$olid $tate hard drives comming?

[Viper96720]

Why not get a motherboard with support for lot's of memory. Then use a ramdrive. Asus SK8V and other opteron boards has 8GB support. 1GB for OS and stuff and 7GB for a ramdrive.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

That'd be cool if I needed a drive that could take a pounding and keep going. Well, that and if I had $6,000 to blow on a single hard drive.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Why not get a motherboard with support for lot's of memory. Then use a ramdrive. Asus SK8V and other opteron boards has 8GB support. 1GB for OS and stuff and 7GB for a ramdrive.

because RAM drives are volatile, cut the power and poof, no more data. These solid state disks are non-volatile flash.

 

[StageLeft]

Damn, would that ever boot fast.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Damn, would that ever boot fast.

Desktop systems could boot faster now if there were sacrifices on the flexibility side. Changing the necessity for reading config files and checking previous status and new hardware would vastly improve boot times. Try using hibernate sometime on your windows box, and you'll see what I mean. just change the section about restoring processor state and process information...voila, faster booting system.

 

[knouri]

What do you need a solid state drive for?

You sound like Intel.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: knouri

What do you need a solid state drive for?

You sound like Intel.

Boo hoo, sorry to be practical. Let me know how our $6k drive works out...

 

[martind1]

any PERSON who buys a solid state drive right now (or in the near future) should come see me cause I have a bridge i want to sell you.

 

[knouri]

I'm not going to be buying one, of course the price is absolutely insane at the moment.

However, in 5-7 years it just might make headway, I see no reason to dismiss the technology out of hand just because it's expensive at the moment.

 

[sharq]

hehe good point. What does a home user need a 64bit processor for? That is for right now, I'm sure 64bit cpu's will become the standard at one point when the limits of a 32bit cpu are reached, or 64bit one's just become cheap (whichever comes first). I'm guessing years back if anyone said they were getting a 64bit comp for their home use people would have said it was a waste of money, not sure how many are saying that now. Maybe it's cause they're more affordable now?
Those of you saying that a company wouldn't make something that would last a long time, look at cpu's. Take the 486 for example. A friend of mine has a 486 box that is 10years old at the least, it's working great for him as a firewall. The only reason these got outdated was cause the manufacturers came out with something better and faster.

 

[martind1]

at least 64 bit are more in a 'reasonable' price range.

 

[AIWGuru]

Originally posted by: sharq
hehe good point. What does a home user need a 64bit processor for? That is for right now, I'm sure 64bit cpu's will become the standard at one point when the limits of a 32bit cpu are reached, or 64bit one's just become cheap (whichever comes first). I'm guessing years back if anyone said they were getting a 64bit comp for their home use people would have said it was a waste of money, not sure how many are saying that now. Maybe it's cause they're more affordable now?
Those of you saying that a company wouldn't make something that would last a long time, look at cpu's. Take the 486 for example. A friend of mine has a 486 box that is 10years old at the least, it's working great for him as a firewall. The only reason these got outdated was cause the manufacturers came out with something better and faster.

We've seen that x86-64 offers many performance advantages in a lot of different desktop apps.
It costs nearly nothing in terms of die space to implement. Your arguement is that because 32bit procs haven't maxed out we should just ignore this performance enhancing feature? Okay, then no more SSE since 32 bit procs can still get faster without it...no more extra L2 cache...processors can still get faster without it...
Please.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru

Originally posted by: sharq
hehe good point. What does a home user need a 64bit processor for? That is for right now, I'm sure 64bit cpu's will become the standard at one point when the limits of a 32bit cpu are reached, or 64bit one's just become cheap (whichever comes first). I'm guessing years back if anyone said they were getting a 64bit comp for their home use people would have said it was a waste of money, not sure how many are saying that now. Maybe it's cause they're more affordable now?
Those of you saying that a company wouldn't make something that would last a long time, look at cpu's. Take the 486 for example. A friend of mine has a 486 box that is 10years old at the least, it's working great for him as a firewall. The only reason these got outdated was cause the manufacturers came out with something better and faster.

We've seen that x86-64 offers many performance advantages in a lot of different desktop apps.
It costs nearly nothing in terms of die space to implement. Your arguement is that because 32bit procs haven't maxed out we should just ignore this performance enhancing feature? Okay, then no more SSE since 32 bit procs can still get faster without it...no more extra L2 cache...processors can still get faster without it...
Please.

Not to get too far off topic, and not to break into another 32bit vs 64bit thread...but the performance of x86-64 has NOTHING to do with 64bit processing. There are other architectural enhancements that benifit the CPU. Simply being a 64bit CPU buys little in terms of speed.

I'm not going to be buying one, of course the price is absolutely insane at the moment.

However, in 5-7 years it just might make headway, I see no reason to dismiss the technology out of hand just because it's expensive at the moment.

When did I completely dismiss the technology? Its not practical now, and unless the density gets much better, it won't be practical for awhile for the mass market.

 

[sharq]

Originally posted by: AIWGuru


We've seen that x86-64 offers many performance advantages in a lot of different desktop apps.
It costs nearly nothing in terms of die space to implement. Your arguement is that because 32bit procs haven't maxed out we should just ignore this performance enhancing feature? Okay, then no more SSE since 32 bit procs can still get faster without it...no more extra L2 cache...processors can still get faster without it...
Please.

