64GB SSDs.....

Hey ny1 aware of a place where 64GB ssds r avbl at really throwawy prices??????????????i hear OCZs r avbl 4 169 bucks.......any1 wid similar figures please help..........

 

Please learn to spell.

 

Mr Bean........i shall make every endevour to take spelling classes from u later...........on another forum....your input on the issue at hand is what shall be appreciated.....Thank you.........

 

1 49r33, £34rn 70 µ71£123 7h3 3n9£1$h £4n9µ493.

4b0µ7 ¥0µr qµ3$710n, 649b $$Ð$ 4r3 µnÐ3r$123Ð 1n m¥ 0p1n10n. 700 $m4££ 70 r34££¥ h0£Ð 4n 0$ 4nÐ 4 900Ð v4r137¥ 0ƒ 94m3$. 90 w17h 1289b (0r 3v3n 0n3 0ƒ 7h0$3 n3w 2509b 0n3$... $4m$µn9, 1 7h1n|{), $0 ¥0µ w0n'7 rµn 0µ7 0ƒ $p4(3 1n 4b0µ7 4 w33|{ 0r 7w0.


ahem.

i agree, learn to utilize the english language.

about your question, 64gb SSDs are undersized in my opinion. too small to really hold an OS and a good variety of games. go with 128gb (or even one of those new 250gb ones... samsung, i think), so you won't run out of space in about a week or two.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231220

149$ by G.Skill

it took me at least 30 seconds to find this out

 

thanks........

 

So two of these G Skills...............can they be used in a RAID 0 Config?????????

 

course they can. it's fairly pointless to use SSDs in RAID 0 in my opinion, but yeah, it's possible.

 

Hey.whizzo don mind.....a little inexperienced on this... .... but...isnt it true that hard drives in a raid 0 config work the fastest.......why then do u say that its pointless doing this on a SSD

 

You'd need a raid controller in your computer to do it. In addition, these cheap SSDs have issues. You are probably better off spending more coin on an SLC drive.

 

what is a SLC Drive???

 

... stop ... stop ... stop ... use google ...

 

this is true, but SSDs are already so fast that it seems wasteful to me.

 

sitecharts.........alright........i now know what SLCs r.......Do u have any advice on whether or not the SSDs r a better option than the SLCs

 

you've got it mixed up. SSDs (Solid State Drives) use either SLC (single level cell) or MLC (multi level cell) technology to save your data.

SLC is better than MLC (in a variety of ways: speed, durability, power consumption), but is more expensive to manufacture.

 

Huh? What language are you speaking? Try something we can understand.

 

Hey.Whizzo.thanks a ton.........u have told me MLCs{feel free to correct me} start from 149$......at what rate do SLCs start from..............thanks again.......

 

get ready for a big "ouch"...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...000636&Description=slc&name=Solid State Disks

 

Whizzo you are Right. Ouch! I think it is better to wait till their prices drop.

 

mtron 3500 slc 64gb for $389 at rocketdisk

 

I believe cheap MLC SSDs can be faster in Raid 0.

 

Usually software RAID isn't very good. If you had hardware RAID, that's a different story.

 

using hardware raid is worth it even with slc ssds. i have one in my pc (2 mtron 64gb) and it's great.

but yeah, in a notebook, just get one good ssd, and possibly some cheap disk or ssd for additional storage if you have more space to plug in a second harddrive. so my suggestion: the 64gb mtron. as stated before, slc, 389$, on rocketdisk.

and now learn to spell and google and read the top thread in this forum, then come back to us!!!

 

please stop posting this because those drives are NOT available. The date on their site keeps pushing back, so it will be some time until you can actually buy one from them at that price. If you can at all.


To the question:
- do not buy cheap MLC SSDs, no matter how cheap they are. They suck. Nowadays, the Samsung SLC 64GB (or its other product names such as G.Skill) is a gecent drive.


Also, it looks like the point on your keyboard has gotten stuck or something, cause you always type a bunch of points, like .......... ............ ....... ......... ............. etc. While you are there, check your question mark as well (?), lol

 

Yes that is the fastest configuration and they also put your data at risk. Lose one drive, lose all your data. Unless there's a compelling reason for using RAID0 (ie you need the speed gain for a particular application) you are better served with either a single drive or mirroring.

 

Dave:

I'm not a fan of RAID 0 for anyone. Two drives, double the probability of failure. My strategy going forward is 64-128GB of solid state storage for laptops. Big storage is more effective located off the machine.

I will make exceptions for things like portable install servers for various flavors of *nix; but in general I'll stick to this tactic.

Cheers,

 

Raid 0 is faster for non-SSD disks. The more spindles you add to your storage the better performance you get. As a matter of fact one advantage to SSD is to reduce the amount of spindles needed which reduces the amount of power needed. Once they get bigger in size it will reduce the amount of disks needed. You will start seeing Raid 1 or Raid 1+0 used more often.

IMO get an SSD to boot your OS with and get a second 7200RPM disk for your storage needs.

 

allways depends on what you do. i have a raid 0, but i as well have a daily backup onto the windows home server (which does software raid 1 sort of securing my data, too). so if my pc one day fails (and this day will be sooner in raid 0 than in ordinary usage), then i just restore the backup from yesterday, no problem.

all in all, it's about caring about your systems to know what to do in case of failure.

but the raid0 gives 2x the read/write performance, so for some heavy work with videomaterial it's definitely great. the pc is faster the notebook, as it should be

 

Dave:

That's about the only application I can see where RAID0 buys you anything (Video editing).

I agree with you about data safekeeping. I backup images weekly to my Solaris server running raidz2 (double parity raid). Next up? Start the ripping of my HD-DVD collection to hard drive.

Cheers,

 

raid0 buys me everywhere data transfer matters.. together with the quadcore and the 4gb ram, 200mb readwrite is awesome and the doubling of iops per second in the worst case is great, too.

bootup on a single mtron ssd on a core2duo 1.2ghz: >=40sec
bootup on a dual raid0 mtron on a core2quat 2.4ghz >=30sec

it buys me 10 sec, which is not bad if you cut away the bios/raid/poweron part, that's windows booting in about 20sec compared to 30sec. it's not twice as fast, but at least 50% gain.

and big file loading / big application booting likes it, too actual favorite: ableton live.

 

Dave:

Unfortunately, the numbers you posted in your previous are really meaningless. You haven't held "all else equal" with the shorter boot time.

You have a dual core 1.2GHz machine vs. a quad core 2.4 GHz machine.

 

sure. but i had a single one running (on the quadcore).. and this difference is about the same. it wouldn't on the notebook as the cpu starts to be the main bottleneck.

the core2duo 1.2ghz doesn't start the fan while booting => it's not used at full power.