Hi Pontus, On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 10:07 +0100, Pontus Pihlgren wrote: > > sata ssds that are even faster are possible but command a substantial > > price premium... > > > > > This is what confuses me, the benchmarks and general experience of > posters in this thread says that I should not expect very high speeds > (which is fine, I'm don't need my router to boot blazingly fast). But > the numbers given by the manufacturers are, on the cheap end, a few MB/s > and, on the more expensive end, up to 45 MB/s. Are these peak speeds? > Outright lies, or are they mixing bits and bytes?
I've never done any benchmarking on it, but an Apacer 512MB CF (from 2006) proved to be a helluva lot faster than the average Kingston, Head etc (the cheapos). From the behavior I've seen I estimate that write speeds were at least 5 times faster. So 45MB/s average speed doesn't seem impossible. Unfortunately it was the Apacer that broke down, so I wasn't encouraged to buy more of those. So far, the cheap and slow CF's have never given me any problem. The real big difference is in the writing, boots will be slower with the slow ones, but not in a dramatic way. >From an economical point of view I think it's hardly worthwhile to live on the cutting edge when it comes to CF cards: $50+ for 2GB's of CF is a lot of money in my opinion. You can buy 3 Kingston class cards for that amount, and use two as backup boot drives for example, or for booting different OSes. Just an idea. Bill > /P > _______________________________________________ > Soekris-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech > -- "The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself" Winston Churchill _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
