Intel 20gb Larson Creek SSD

[Mark R]

It all depends on whether lenovo's solution can see the file table or not. I think Intel's solution has access to the file table, which would make a huge difference.

There's no need to see the file table. Indeed, a file specific system is seriously suboptimal, because it won't cache the most important part of the file-system by far, which is the file table.

It's far better to use a block-by-block cache. Cache frequently accessed clusters on SSD. Infrequently accessed clusters are left on HDD. This will automatically cache important and frequently used system data, regardless of file system.

 

[drizek]

Take a 160GB SSD, use it as cache with 100GB left over. Use the 100GB for Windows and application installs. Use the SSD/HDD for games. I think that is a much better use of 160GB than using it all as a boot drive.

 

[Habeed]

Take a 160GB SSD, use it as cache with 100GB left over. Use the 100GB for Windows and application installs. Use the SSD/HDD for games. I think that is a much better use of 160GB than using it all as a boot drive.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

This. That's the right configuration for a high end PC from now on.

 

[AkumaX]

I take it you haven't bothered to read Anand's article on it.

oops, looks like he meant $110 for a 20gb SSD. wow...

 

[Phynaz]

oops, looks like he meant $110 for a 20gb SSD. wow...

Yep, wow is right. Enterprise class SLC SSD available to consumers.

 

[bulanula]

Massive fail IMHO just get 64GB MLC for the average consumer and put Windows on it and leave your dirty videos on HDDs ( that's what HDDs are there for etc. ) ?

Will this support the Intel G3 controller / firmware with AES encryption and NAND redundancy or just like an Intel G2 drive but with SLC NAND ?

Thanks.

 

[Emulex]

i want 5 of them in raid-0 for some mad reliability

 

[Puppies04]

Anyone know enough about smartcache to answer this question...

If you purchase a 120gb SSD and have 60gb set as smartcache in front of your hdd(s) and load the OS onto the other 60gb will the 60gb cache recognise you have the OS already on the SSD or will it try to cache parts of windows and end up wasting space with the same files in 2 places on the same drive?

 

[Hacp]

There's no need to see the file table. Indeed, a file specific system is seriously suboptimal, because it won't cache the most important part of the file-system by far, which is the file table.

It's far better to use a block-by-block cache. Cache frequently accessed clusters on SSD. Infrequently accessed clusters are left on HDD. This will automatically cache important and frequently used system data, regardless of file system.

It is not suboptimal at all. The hard drive can handle large file sizes just fine. SSDs give the biggest benefit when accessing small files.If the goal is to obtain a smooth experience and not to win a race, caching all files, say 1mb or below will ensure that the user won't run into hiccups when opening or using infrequently used programs.

 

[Voo]

It is not suboptimal at all. The hard drive can handle large file sizes just fine. SSDs give the biggest benefit when accessing small files.If the goal is to obtain a smooth experience and not to win a race, caching all files, say 1mb or below will ensure that the user won't run into hiccups when opening or using infrequently used programs.

Not if the 10kb files are part of a program that's used once a year while the larger files are accessed thousands of times. Not much sense wasting a large part of your cache for files that accessed extremely rarely - because in either case you'll access files that aren't cached and get HDD performance anyways.. best to minimize that.
That's assuming that large files aren't usually accessed that frequently and a single LBA of it even less often - which seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Also working on the LBA level means that it's FS independent and also easier to implement. Now coupling it with deduplication ala ZFS would make that especially interesting (that is if deduplication wouldn't use gigantic amounts of CPU power if used on production servers; and for backup systems a cache isn't exactly useful)