Bill Bogstad wrote: > And why does it matter that flash chips are slow? The question is whether > SATA connected SSDs are slow. The first 500Gbyte SSD that I looked at
What do you think SATA connected SSDs are? They're banks of flash chips with a RAID controller and some DRAM cache. Just as RAID 0 with two spindles is ~twice as fast as a single spindle, RAID 0 with two flash chips is ~twice as fast as a single flash chip. Stack up enough flash chips and sure, you'll get performance that's better than a single rotating platter. > (Samsung 840 EVO MZ-7TE500BW) claims a >500 Mbyte/sec sequential > read/write speed. Lower capacity SSDs (fewer chips for internal RAID0) Samsung claims "UP TO" 500 Mbyte/sec sequential read/write speed. Actual values for that model fluctuate wildly: http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1519/Samsung-SSD-840-EVO-500GB > Newegg claims same Samsung SSD has the an active power consumption of > 0.24 Watts. Here's some testing of a number of Samsung SSDs for > power consumption: It's not the watts. It's the watt-hours. A device that consumes 50% more power than another but operates 75% faster is the more efficient of the two. It consumes more watts -- joules per second -- but does so over a shorter span. More watts but fewer watt-hours. So, like I wrote, it depends on your usage but in general SSDs are about the same as HDDs in general use. -- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
