On 20 May 2014 12:02, Rohan McLeod <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Samuel wrote: >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 10:36:08 AM Trent W. Buck wrote: >> >>> Is it still true that Intel SSDs are special and present completely >>> different performance characteristics to all other SSDs? >> This report makes interesting reading, but keep in mind that they were >> specifically looking at SSDs with a smaller capacity (and cost) but they had >> to >> be reliable (after a 50+% failure rate with an OCZ model): >> >> http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html > Well as a fairly naive reader the above URL does seem to support > the contention that currently: > "Intel SSDs are special and present completely different performance > characteristics to all other SSDs "
At the time of that report's writing, that may have been the case, but the drives mentioned are all pretty old models. (And it's worth noting that the Intel 320s they were testing turned out to have a firmware bug that caused complete data loss, although obviously that news broke after the report was created) SSD drives were still going through a maturation period back then.. I'd say that current drives are considerably better. I don't know how well they'll handle repeated power cycling vs lost data though. The question there is whether the test those people were using was calling fsync() or not.. ie. Were some of those drives lying about having flushed the data to disk? Or was the test just really naive? _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
