Originally posted by: bigi
Expenisve. But this is the largest capacity Solid State HDD = HOT.
128 GB
# Endurance:
* Read: Unlimited
* Write/Erase: >140 years @ 50GB write-erase /day
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Can you RAID 5 those?
Originally posted by: Elixer
Originally posted by: bigi
Expenisve. But this is the largest capacity Solid State HDD = HOT.
128 GB
They hook up via SATA connection, so no real reason why you can't RAID them up.
Though, I hope you don't write more than 50GB day...
# Endurance:
* Read: Unlimited
* Write/Erase: >140 years @ 50GB write-erase /day
Though, at that price, definitely not hot.
Originally posted by: TemjinGold
That's not the largest. There's a 640 gb with INSANE speeds that goes for $19k.
Originally posted by: Pwntcomputer
We're all going to be looking back in a year when these are commonplace and laugh "remember when 128GB were like $4K hahahahhaha"
Originally posted by: bamacre
Whatever happened to the ram drives? Those PCI cards that had 4 dimm's for DDR memory, and plugged in via a SATA port? That would have been useful now, maybe with 8 dimm's for DDR2 memory. Figure four 2GB kits of DDR2 memory runs maybe $220 or so, plus the cost of the card. Would be more tempting now.
Originally posted by: Pwntcomputer
We're all going to be looking back in a year when these are commonplace and laugh "remember when 128GB were like $4K hahahahhaha"
A year? That would be very nice, but not likely.
Originally posted by: bigi
Expenisve. But this is the largest capacity Solid State HDD = HOT.
128 GB
You probably don't want to RAID 5 these. RAID (Redundant Arrays of Innexpensive Disks) is used to improve the reliability of inherintly unreliable mechanical devices. Since these are solid state they are presumably much more reliable. RAID 5 give better reliability at the cost of otherwise wasted space and slower write speeds. More reasons not to use RAID 5 on expensive reliable storage.
Originally posted by: bigi
You probably don't want to RAID 5 these. RAID (Redundant Arrays of Innexpensive Disks) is used to improve the reliability of inherintly unreliable mechanical devices. Since these are solid state they are presumably much more reliable. RAID 5 give better reliability at the cost of otherwise wasted space and slower write speeds. More reasons not to use RAID 5 on expensive reliable storage.
Your RAID definition is very, very wrong. RAID stands for Redundant array of INDEPENDEND disks. And it always has been.
It would have been really stupid to incorporate price trends into definition as expensive/inexpensive is a relative term.
Originally posted by: Pwntcomputer
W O W thanks for pointing that out OP those drives are cool
We're all going to be looking back in a year when these are commonplace and laugh "remember when 128GB were like $4K hahahahhaha"
If you dig back far enough (check the history section of the wikipedia entry, for starters), the original title did indeed include the term "inexpensive". As you pointed out, inexpensive is a relative term and one can only assume in the late '80s that perhaps the disk was less costly than alternatives. Over the years it seems to have been corrupted to the point that "independent" is also widely accepted if technically wrong.Originally posted by: bigi
You probably don't want to RAID 5 these. RAID (Redundant Arrays of Innexpensive Disks) is used to improve the reliability of inherintly unreliable mechanical devices. Since these are solid state they are presumably much more reliable. RAID 5 give better reliability at the cost of otherwise wasted space and slower write speeds. More reasons not to use RAID 5 on expensive reliable storage.
Your RAID definition is very, very wrong. RAID stands for Redundant array of INDEPENDEND disks. And it always has been.
It would have been really stupid to incorporate price trends into definition as expensive/inexpensive is a relative term.
Originally posted by: cmbehan
Originally posted by: bigi
You probably don't want to RAID 5 these. RAID (Redundant Arrays of Innexpensive Disks) is used to improve the reliability of inherintly unreliable mechanical devices. Since these are solid state they are presumably much more reliable. RAID 5 give better reliability at the cost of otherwise wasted space and slower write speeds. More reasons not to use RAID 5 on expensive reliable storage.
Your RAID definition is very, very wrong. RAID stands for Redundant array of INDEPENDEND disks. And it always has been.
It would have been really stupid to incorporate price trends into definition as expensive/inexpensive is a relative term.
actually, you're both right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
and the reason you'd want to RAID 5 these devices is for fault tolerance and not reliability.
Yes, they're spec-ed to go to 140 years @ 50gb per day, but is that a single 50gb file or 50gb worth of small sql writes...because when it comes to flash memory, the wear and tear on the memory is completely different between the two.
I could understand wanting fault tolerance on an array of these devices because the real world reliability is really an unknown, and I would presume that anyone willing to drop $4K+ per 128gb drive on an array of said drives would be be doing it for a specific, mission critical task.
Although given the price, and likely lessened life due to fast, small writes, I would imagine that these would be best suited to a write once, read many situation, in which case a simpler RAID 1 would be more appropriate (unless you need much more storage space in your array.