On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Al Hopper wrote: >> >> > It looks like Intel has a huge hit (product) on its hands with the >> > latest SSD product announcements. No pricing yet ... but the specs >> > will push computer system IO bandwidth performance to numbers only >> > possible today with extremely expensive RAM based disk subsystems. >> > >> > SSDs + ZFS - a marriage made in (computer) heaven! >> >> Where's the beef? >> >> I sense a lot of smoke and mirrors here, similar to Intel's recent CPU >> "announcements" which don't even reveal the number of cores. No >> prices and funny numbers that the writers of technical articles can't >> seem to get straight. >> >> Obviously these are a significant improvement for laptop drives but >> how many laptop users have a need for 11,000 IOPs and 170MB/s? It >> seems to me that most laptops suffer from insufficent RAM and >> low-power components which don't deliver much performance. The CPUs >> which come in laptops are not going to be able to process 170MB/s. >> >> What about the dual-ported SAS models for enterprise use? >> >> Bob >> ====================================== >> Bob Friesenhahn >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ >> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > I don't know about that. I just went from an SSD back to a SATA drive > because the SSD started failing in less than a month (I'm having troubles > believing this great write-leveling they talk about is working > properly...). And the SATA drive is dog slow in comparison. The biggest > issue is seek times. Opening apps/directories there is a VERY noticeable > difference from the SSD to this drive. > > The user experience is drastically improved with the SSD imho. Of course, > the fact that it started giving me i/o errors after just 3 weeks means it's > going to be RMA'd and won't find a home back in my laptop anytime soon. > > This was one of the 64GB OCZ Core drives for reference.
Hi Tim. There are a lot of reports of corrupted data with the OCZ Core drive. They have just released a new (replacement perhaps?) product called "Core 2". Its based on a Samsung product. tomshardware.com has a review here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/flash-ssd-hard-drive,2000.html I'm not seeing the promised reliability claims being validated in terms of the warranties that are being offered on most of the current consumer grade SSDs. Regards, -- Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
