akemiiwaya at April 29th, 2014 16:00 — #1
Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/188101/why-do-ssds-come-in-unusual-sizes/
SSDs seems to come in quite a variety of ‘new’ sizes these days, but why is that? Today’s SuperUser Q&A post has the answers to one curious reader’s question.
raphoenix at April 29th, 2014 17:01 — #2
Without getting into the technical details is always best to purchase SSDs with the Fastest Read / Write Speeds PLUS are manufactured in Traditional Capacities of 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB, etc., etc.........
When used in Raid Configurations, ensure all SSDs are identical even down to the same manufacturer PLUS the manufacturer certifies the SSDs are certified for raid usage i.e. Trim support etc., etc..
Good Site to book mark.
whs at April 29th, 2014 17:25 — #3
For the OS installation, a SSD is the only way to go. For large masses of data I prefer SSHDs that are quite fast with sequential R/W operations but cost a lot less than SSDs.
What I never understood is why people would want to Raid SSDs. It does not buy you much for OS performance and complicates your life. And as Rick pointed out, not all SSDs qualify for a Raid setup so you cannot even buy the best offer.
raphoenix at April 29th, 2014 17:41 — #4
SSDs in Raid 0 Configuration Doubles both R/W speed transfers and Array Capacity but must be certified for raid operation.
If not then one can still use the SSDs in Raid configurations however will have to test transfer speeds often and Reset the SSDs Back to Factory Condition when array speed transfers begins to deteriorate.
There are only two programs I'm aware of that can Reset an SSD back to Factory condition; Parted Magic and Secure Erase.
Secure Erase requires a Dos environment with Hot Plugging and Parted Magic is now Commercial Paid Software.
whs at April 29th, 2014 17:50 — #5
I appreciate that point and that is certainly useful if you R/W a lot of large block data.
My point is that the OS makes a lot of R/W random operations with small 4K records where the data transfer speed is a minor consideration.
raphoenix at April 29th, 2014 17:57 — #6
Yes we have argued this point for years now but SSDs in raid 0 also double the R/W transfer speed in non 4K block records so all the minor transfers do add up to increased system overall performance.
whs at April 29th, 2014 19:51 — #7
Rick, those are impressive nums. But I am a simple guy who does not want to have whiplash, LOL
You win !!! If the two of us would not argue, it would be boring around here.
wilsontp at April 29th, 2014 20:00 — #8
FWIW, I'm not a fan of desktop RAID, either. It can improve performance, but in the end, even doubling the hard drive performance on the desktop doesn't make that much of a difference in the user experience.
Having said that, I'm becoming a fan of SSHD's, or hybrid drives. What I'd like to see is a generic driver from Microsoft that would allow us to pop any SSD and any HDD into a system and automatically use the SSD to cache data. Apple does this, and it's fantastic. My Dell laptop also has hybrid storage, but I think it's part of the motherboard's chipset, not something I could apply to any PC (like my desktop.)
whs at April 29th, 2014 20:30 — #9
I once made a performance comparison between SSHD, SSD and HDD.. Although this is not your typical modus operandi for the OS because I used an imaging task, but the numbers are quite interesting.
The reason I used imaging was because there I get exact elapsed time numbers. The numbers are typical for writing out large amounts of sequential data (19GB). But the OS behavior would be different because it does quasi only random operations with small amounts of data.
raphoenix at April 29th, 2014 20:43 — #10
Will be moving to something like these in my June Build.
The 960GB model reads data randomly at 135,000 IOPS and, like the 480GB version, writes at 140,000 IOPS.
Have to wait and see what ALL the new MBs and Chipsets look like. (SMILE)
system at May 9th, 2014 16:00 — #11
This topic was automatically closed after 10 days. New replies are no longer allowed.