Discussion Forums > Technology
Future Computer Parts / General Computer Discussions
kitamesume:
tbh i don't think SSDs would ever compete against HDDs in terms of cost efficiency, i'd rather do RAID1 with two 4TB HDDs with a small 64GB~128GB SSD cache, pretty sure the overall cost would be essentially the same as a 2TB SSD.
the only problem with this is that its not space efficient, and its pretty much more power hungry, but much of desktops doesn't really bother with those issues.
which means the only place where humongous SSDs would have any practical benefit would be in laptops, disregarding cost that is.
edit: as for the difference in speed, theres pretty much no point in having an ultra-fast archive drives is there? unless your net speed is way over 120MB/s (roughly 1gbps) that is.
edit2: ohh look, speaking of archive drives.
http://www.cnet.com/news/western-digital-ships-6tb-wd-red-nas-hard-drive-and-all-new-wd-red-pro-lineup/
halfelite:
^^ in terms of power hungry. mechanical drives are not that power hungry depending on how you use them. I run 20 drives in my big raid array and spin them down when not in use. So they spin down and park 80% of the time. But for the price of me to switch to SSD I would be looking at a 10+ year turn around from cost vs electric cost saving. not worth it.
kitamesume:
--- Quote from: halfelite on July 25, 2014, 03:02:23 AM ---^^ in terms of power hungry. mechanical drives are not that power hungry depending on how you use them. I run 20 drives in my big raid array and spin them down when not in use. So they spin down and park 80% of the time. But for the price of me to switch to SSD I would be looking at a 10+ year turn around from cost vs electric cost saving. not worth it.
--- End quote ---
i was saying that an HDD with an SSD cache would consume much more than a single large SSD.
this isn't accounting RAID setups yet, 2HDD RAID1 + SSD cache would consume dramatically more than a single large SSD for example.
on the other hand SSDs could "park" faster where their idle states are in the milliwatt range, though i doubt thats the correct term to use.
anyway as i've mentioned before, the only advantages of going with a large SSD is pretty much these:
notes: sorted by what i think as most useful advantage.
* simplicity in setting up (single drive or 2SSD RAID1)
* compactness or space efficiency
* very fast drives
* lower power consumption
in any case the only down side to it is, well, sheer cost.
xShadow:
The thing is, sheer cost/gb is generally always lower for larger drives (whether that's SSD or HDD), though. So it's not like you're saving anything by going with 2 smaller drives. You're just spreading out your spending and you end up spending more in the long run. 500GB's occasionally have sales where their prices are comparable per GB to 1TB drives, but that's the lowest it goes.
Another benefit is that: You only use 1 SATA plug. This is actually kinda big when your MB is somewhat limited. I have 8 plugs, but not everyone does. And then of course there's the expected benefit of having a hell of a lot more freedom on your boot drive. I have a VERY large amount of my steam library installed straight onto C right now and I don't have to worry about it. I still have 200GB left. Whatever benefits they get from loading from an SSD (if any), it's there.
And anyway, after you get one big SSD like this, you don't have to mess with them again for a long time. You're done. You got as big as they get.
kitamesume:
but from that point of view, you could compromise some slight speeds for a far better cost efficiency, from reviews of intel SRT the performance of an SSD cache is close to what a direct SSD would muster.
i've yet seen a study or review of using ZFS as a cache handler yet so i can't comment much on it but it should be far more reliable than NTFS as an archive drive.
4TB HDD + 128GB SSD cache is still the most practical means of storage in terms of speed:price:capacity.
at best even if 2TB SSDs were to have twice as much GB per dollar than the cheapest SSDs of today, the cost wouldn't still hit parity against an HDD+SSD combo.
$300 for a 500GB SSD is just far from ideal, neither is $600~$800 for a 2TB SSD.
PS: DDR4 and skylake's onboard L4 cache would eliminate most of drive-system bottleneck, large amounts of data can be cached to ram using window's superfetch.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version