I wasn't saying 64bit is useless. I'm saying how many applications are there out right now that actually utilize the 64bit cpu? Last I checked, there wern't too many. If you're building a pc you plan to keep for 4-5years, then sure, good choice, but there aren't too many advantages right now to it. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that we should all be stuck with 32bit, its a consumers market. Cache has been stuck at 512k for a while, I'd like to see more of it. My point wasn't to limit ourselves, the point I was making that right now some people believe that solid state hard drives will never happen. I seem to disagree. Most of the individuals making the claim about no solid state harddrives are doing so primarily based on the quoted price for the ~5gb one. I'm saying that I'm sure in the infancy of 64bit computing it was insanely expensive, and once again, a "niche" market. Well, it took a few years, but that market has grown considerably.
I personally would like a more reliable harddrive. Only reason I have 140gigs is cause I got them for a great price (thanks to AT hot deals ). Right now I only use a small fraction of that, I have a full 60gig hd just lying empty, I keep a backup hd for just that reason, back up. I've had 3 hd's fail on me, it took em 3 years, each one failed after the warranty ended. Some might say get SCSI, well there is alot of expense in that which I cannot afford right now.
So my only point was to use 64bit computing as an example. I said it was the future, and probably the standard in 2-3years. Not dismissing it. As for how many ppl need/use it on the desktop, I was going on the basis that there aren't too many app's out that use the cpu.

 

[Looney]

The reason current hard drives aren't rated for 50 year use is because nobody needs it.

The reason why current harddrives aren't rated for 50 years is because they have moving parts, and would never last that long.

And i'm sure the manufacturers of these solid state drives are also aware that these drives would certainly be replaced within 50 years, but it's just a marketting plow. But if current HDDs could be rated for even 20 years, you'll bet that that would be a great selling point for servers and data storages.

 

[Pariah]

But if current HDDs could be rated for even 20 years, you'll bet that that would be a great selling point for servers and data storages.

I doubt it. Any network admin who knows anything about technology knows, a HD in 20 years will be worthless. Think about a 1984 HD. Would it be useful for anything at all today, if you could even find a controller for it? In 1984, the first true SCSI standard was still 2 years away. Even 10 years is beyond the useful life of any hard drive. 1994 was the year the first ATA standard was passed. The 5 year service life of SCSI is pretty much right where it should be. When you think only five years ago, Seagate had just released their first 18GB 10k SCSI drive for $1800. Today you can get a 147GB drive that's probably 3 or 4 times as fast for 1/3 the cost. Just think how much money a large company can save in space, air conditioning and electricity by replacing every 8 early generations 10k drives with 1 much more environmentally friendly current generation 10k.

 

[zephyrprime]

I doubt it. Any network admin who knows anything about technology knows, a HD in 20 years will be worthless. Think about a 1984 HD.

It would be a great selling point for reliability reasons. Of course any drive would be totally obsolete before 20 years but it's good to know that the drive is unlikely to die at, say, 4 years.

 

[CQuinn]

For reliability reasons, you could:

buy 21 WD Raptor drives

Set 2 drives up in the system as a Raid 1 array - with an extra drive in a removable bay to be attached once a
week as an offsite backup.

Swap the 2 "working" drives out every 2 years with two "fresh" drives from your original purchase set to improve
your chances of them lasting (store the rest in a cool, dry place until needed).

And you'd have a cheaper storage solution that would last over 20 years. Of course, the server you build them
in would be obsolete long before you run out of drives.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

I doubt it. Any network admin who knows anything about technology knows, a HD in 20 years will be worthless. Think about a 1984 HD.

It would be a great selling point for reliability reasons. Of course any drive would be totally obsolete before 20 years but it's good to know that the drive is unlikely to die at, say, 4 years.

SCSI drives are warranted for 5 years with a spec'd service life of 5 years. That's longer than 4 years.

 

[martind1]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
For reliability reasons, you could:

buy 21 WD Raptor drives

Set 2 drives up in the system as a Raid 1 array - with an extra drive in a removable bay to be attached once a
week as an offsite backup.

Swap the 2 "working" drives out every 2 years with two "fresh" drives from your original purchase set to improve
your chances of them lasting (store the rest in a cool, dry place until needed).

And you'd have a cheaper storage solution that would last over 20 years. Of course, the server you build them
in would be obsolete long before you run out of drives.

technically, that does not improve the reliablity of any one individual hard drive.

 

[Cusqueno]

Anyone interested in the concept of using conventional memory as a hard drive should check out the Tigi drives ( Tigi Corp ) but don't expect the price to be much better. They have a cool method of storing the info to a notebook hard drive when the power is off.

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'll take two for a RAID-0 setup.

haha i just searched for "Raid" to see if someone had this bright idea yet

for the super rich guy out there, here's your 10 gigs for OS and important proggys

drool,
-Vivan

 

[SilentRunning]

Come on people, these drives have been around for a while and their primary customer is the military. You don't want your targeting system in your tank going down because you hit a bump and your hard drive crashed.

 

[JoeKing]

drool............with HD as the primary system bottleneck this would make any system fly. Just gotta win the lottery now.


Hey Anand, you should try to get your hands on one of these drives to review. More public exposure to this tech would drive the costs down faster.

 

[martind1]

Originally posted by: Joeyman
drool............with HD as the primary system bottleneck this would make any system fly. Just gotta win the lottery now.


Hey Anand, you should try to get your hands on one of these drives to review. More public exposure to this tech would drive the costs down faster.

no. no it won't.