It looks like Intel has a huge hit (product) on its hands with the
latest SSD product announcements. No pricing yet ... but the specs
will push computer system IO bandwidth performance to numbers only
possible today with extremely expensive RAM based disk subsystems.
SSDs + ZFS - a marriage made
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Al Hopper wrote:
It looks like Intel has a huge hit (product) on its hands with the
latest SSD product announcements. No pricing yet ... but the specs
will push computer system IO bandwidth performance to numbers only
possible today with extremely expensive RAM based
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Tim wrote:
I don't know about that. I just went from an SSD back to a SATA drive
because the SSD started failing in less than a month (I'm having troubles
believing this great write-leveling they talk about is working
properly...). And the SATA drive is dog slow in
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
SSDs + ZFS - a marriage made in (computer) heaven!
Where's the beef?
I sense a lot of smoke and mirrors here, similar to Intel's recent CPU
announcements which don't even reveal the number of cores. No
prices and funny numbers that the writers of technical
Bob Friesenhahn writes:
The SSD drives will work well for a boot drive, or a non-volatile
transaction cache, but will be dramatically more expensive for storage
than traditional hard drives. This must be why Intel is focusing on
laptop users and not on enterprise storage.
The sweet
Where's the beef?
I sense a lot of smoke and mirrors here, similar to Intel's recent CPU
announcements which don't even reveal the number of cores. No
prices and funny numbers that the writers of
technical articles can't seem to get straight.
Obviously these are a significant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Seriously, I don't even care about the cost. Even with the smallest
capacity, four of those gives me 128GB of write cache supporting 680MB/s and
40k IOPS. Show me a hardware raid controller that can even come close to
that. Four of those will strain even 10GB/s
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where's the beef?
I sense a lot of smoke and mirrors here, similar to Intel's recent CPU
announcements which don't even reveal the number of cores. No
prices and funny numbers that the writers of
technical articles can't seem to
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Al Hopper wrote:
How about for serving up CDROM and DVD images (genunix.org). Even two
32Gb drives in a ZFS mirrored config would give you 20K+ read OPs/Sec
- as compared to a 10k RPM SCSI drive that starts to fall-over at 400
read IOPS. This type is workload is way
