Smart Storage Systems Debuts First 2 TB SAS SSD With 19 nm MLC Flash

Status
Not open for further replies.

drwho1

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2010
1,272
0
19,310
15
$4000 is going to sell like hot cakes!!!
/sarcasm
let me know when they get to $200-$300 dollar range, until then hot cakes have nothing to worry about.
[insert mischief face here]
 

CaedenV

Splendid


This is obviously not for them. It is obviously not for you or me either.
However, in the corporate world where high endurance HDDs cost upwards of $800 for 600GB, and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to find a high endurance drive over 1TB (especially in a 2.5" form factor) this is nothing short of a miracle drive.
In short, an SSD like this allows for massive drive performance with less numbers of drives, or insane capacity in a very small form factor (likely both for those in the market for this). For systems like multi-user video editing servers where you can literally have dozons of drives in order to meet the performance and storage requirements of the system, you could replace all of your drives with a much simpler 4-10 drive setup.

Still, I cannot wait for this type of drive to be consumerized so that I can have an all SSD system and get rid of my last 2 HDDs in the house.
 

halcyon

Splendid
Dec 4, 2004
5,566
0
25,810
40


Aaaah, good 'ole eBay. I've never purchased from there but if these are new drives with the same return policies that you'd find at a reputable retailer then woot! ...good deals to be had indeed!
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
It never ceases to amaze me that so few seem to appreciate the
difference between consumer and Enterprise markets. As CaedenV says,
for Enterprise customers this is a superb product, I'm sure it will
sell very well indeed. The article headline made it clear this product
is not aimed at consumers; comments from the latter about pricing and
eBay are irrelevant.

Re small businesses, I know of a few who survive on old 2nd-hand
hardware (by that mean typically P4 era tech at best, maybe
Core/Core2); over time I've helped them out with replacement SCSI
drives, etc., but I always tell them buying on the cheap is a false
economy in the long term as it provides marginal growth potential, and
they're always operating on the edge of reliability. Too many small
businesses operate on the assumption that cheapest is always best;
they seem oblivious to the concept of long term TCO (eg. long term
power usage of old tech often wipes out the apparent upfront cost
saving). Usually, the sysadmins understand and agree, but they're not
the ones making the decisions. And don't even get me started on small
business backup strategies... :\

Ian.
 

CaedenV

Splendid


Out my way I am seeing more and more businesses finally understanding that old equipment really dosn't work well for them in the long run (especially used drives). But the sticker shock of newer server equipment is still a bit much for them, so instead I am seeing them get mid to high end consumer equipment, and using that as their server. It is not the best solution, but if a company just needs a system that stores/shares files across a network then I guess it works. At least it is a step above used server grade equipment, and more and more businesses are actuially using RAID instead of single drives... *sigh*
 

mavroxur

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2009
1,490
0
19,460
58



A quarter of $3,900 is $250? Where did you go to school?
 

halcyon

Splendid
Dec 4, 2004
5,566
0
25,810
40


Everyone else reading the thread was able to read the comment, do the math, and discern the content except for you. So I'll break it down:

brythespy said:
"Buy four 512 SSD's for a quarter of that price..."

4 * X = $1000 ($1000 is a quarter of that price. That price is ~$4000 per the article)
What is X? 4 / $1000 = $250 ... X = $250

"Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
- Proverbs 29:20"
 
G

Guest

Guest
okay. i use samsung f4's in a 3 disk raid 0 array, with 32k and short stroked at 50 percent. my fourth drive is used to back up the array and stays disconnected. my sequential reads are 440 MBs. it might be faster if i wasnt using my mobo raid chipset. its not power efficient but its cost effective. $360 for 3tb of data. not including whats lost to short stroking and the 3tb for back up. bought everything off ebay used. the only way an ssd is practical, is in a laptop or HTPC.
 
G

Guest

Guest
i meant ....the only way an ssd is practical for the average consumer is in a laptop or an HTPC. who needs to read and write a half gig a second, that doesnt do audio, video, or run a server.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
roboto4k, it's not the high sequential numbers from SSDs that really matter for
a desktop; it's the much higher 4K performance. This is what makes an SSD-
based system so much more responsive, boots faster, launches apps quicker,
and doesn't slow down when a virus scan is active (among other things). Even
a basic SSD such as an older 120GB Vertex2E can breathe a whole new lease
of life to an older dual-core AM2/S775 system.

