OCZ's HSDL: A New Storage Link For Super-Fast SSDs

[marraco]

I think that "SATA" and "RAID0" bars are wrong on these charts:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ocz-ibis-hsdl-high-speed-data-link,2754-5.html

 

[Khimera2000]

I beleave dark lord missis the point of saying "I wish i had the money" it means i wish i had the money to get it and play with it, becaus its just cool to do. for the most part i beleave we all read the article so we all know the price ant the target audiance 😀... as question to the item itself... how fast is the next HDD for this tech suppose to be 0.o

 

[Khimera2000]

sorry meant SDD 😀 not HDD on my previous post 😀

 

[formin]

[citation][nom]h8signingin[/nom]Yet there are already drives that outperform these by a large margin available for a while now, like this:http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.ph [...] tate-DriveRead 1.4GB/s, Write 1.2GB/sAt those speeds, it's like writing to RAM, only it's your hard drive.There were also capacities up to 1TB that cost about $4,000. There were even SLC models (which cost 4x more, approx. $15,000) which are slightly faster still.Personally, I wouldn't mind having 1TB of "slow" RAM as my hard drive, but it's just beyond my budget.[/citation]

i agree.

i think soon ram will disappear and be replaced by super fast SSD and on chip cache will increase greatly. And these SSDs of the future will probably look like today's RAM chips that fit into similar looking slots.

 

[tom thumb]

I predict that Sata3 will be the last flexible interface between the hard drive and the computer. I also agree with formin. Ram will be replaced by SSD cache, although this is still far off, as you would need to redesign the motherboard. Also, SATA would be no where near fast enough. 600Mb/s is a fraction of the 30Gb/s you can get with today's ram. Even 16x PCI-E (at, what? 8Gb/s?) falls a bit short.

... although you could say few applications require 30gb/s, they still have a long way to go...

 

[adisak]

Are these charts correct for "Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage" because they show the RAID0 configuration as slower in *EVERY* *CASE* which is exactly opposite of what you'd expect from potentially doubling read and write throughput.

 

[adisak]

Are these charts correct for "Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage" because they show the RAID0 configuration as slower in *EVERY* *CASE* which is exactly opposite of what you'd expect from potentially doubling read and write throughput.

 

[insightdriver]

@tom thumb, just a minor correction, it's 8GB/s, not 8Gb/s; so it's about 8 times wider then you wrote.

 

[joex444]

Slightly more affordable may be a traditional SAS card and mechanical hard drives. Clearly not as fast, but comparing to single hard drives or RAID0 arrays and even SSDs...I use 6x750GB drives over SAS and in RAID5 get ~400MB/s. Sure, faster is faster, but considering the cost of this 3.75TB solution is on the order of a 320GB SSD, kind of makes you wonder if SSDs make sense when you could just run massively parallel mechanical drives.

 

[Guest]

Such a negative tone to the article! When is advancing technology ever a bad thing?

 

[elpamyelhsa]

Or for us with just old SSD drives we can speed them up a little with this free SSD app.
http://majorgeeks.com/SSD_Tweaker_d6382.html
at least until i can afford the awesomeness.

 

[Hupiscratch]

I think it is time for a test between high performance PCI-E based flashdrives.

 

[Guest]

Anyone able to point me to my next server upgrade?
My client runs ONLY a database with 15 clients that is really slow.
No other applications on the server or wkstns. Dentist office.
Win2000svr. QuadCore. 1gb/s Network. new wkstns.
Drives are new Velociraptor 300gb w/ Win2000 mirror.

Can I mirror a 300G SSD drive to the velociraptor for testing?
(I know nothing about the new SSD drives & need max reliability)
Am I totally missing something?
Matt at is-lan.com

ps: I have really cool self-designed safety if anyone needs it.

 

[dEAne]

wow look at the price, but well if they really got the speed then go for it.