gwolfman :
I just found this in the article:
Quote: Using two SanDisk SSD 5000 drives for a RAID 0 configuration almost doubles the read transfer rate to approximately 122 MB/s. The sequential write performance is 70-76 MB/s, which is often inferior to that of conventional hard drives.
Conventional being 3.5" hard disk drives.
Quote: Using two SanDisk SSD 5000 drives for a RAID 0 configuration almost doubles the read transfer rate to approximately 122 MB/s. The sequential write performance is 70-76 MB/s, which is often inferior to that of conventional hard drives.
Conventional being 3.5" hard disk drives.
Hmm...I know I'm being PITA here, but in the same article you quote above, I just finally (re)found the following...
"A 68-MB/s sequential read data transfer rate is an impressive result; especially as it doesn't decrease as you fill the drive with data. Write performance was well between 40 MB/s and almost 50 MB/s, which is well suited for sequential data-stream applications. Video editing is a good example." (my underline)
I'd read that earlier and then forgotten where I'd come up with the idea of SSDs for video editing which brought me here to explore the idea. So, the article seems to be at odds with itself, saying that SSDs are slower than conventional drives for writing...but that they'd be faster for video editing. Once again I feel like a complete idiot in the face of the ever-evolving computer.
I loved the ancient days of DOS in the '80s when one could keep up with everything! (Not that I'd go back.)