if you are swapping out programs often, ie. frequent writes, then that may be an issue. good question. although all the firmwares are supposed to write to the last non-used cell, ie. spreading out the usage as much as possible so no one cell gets hit much more often than any other (which is one of the ways they got SSDs to actually be practically usable).
Read for some basic info on SSDs:
1. AnandTech: The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=1)
2. AnandTech: The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD (http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=1) for some basic info on SSDs.
As for boots, the above links (p.28 for first link, and p.20 for second link) have a "boot" test where they compare boot times + stratup of a few programs between SSD, and a platter drive. The first link has Seagate 5400 rpm 71 sec, WD VelociRaptor 41 sec, and SSD (average of compared drives) approx. 15 sec. The second link has WD Velocirator 31 sec, and SSD (average of compared drives) approx. 7 sec. and these tests were with "well used PC with tons of applications and data on the drive, not a clean test image". which is somewhat impressive. and others in different forums have said a clean install and then boot has a boot time of 5 seconds (but that's just anecdotal, not properly tested). Either way, impressive.
p.s. read the articles. they are long and may contain info on whether your repeated write usage may be "too much" or not.
My Linux installs boot in < 20 seconds from normal drives, so I'm thinking I might see phenomenal boot times from a SSD. I know the re-writes are supposed to be in the 100k+ range, so maybe I'm just being too paranoid.
The cost vs/space and not wanting to pay for that in a RAID setup has probably been a bigger deterrent. Still, I guess I gotta jump ship sooner or later.
Marco, I think I have the info.
Same link, second one - http://anandtech.com/sto...doc.aspx?i=3631&p=6.
Page 6, titled,
"My personal desktop saw about 100GB worth of
writes (whether from the OS or elsewhere) to my SSD and my data drive
over the past 14 days. That’s a bit over 7GB per day of writes. Let’s
do some basic math: My SSDNAND Flash Capacity256 GB Formatted Capacity in the OS238.15 GBAvailable Space After OS and Apps185.55 GBSpare Area17.85 GB IfI never install another application and just go about my business, mydrive has 203.4GB of space to spread out those 7GB of writes per day.That means in roughly 29 days my SSD, if it wear levels perfectly, Iwill have written to every single available flash block on my drive.Tack on another 7 days if the drive is smart enough to move my staticdata around to wear level even more properly. So we’re at approximately36 days before I exhaust one out of my ~10,000 write cycles. Multiplythat out and it would take 360,000 days of using my machine the way Ihave been for the past two weeks for all of my NAND to wear out; onceagain, assuming perfect wear leveling. That’s 986 years. Your NANDflash cells will actually lose their charge well before that timecomes, in about 10 years. This assumes a perfectly wear leveled drive, but as you can already guess - that’s not exactly possible.Writeamplification ensures that while my OS may be writing 7GB per day to mydrive, the drive itself is writing more than 7GB to its flash.Remember, writing to a full block will require a read-modify-write.Worst case scenario, I go to write 4KB and my SSD controller has toread 512KB, modify 4KB, write 512KB and erase a whole block. While Ishould’ve only taken up one write cycle for 2048 MLC NAND flash cells,I will have instead knocked off a single write cycle for 262,144 cells.You can optimize strictly for wear leveling, but that comes at the expense of performance."
NAND Flash Capacity
Formatted Capacity in the OS
Available Space After OS and Apps
I never install another application and just go about my business, my
drive has 203.4GB of space to spread out those 7GB of writes per day.
That means in roughly 29 days my SSD, if it wear levels perfectly, I
will have written to every single available flash block on my drive.
Tack on another 7 days if the drive is smart enough to move my static
data around to wear level even more properly. So we’re at approximately
36 days before I exhaust one out of my ~10,000 write cycles. Multiply
that out and it would take 360,000 days of using my machine the way I
have been for the past two weeks for all of my NAND to wear out; once
again, assuming perfect wear leveling. That’s 986 years. Your NAND
flash cells will actually lose their charge well before that time
comes, in about 10 years.
This assumes a perfectly wear leveled drive, but as you can already guess - that’s not exactly possible.
amplification ensures that while my OS may be writing 7GB per day to my
drive, the drive itself is writing more than 7GB to its flash.
Remember, writing to a full block will require a read-modify-write.
Worst case scenario, I go to write 4KB and my SSD controller has to
read 512KB, modify 4KB, write 512KB and erase a whole block. While I
should’ve only taken up one write cycle for 2048 MLC NAND flash cells,
I will have instead knocked off a single write cycle for 262,144 cells.
You can optimize strictly for wear leveling, but that comes at the expense of performance."
3vi1, please check out that second link.
