Fusion-io SSD Setup Screams Along at 1 TB/sec

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuckwagon

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2009
4
0
18,510
0
The numbers are a bit of a marketing lie. It's aggregate throughput using 220 of the cards. So if your system has 220 PCI-e slots, you can try putting it all in one box, otherwise it's going to take dozens of systems. Then, in addition to buying 220 of these very expensive cards, you have the expense of buying all of the systems they go into. It's still pretty cool that they managed it all, but it isn't really a solution for normal folks, and certainly isn't something to compare to when talking drive performance.
 

wira020

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2009
63
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]chuckwagon[/nom]The numbers are a bit of a marketing lie. It's aggregate throughput using 220 of the cards. So if your system has 220 PCI-e slots, you can try putting it all in one box, otherwise it's going to take dozens of systems. Then, in addition to buying 220 of these very expensive cards, you have the expense of buying all of the systems they go into. It's still pretty cool that they managed it all, but it isn't really a solution for normal folks, and certainly isn't something to compare to when talking drive performance.[/citation]

you would have noticed it in the article if u cared to read it... this is obviously for servers.. the only marketing bs i could think of is that they didnt mention the cost difference between the this setup and the traditional hdd setup... however, they clearly wins in term of space...

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]Wow! Personally I would be satisfied with just 1 GB/s. That would help out a lot when editing and working with video.[/citation]

well, they do sell pcie ssd by unit of 1 which could go to 700mb/s... honestly, i dont think we will benefit much going over even the normal 300mb/s... sure, you can transfer file faster.. but that's about it... then we're bound by the cpu and the software... boot up wont really go much faster... just maybe in the future when we need the bigger bandwidth for the ever increasing file size... far future that is...
 

nonxcarbonx

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2009
323
0
18,790
1
Why doesn't the author name the price? "If you have to ask..."
This isn't a review, it's an article about a curiosity. These news stories shouldn't be so vague that I have to go fishing for info on my own.
 

chuckwagon

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2009
4
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]wira020[/nom]you would have noticed it in the article if u cared to read it... [/citation]

Ok smartass, I did read the article. The difference between us is I actually understood what was being written. It isn't a single server, single volume solution they claim results for. It's a proprietary multi-card setup. As such, they could claim any numbers they want, they just have to scale up the number of cards used. The throughput claimed is NOT AVAILABLE to ANY single user/single system/single volume setup. Therefore, not really a good comparison for regular HDDs, nor a claim of performance that is valid for 99.9999999% of the world. Get it? GIT!
 

dreamer77dd

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2008
97
0
18,640
1
it is okay but i just dont have a rack system. I also dont have more place in this computer to put that card with all my slots using graphics cards. Maybe if they added more slots to a motherboard this could be useful to me. i just think their be bottle necking on the motherboard because the lanes to cores and things would be to small. i always thought they should make those lanes huge so nothing holds you back. i dont want to be hitting any walls when i still something extremely fast into my system. i still would like to see some testing on this with PC games as well as other software.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS