant.
#11
Posted 04 May 2009 - 02:17 PM
So (if we HAD posted on the same day) I would've posted 11 and a half hours after you. Not an hour and a half. derpderpderp
Page 1 of 1