Page 2 of 2

Re: SSD vs SATA HD

PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:24 pm
by aperrigo
http://www.fusionio.com/products.aspx

Saw this at work...freaking amazing for server uses.

And I was picked up as an intern for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Pay is great.
Wish me luck maybe I will get hired full time.

Re: SSD vs SATA HD

PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:46 pm
by red_team316
The Intel 80GB X25-M SSD has dropped to $500 from $600 :D

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... name=Intel

Here's a review on the Intel 32GB X25-E SSD:
Look at the performance gain compared to the 750MB HDD.

Reviewed By: jpiszcz on 11/27/2008
Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5
Tech Level Tech Level: high - Ownership: less than 1 day
This user purchased this item from Newegg

Pros: Fastest, lowest latency device I have used for primary storage besides maybe a ramdisk. When I got the SSD, it showed 54 hours of usage and 66 power cycles, I assume this is testing at the factory, in any case, this is what the smart stats look like and some basic dd speed tests, as shown in the techreport review, write speed is quite fast, 227MiB/s. The machine used to take about 60-70 seconds to boot, it now takes about 5-6 seconds. When opening browsers etc, I no longer hear my (previously) 750 gig disk grinding away loading all the libraries, everything is instantaneous. I am happy I waited for the X25-E SSD as it has much better write performance (~227MiB/s vs. 70MiB/s with the X25-M) and its also SLC; it should last longer than a traditional MLC SSD. Overall, a great product.
Cons: Price, but worth every penny.

# hddtemp /dev/sda
WARNING: Drive /dev/sda doesn't seem to have a temperature sensor.
WARNING: This doesn't mean it hasn't got one.
WARNING: If you are sure it has one, please contact me ([email protected]).
WARNING: See --help, --debug and --drivebase options.
/dev/sda: SSDSA2SH032G1GN INTEL: no sensor

Disk is 32 gigabytes, or around ~30GB formatted.
Other Thoughts: # fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 32.0 GB, 32000000000 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3890 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Incase you are wondering, both disks are using no barriers.

time to decompress kernel tree (linux, xfs):

$ /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar
Total bytes read: 293857280 (281MiB, 75MiB/s)
0.15user 1.12system 0:03.74elapsed 34%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+645minor)pagefaults 0swaps

The same thing on a 750 gigabyte hdd:

$ /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar
Total bytes read: 293857280 (281MiB, 6.5MiB/s)
0.15user 1.22system 0:43.29elapsed 3%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+643minor)pagefaults 0swaps

I used a 1MB blocksize but newegg bans that phrase in the command so I removed it (blocksize=1M):

write speed:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=1gigabyte count=1024
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.71984 s, 227 MB/

53 out of 53 people found this review helpful.


EDIT:
heh, Linus is apparently pretty impressed with them too:
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/200 ... -ssds.html

Re: SSD vs SATA HD

PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:27 pm
by melinawaugh
I have 7200 SATA Hard Drive which will provide much better performance improvement than 5200 or SSD. Because it has a higher storage capacity, also has a drawback, and it uses more energy to the heating problem arise. To store large amounts of data if you want to use this disk 7200 to be its specifications necessary to solve the heating problem.

Re: SSD vs SATA HD

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:24 pm
by hendrleybeton
SATA 3.0 transfer rate is 6.0 gb/s vs. an SSD's 3.0 gb/s transfer rate. Essentially, SATA 3.0 transfers data twice as fast as an SSD.

Re: SSD vs SATA HD

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:25 am
by kevinedenmarg
SSD's are becoming more and also more popular. Now I have SSD going into the pci-e slots. With the speeds of the pci-e SSD example at 1.3GB's read. I would like to know what the speed difference is between the standard run of the mill SATA Hard drive spinning at 7.2k.