Gary Kline:
Http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/SPD/runcore-64gb-pata-mini-pci-e-pcie-ssd-for-asus-eee-pc-901-and-1000---backorder-runcore-64gb-pata-mini-pci-e-pcie-ssd-for-asus-eee-pc-901-and-1000--88DB-1224129741.jsp
... statement that this device lasts ten years before it fails to
hold
First, be careful about statements like 10 years before it fails to hold
state. Usually that means if you write data to the device and put it on a
shelf, you've got 10 years before the data is unreadable. Being marketing
possibly it's true if you will write it few times and no more ;) store it
On Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 02:32:24 PDT free...@t41t.com wrote:
The lifetime and reliability of SSDs are less-than-or-equal-to the
lifetime and reliability of spinning magnetic drives, so don't buy an SSD
for that. Whether SSDs use less power is an open question. There's a lot
of data going either
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:48:00AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote:
On Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 02:32:24 PDT free...@t41t.com wrote:
The lifetime and reliability of SSDs are less-than-or-equal-to the
lifetime and reliability of spinning magnetic drives, so don't buy an SSD
for that. Whether SSDs use
you guys aren't going to believe what i just found on the web for
the ASUS Eee-901 [or is it the 900]. it was for the 9- and
10-inch screens. i was using konq which just segv'd so i am
taking a break and thought i'd share this.
last night, i could
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
you guys aren't going to believe what i just found on the web for
the ASUS Eee-901 [or is it the 900]. it was for the 9- and
10-inch screens. i was using konq which just segv'd so i am
taking a break and
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:52:27AM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
today we have huge flash disks for really cheap, but still don't
have native flash filesystem in any OS, be it FreeBSD or windoze or
mac os x or whatever.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:31:06 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
today we have huge flash disks for really cheap, but still don't have
native flash filesystem in any OS, be it FreeBSD or windoze or mac os x or
whatever.
This flash chips have to emulate hard
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
you guys aren't going to believe what i just found on the web for
the ASUS Eee-901 [or is it the 900]. it was for the 9- and
10-inch screens. i was using konq which just segv'd so i am
taking a break and
whatever.
Not so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_file_system
Most flash devices sold as harddisks have hardware that emulates a
traditional harddisk, representing it as a (P/S)ATA block device. Unless
you can bypass this, there is no need for a special filesystem.
yes this is exactly
99.8% solution waiting for the 99.9% solution.
As for emulating a hard drive, its only slow relative to potential
it's a nonsense to pay for emulation layer that slows down real devices.
And random filesystem writes could be much faster on flash than on disk -
if properly designed
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech
Puchar
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:25 PM
To: FreeBSD Mailing List
Cc: Gary Kline
Subject: Re: you're not going to believe this.
99.8% solution waiting for the 99.9% solution.
As for emulating a hard drive, its only slow
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:23:22PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
whatever.
Not so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_file_system
Most flash devices sold as harddisks have hardware that emulates a
traditional harddisk, representing it as a (P/S)ATA block device. Unless
you can
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 16:07, Gary Klinekl...@thought.org wrote:
you guys aren't going to believe what i just found on the web for
the ASUS Eee-901 [or is it the 900]. it was for the 9- and
10-inch screens. i was using konq which just segv'd so i am
taking a
and lifetime.
Even a flash filesystem will have to do wear levelling.
yes - but it don't have to copy blocks that are free. with disk emulation
- it doesn't know anything about filesystem and don't know what blocks are
free.
___
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:22:19PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 16:07, Gary Klinekl...@thought.org wrote:
For a small unit like this, SSD is really nice.
But, for my workstations/servers, I'm wondering if a pure
battery-backed RAM disk, in RAID1 with a regular hard
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:46:01PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
and lifetime.
Even a flash filesystem will have to do wear levelling.
yes - but it don't have to copy blocks that are free. with disk
emulation - it doesn't know anything about filesystem and don't know
what blocks are free.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
battery-backed ram sound great for the time being!
if not now [this minute], then relatively soon, i'm guessing
within a few years somebody will have a solid-state device that emulates
the current
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 13:59, David Kellydke...@hiwaay.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
battery-backed ram sound great for the time being!
if not now [this minute], then relatively soon, i'm guessing
within a few years somebody will
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:59:44 -0500, David Kelly dke...@hiwaay.net wrote:
We are already there. SSDs are not slower than mechanical disk drives,
they are faster. The only detriments are 1) cost, 2) limited write life.
What about power consumption? Because they seem to be
primarily intended for
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:22:19PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 16:07, Gary Klinekl...@thought.org wrote:
For a small unit like this, SSD is really nice.
But, for my workstations/servers, I'm wondering if a
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:59:44 -0500, David Kelly dke...@hiwaay.net wrote:
We are already there. SSDs are not slower than mechanical disk
drives, they are faster. The only detriments are 1) cost, 2) limited
write life.
What about
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:30:25PM -0500, Gary Gatten wrote:
If it's fast enough to allow one to work unimpeded, has acceptable
lifetime/reliability, and uses less power/generates less heat than
traditional platter HD - I'd say it's a good solution. It's not a one
size fits all world.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:59:44PM -0500, David Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
battery-backed ram sound great for the time being!
if not now [this minute], then relatively soon, i'm guessing
within a few years somebody will have a
How fast is it though? Fast enough, or will the r/w/access times make
everything slow? Not all SSD is created equal.
There's a new SD format too - up to 2TB Prolly within a couple
years, or maybe someone will get some federal stimulus funds and
manufacture it sooner! After all, it could
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 06:21:33PM -0500, Gary Gatten wrote:
How fast is it though? Fast enough, or will the r/w/access times make
everything slow? Not all SSD is created equal.
Ah, yes, that was the key to this site, then. it said that with
their newer, faster speed--i
26 matches
Mail list logo