Read SSD reviewws & articles, it isn't sequential I/O where SSDs really shine
compared to mechanical drives, even though they offer higher sequential
rates aswell. 4K performance is what matters, and mechanical drives suck for
that, even in a RAID (unless the RAID controller has some cache RAM; I've
tested numerous RAID cards with SAS/SATA/SCSI).

Try running the AS-SSD benchmark on your RAID0, you'll see what I mean.

Ian.

 
G

Guest

Guest
i agree. oh and for the record i was speaking of sata SSDs. i have no experience with the PCIe RAM drives. those are actually becoming affordable now. i dont know how reliable they will be after a couple of years. my original point was really about performance vs gb per dollar. you cant beat RAID 0 with 3 disk that have 64mb cache each. Porn for me is listening to my array rip through massive video files like a chainsaw. my killer app is video conversion; taking peoples decade old analog tapes that have been sitting in their garage and digitizing, scrubbing, and editing them. IT IS an artform. it takes serious cpu and hard drive space. i would never switch to ssd for that purpose.

my first few SSDs that i bought a few years ago have degraded to the point that they are no faster than 250 gb HDDs. now i use them as giant USB jump drives. SSDs degrade in terribly inconsistant ways. i am aware of the newwer technology that prevents this on high end models. in addition the overall failure rate of mainstream SSDs is still too high right now.

im not one to crack open the wallet for bleeding edge technology but dont get me wrong now. my wifes gaming whitebook will have dual SSDs in RAID 10 but thats a laptop. and shhh, dont tell her. its for xmas.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
roboto4k writes:
> i agree. oh and for the record i was speaking of sata SSDs. i have
> no experience with the PCIe RAM drives. those are actually becoming
> affordable now. ...

Indeed, PCIe SSDs just push the performance numbers even higher. :D

Then there are FC/IB connected devices which scale to crazy levels, eg.
I know someone who runs a RamSan620 which does over 250K IOPS for 4K
random (3GB/sec read and 2GB/sec write sequential), and this is an
older model. Very expensive, but the performance is ideal for their
needs (movie company; perfect for database indices, logs, metadata, etc.)


> ... i dont know how reliable they will be after a couple of years. ...

Early products, especially those aimed at the 'prosumer' market, had
a mixed reputation, but they've improved a lot. Now of course there
are numerous Enterprise models with high reliability features. There's
really no need for any ordinary user to have a PCIe SSD though, the
gains over a standard good SATA model would be minimal and barely
noticeable. My own tests showed what any review will confirm - the biggest
difference is in having any kind of SSD at all; beyond that, the differences
between the various models of SSD are less significant, something PCMark7
shows quite nicely even when synthetic bench numbers may vary somewhat more.


> my original point was really about performance vs gb per dollar. ...

True, but I'm sure some would point out the obvious risks with RAID0.
One bad drive and you've lost the lot (backups are key for avoiding
sleepless nights with RAID0). This is why I much prefer RAID10, ie.
combine the speed of RAID0 with the redundancy of RAID1. My 3930K AE
setup has 4 x 2TB Enterprise SATA in RAID10. I personally wouldn't
risk consumer SATA in RAID0 (thus, before I obtained the Enterprise
SATA drives, I was using 4x 600GB 15K SAS).


> Porn for me is listening to my array rip through massive video files
> like a chainsaw. my killer app is video conversion; taking peoples
> decade old analog tapes that have been sitting in their garage and
> digitizing, scrubbing, and editing them. IT IS an artform. ...

I have a similar project on the go, more than a thousand documentaries
on VHS to digitise. :D


> takes serious cpu and hard drive space. i would never switch to ssd
> for that purpose.

You probably don't need to. Video conversion is mostly larger size
transfers and, depending on the type of conversion, may not benefit
from the performance potential of SSDs, especially since the bottleneck
during processing is much more likely to be the main CPU (tests might
show a moderate gain with SSDs, but not as much as just having more CPU
power instead). This is certainly the case if you're editing with Flame
(I have an SGI Tezro for that, and a 16-CPU Onyx350 with Inferno).

However, the general responsiveness, etc. of any system will be better
with an SSD as the system drive. At a minimum, even moving the virtual
memory onto an SSD can help. For AE, it makes a huge difference to have
the AE cache on an SSD, but that's because of the way AE works.


> my first few SSDs that i bought a few years ago have degraded to the

Older models certainly suffered in various ways, and early 4K write
performance was poor in some cases. That's all been fixed now. Much
improved designs. It's a different field today entirely.


