With that kind of performance, you're going to be spoiled touching anything else. :)
It's getting to be that I can't deal with workstations with <4GB RAM :) -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > You will get degradation with mechanical drives as well (because you need > to wait for the platters to spin around to the few remaining empty spaces, > not to mention writing a large file in lots of fragments). > > > > Whilst SSDs will degrade if the disk is very, very full (TRIM will ensure > that you won’t have problems with drives that are only 70-80% full), the > write performance of SSDs is so far beyond mechanical disks, it doesn’t > matter. > > > > As mentioned, I installed Exchange 2010 (three times – all with hub, CAS > and mailbox) the past weekend in 7 minutes, 7:35 minutes and 7:xx (I didn’t > keep the last result) in a Hyper-V VM (on an SSD that was already running > another VM hosting WSUS and SCOM 2007 R2). I highly doubt that would be > possible on a SATA drive. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2010 10:16 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Which is faster ? > > > > SSD write performance can drop significantly as the disk gets full. > > > > TRIM support well help this some, but there is still a degradation… > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 8:14 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Which is faster ? > > > > Got some stats? > > > IIRC any modern consumer SSD (based on Indilinx controller) will blow a > mechanical drive out of the water. I installed Exchange 2010 (CAS, Hub > Transport, Mailbox) in a VM in 7 minutes running on an SSD (G.Skill Falcon > II – Indilinx controller). Not sure I’d be able to do that with any SATA > based mechanical drive. > > > > Of course, if you buy some really old SSD, or something cheap, then > performance will probably be rubbish as well.. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2010 9:01 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Which is faster ? > > > > For reads yes. For writes they can be slower. > > > > *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2010 4:38 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Which is faster ? > > > > WD Raptors are expensive. If OP is investigating the use of 10K RPM SATA > disks, then they should look at buying SSDs… For speed, SSDs blow any > mechanical drive out of the water. > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2010 8:29 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Which is faster ? > > > > Tested doing what? > > There are only some very specific workloads where the performance > difference will be noticeable. > > Video streaming and editing is a very different workload from manipulating > lots of small, randomly distributed files. > > I'd favor cost rather than theoretical performance here, barring other > information. > > > -ASB: http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker > Sent from my Verizon Smartphone > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"HELP_PC" <[email protected]> > > *Date: *Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:25:47 +0100 > > *To: *NT System Admin Issues<[email protected]> > > *Subject: *Which is faster ? > > > > > > How can I decide if a Hard disk WD 10000 rpm 16 mb cache will perform > better than a WD 7200 rpm with 64mb cache > Looking fore somebody that already tested > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