"Each MLC NAND cell can be erased ~10,000 timesbefore it stops reliably holding charge. You can switch to SLC flashand up that figure to 100,000, but your cost just went up 2x. For thesedrives to succeed in the consumer space and do it quickly, it must beusing MLC flash."
before it stops reliably holding charge. You can switch to SLC flash
and up that figure to 100,000, but your cost just went up 2x. For these
drives to succeed in the consumer space and do it quickly, it must be
using MLC flash."
SLC ~100k, but twice as expensive.
either way check out the page 6 on the 2nd link and you'll see that more than likely it'll last 5 years minimum.
In general, SSD is always faster than HDD. There's a new OCZ SSD w/ 6Gb/s 240gb at newegg.com
SSD is expensive, less memory capacity, no-moving parts, dimension is small, and consumes less electricity.
HDD is cheaper, bigger, and better as always.
-We could sure use SSD in the future when it gets cheaper...
Yeah dlim I have and SSD which is not a very expensive one (A Kingston 60GB), which I run as my boot OS drive. My programs storage, music, backup etc is stored on one of two 650Gb mechanical HD( Caviar Black), and I run Virtual drives on each of the mechanical drives as well. The way I have it set up Windows and all main (current game, benchmarking programs etc that I use frequently) are on the SSD.As for backup one of the drives has a backup partition (Windows backup), and the other is where I store the Acronis (True Image) backup.
i like mine but i have not figured out how to set it up to get the max performance yet
I agree with Marco, thats really the only plausible way to use them right now, unless you have a ton of money and want to put a bunch in Raid 0 or something along those lines. The price per GB is just to high at the moment, i am waiting for it to be less then $1 per GB. That amount would not be too bad.
That is very true. Unless your whole software package is on an SSD you will not see an across the board increase in performance. This is because interactively everything has to be on the SSD to truly benefit from it. Of course many things, such as packages that have run fine on mechanical drives for year, will really see no benefit anyway, that is unless the whole package from top to bottom is on the SSD.
So for right now putting the OS on an SSD gains the most recognizable benefit. Of course some packages such as game, database files, graphics manipulation files, CD/DVD burners will show signs, or even make use of the SSD considerably more so than others. This is because as I am sure you already know the flow back ad forth of information is capitalized upon. Whereas me typing a document in a word processing application will show little benefit.
As far as the price I remember when mechanical drives were pretty close to the same price line (if not above in the cases of SCSI drives as well as some other types), and it was not very long ago. Heck a decent sized SCSI drive just a few years ago which also performed well was more expensive than a commercial SSD is now per Gig! As far as I know they may very well still be so, although I would imagine they have had to drop the price on them by now.
IMHO, It's worthy:)
but just wait a couple of months or year for it to sell in low price.
a SSD below 120GB is worthy but not sure of larger one. like most guys do with a desktop you might consider of combination of a smaller SSD with a large enough HDD.
depends what you wanna use it for. They are becoming more and more common to be put into desktops now. Wait a while longer and they will be cheaper and more reliable.
SSD prices are are already starting to drop and can really add a lot of 'snap' to an older system as well.Sure some folks are waiting for the biggest and fastest high-end SSD s prices to drastically drop. meanwhile there are a lot of really good choices available and affordable for combining a smaller capacity SSD and HD..Just takes a bit of user evaluation and bit of research.Good thing there a plenty of articles,news and reviews in this forum
I can almost promise you that this years black Friday will have bargains galore on the SSD front. For one thing several of if not all of the major SSD providers are already releasing refreshes to there newest models. This means by November they will all be released if not have another update by then so the first SATA3 "new" SSD's from all of them will be being sold as deals at 12:01 AM, and the new ones "current" will be bargained the next day while the one's that are current then will be sold at a normal price which will be changed in scale. As far as should I get one that is a non question, the question is why have you not gotten one yet? The advantages are multiple from speed to energy usage to heat. I understand the money thing and that is why I only have one SSD for my OS drive with 2 750 GB (7500rpm) HDD's as my storage drives. If I had the open cash I would definitely have at the minimum on SSD for my OS drive, and 1 120GB SSD for games or other software that can use the performance. No an SSD is not necessary for MP3's or photos (that your storing), but games artistic or professional image manipulation, numbers software, HD movies and on and on are, not to mention that in a mobile platform an SSD can add a decent amount of battery life, and product life (due to heat reduction in the chassis therefore wear and tear over a life time) lengthening to the package. I think SSD's are really the game changer for computers, at least the current one, in their many iterations!
Agreed. And maybe we can expect to see some PCI-E 3.0 video cards out by then as well.
Prices on Memory sticks have really dropped lately, I just got 16GB of DDR3-1600 for just under 100 bucks. (this is good)
Of course, Bulldozer will have appeared and been qualified by then, and it may be on everyone's shopping list too. It will be interesting this time around.