And I'm saying that you have to evaluate these things as systems, not the base 
level tech. 

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All I'm saying is that a normal SLC cell can handle about 10 times more 
> writes then a MLC if everything else is the same. And as far as I ca tell, 
> the ability to handle writes is the OPs main concern. A SLC based SDHC card 
> will have about 10 times longer life span in that regard.
> If you want it perfect then sure there are better options and technologies. 
> I'm just trying to make the choice a easy one based on what the OP asked. 
> There is allways better cheaper and faster tech just around the corner.
> 
> 27. aug. 2014 21:26 skrev "Jim Thompson" <j...@smallworks.com> følgende:
>> SD cards are storage, but not “disks” nor “drives”.
>> 
>> Beyond m-SATA, eMMC is your best option.  Not only are they faster than SD 
>> cards (speeds of the larger devices rival those of traditional SSDs, as well 
>> as supporting a “TRIM”-like operation, priority interruptible READ and ERASE 
>> operations, background operations, and riding the cost-curve of cellular 
>> handsets (growing) .vs consumer point-and-shoot cameras (shrinking), etc.)
>> 
>> (This, by the way, is a huge, huge ‘hint’.)
>> (You may wish read between the lines.)
>> 
>> A lot of the SLC / MLC mythos is from before the days of JEDEC standards for 
>> endurance, advanced wear-leveling algorithms, and before a lof of the 
>> firmware engineers understood concepts such as “read disturbance”, “write 
>> disturbance”, and “ECC correction thresholds”.  It’s certainly not as simple 
>> as you’re making it out to be.
>> 
>> (This, again, is the big reason that Netgate stayed out of the early fracas 
>> around SSDs.)
>> 
>> I’m not going to depend on what someone said in the forum over 3 years ago, 
>> since it’s unlikely to apply today.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> For completeness sake.
>>> Just to clarify. You can get SDHC cards that are SLC based. Pretty much 
>>> everything called industrial grade SD/SDHC will be a SLC SSD in SD format.
>>> 
>>> Understood. Thank you for the clarification. 
>>> 
>>> Would it be possible to have the description updated on the sales page? It 
>>> only says you can boot via SD through USB. 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ryan Coleman
>>> ryanjc...@me.com
>>> m. 651.373.5015
>>> o. 612.568.2749
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:24, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, the system can be booted from an SD (or SDHC) card.  Or from USB, or 
>>>> from the m-SATA.
>>>> 
>>>> All of these require proper preparation of the requisite ‘disk’ (-like 
>>>> device).
>>>> 
>>>> Jim
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand *that* however it doesn't say on the features page it can be 
>>>>> booted off the SD slot - is that true? If so I have to change a few 
>>>>> quotes I have in play as they will need to get mSATA SSDs instead. 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:20, Jim Thompson <j...@smallworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The SD (SDHC describes some cards which work in the slot) card slot is a 
>>>>>> “base feature”.   If people choose to fit a m-SATA drive,
>>>>>> then they can.  Or they can use the SD card socket.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It’s not like we’re going to de-solder the SD card socket if it’s not 
>>>>>> going to be used.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Neither are we going to carry two different SKUs (one with, one without).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why not answer the question?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:56, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ryan,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Don't troll. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:33 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Wait, so the SDHC slot on this board is simply for show?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 26, 2014, at 13:56, Sergii Cherkashyn 
>>>>>>>>>> <ser...@accurategroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Espen,
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Squid is for filtering purpose only, not to save bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>> On Netgate they have only this SSD as an option. But I’ll keep your 
>>>>>>>>>> advice in mind.
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Sergii Cherkashyn
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:45:46 +0200
>>>>>>>>>> From: Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> To: pfSense support and discussion <list@lists.pfsense.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pfSense] Netgate APU2 SSD module question
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>>> <caadq7-adzhlsv1p6rl7kwaaomaws1uqcet6fxa5ngdn8sl5...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> I personally don't think you will have an issue with too many writes 
>>>>>>>>>> in a normal environment. Why squid tho? if its for filtering fine. 
>>>>>>>>>> For acceleration and 3-6 persons it will most likely not do you much 
>>>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>>> Also check MLC vs SLC. SLC based SSD will last longer. Approximately 
>>>>>>>>>> 10 times longer. And even more with the right write leveling tech.
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List mailing list
>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Reply via email to