> point that they are no faster than 250 gb HDDs. ...

Secure erase should fix that, unless of course the write endurance has
been used up.

Older models did not have the overall capacity to allow for much
over-provisioning, whereas newer models have plenty, and manufacturers
often include a lot of extra capacity anyway, eg. a 256GB SSD might have
well over 300GB actual Flash inside. This is why I waited for SSDs to
reach at least 60GB before buying them, by which time they'd matured
quite a bit and I found the improvements well worth the investment,
speeds more than doubled for the tasks I have to do many times a day,
eg. searching my email archive (which is not on a PC btw, hence the
speedup being limited to a 100% improvement, system in question is an
older UNIX machine with U160 SCSI and an LSI 3442X-R SAS card). Eventually
I upgraded my gaming PC to SSDs (120GB Vertex3 for boot drive, 120GB
Vertex3 MAX IOPS for game data) and that really did help with level
loading, etc.



> i am aware of the newwer technology that prevents this on high end

Much of this tech is now on all modern models, though with certain
exceptions. I avoid the cheaper obscure brands.


> ... in addition the overall failure rate of mainstream SSDs is
> still too high right now.

Peoples' experiences of this seem to vary wildly. I have loads of them
and so far not one of them has gone wrong. I think many don't bother
updating the firmware when they first buy a drive, which is a mistake.


> im not one to crack open the wallet for bleeding edge technology but

Nor me. I bag them off eBay whenever I can. :D In the past week I've
won a Samsung 840 Pro 128GB (new), Samsung 840 Pro 512GB (new), OCZ
Vertex4 128GB (refurb), and a few others.


> dont get me wrong now. my wifes gaming whitebook will have dual SSDs
> in RAID 10 but thats a laptop. ...

I assume you mean RAID1. RAID10 would require at least four devices.


> ... and shhh, dont tell her. its for xmas.

I wouldn't dare. :D



Btw, here's some tests I did earlier this year with a SATA2-based P55 setup:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/ssd_tests.txt

Not done the same tests with a SATA3 setup yet though (which of course
should show even larger speedups for some of the SSDs), not had the time.
Also have a bunch of new models not yet included (Samsung 840 Pro 128/256/512,
Vector 256GB, Vertex4 128/256, etc.) Never enough hours in the day... :}

Ian.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Oh no... leason 1 ...for anyone else reading
no refurbished drives
no red or green drives
and no preassembled external drives.

used off ebay. go for it. a year old performance drive at half the price. hell yah. oh and i did mean raid 1 for the laptop. im still adjusting to my new qwerty cell. and as far as my raid 0 array crashing. if it does i just disconnect it and plug in the cloned backed up 3tb drive. the worse thing that would happen is i might have to play the last couple levels of mass effect over. oh boo hoo . lol.

im getting off topic. so im gonna find a thread abt those delicious looking 21:9 monitors w the 144hz refresh rate and some info on chipsets.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Oh no... leason 1 ...for anyone else reading
no refurbished drives
no red or green drives
and no preassembled external drives.

used off ebay. go for it. a year old performance drive at half the price. hell yah. oh and i did mean raid 1 for the laptop. im still adjusting to my new qwerty cell. and as far as my raid 0 array crashing. if it does i just disconnect it and plug in the cloned backed up 3tb drive. the worse thing that would happen is i might have to play the last couple levels of mass effect over. oh boo hoo . lol.

im getting off topic. so im gonna find a thread abt those delicious looking 21:9 monitors w the 144hz refresh rate and some info on chipsets.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
roboto4k writes:
> no refurbished drives

If I get a refurb, it's only from a good seller such as novatech, or where the
unit is still sealed from the manufacturer, eg. a Vertex4 128GB I bought recently,
still sealed, refurb from OCZ, shows up in SMART data as being completely unused.
I'm using it as a cache drive for AE.


no red or green drives
and no preassembled external drives.

> ... cloned backed up 3tb drive. ...

Cunning plan. 8) Indeed, that's what I tell people, if they have RAID0, then just
clone to some other large capacity drive on a regular basis.

> effect over. oh boo hoo . lol.

8D


> im getting off topic. so im gonna find a thread abt those delicious looking 21:9
> monitors w the 144hz refresh rate and some info on chipsets.

Hehe, enjoy... :)

Ian.

PS. You can delete your duplicate post by accessing the thread on the .co.uk site.
For main articles, go to this page and choose the thread you want, then select
Newest to skip the older comments:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/forum-56.html

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS