The State of Solid State Storage 481
carlmenezes writes "Pretty much every time a faster CPU is released, there are always a few that are marveled by the rate at which CPUs get faster but loathe the sluggish rate that storage evolves. Recognizing the allure of solid state storage, especially to performance-conscious enthusiast users, Gigabyte went about creating the first affordable solid state storage device, and they called it i-RAM. Would you pay $100 for a 4GB Solid State Drive that is up to 6x faster than a WD Raptor?"
Let me think. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. I'd rather wait longer and have more capacity for less money. After all, I use Windows as my primary OS. I'm used to waiting.
Truthfully, though, if the price came down, I'd be interested in this for a Windows install, and then install all my apps and save all my docs to an external IDE.
Nope (Score:2, Interesting)
RamDrive, FlashDrive, etc. are all appropriate names, but iRam? Could the product name be any less descriptive?
Re:No Way! (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, I do like the idea, and when they have something that's 300GB+ and solid state, I'd be happy to pay a few hundred dollars for it. It would be quite useful for a media system.
I'll take it! (Score:2, Interesting)
A small capacity flash drive is just what I need in this application. I would prefer that the price for a 4GB model come down a bit though. With the solid-state hard drives, these machines could last another 5-6 years!
Surely! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, for the OS (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to have a super quick HD for the OS because it's accessed more frequently than, say, some old data file you haven't touched in over a year.
Music, movies, documents, pictures - I don't think these need to be on solid state drives, because they're accessed just fine (except moving GB's of files still needs to be faster), but things like the OS and applications would seem to run a lot quicker if they would all be in ram-like storage.
Darn straight I would/will! (Score:5, Interesting)
Mmmm, hyper-fast builds that don't depend on the latency of moving parts...
triple setup (RAM + SSHD + HD) (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to Ramdrive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would I pay $100 for this? (Score:3, Interesting)
It just seems to me that the card itself is very bulky, and a similarly-priced RAMdisk with greater storage and a better form-factor is just waiting to be implemented. Oh, and it's not 4GB RAMdisk for $100, b/c you have to purchase the DDR as well
Re:No Way! (Score:5, Interesting)
Drive speed not the limiter (Score:2, Interesting)
Other bottlenecks are sure to limit this (CPU, etc).
Until I see a way to make this actually very useful (other than having one modern game on it to get better fps), there's no way I would buy at that price.
Volatility (Score:3, Interesting)
A better idea would have been to have a bank of Flash EEPROM built onto the card as a backup device, with loss of power triggering the automatic dumping of RAM contents to Flash, and resumption of power repopulating RAM from Flash on demand/during idle time. Given that it is now possible to fit 4Gb in a Compact Flash card, there is little excuse for not having such a backup subsystem.
And other uses... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I think I might have to snag a couple of these.
Incredibly useful (Score:4, Interesting)
In the era of cheap, throwaway crap, I'm pretty much by myself when I say "I want QUALITY". So yes, I'm planning on buying several of these later today to put them in my main machines in my business. they'll be running our mission-critical cash registers.
Non-Technical Users Don't Understand (Score:5, Interesting)
An affordable 4 GB is fantastic for this kind of thing. Use your imagination:
1. Imagine how fast your system would be installed on a battery-backed up RAM drive.
2. Imagine how fast your system would be with your memory swap file installed on this.
3. Imagine how fast your database server would be with its transaction log installed on this. Hey, throw the tempdb (for SQL Server) on there as well.
4. Many other things.
If you're thinking of this as a standard hard drive to store your DivX movies and MP3 files, you're not thinking right. Solid state drives are miracles that can speed up systems beyond anything you would expect.
We were doing something like this 11+ years ago... (Score:2, Interesting)
Dubious design - power up when removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:New Tech (Score:2, Interesting)
no database test.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought that, maybe, the FPGA they use cannot reach such a performance yet, and it could come with next revision, when they produce their own package from end to end.
I was more wondering about some tests missing using databases.
What better test than a database, say for a small website, with few modifications to the base and the biggest problem being that hdds are a latency hell when the db is waiting for the data to be unstored....
Under linux, I know I can easily script the partioning at each reboot, and have another script syncing the db to a hdd say every 5 minutes (x% of a max 4 gigs db @10MB/s writing speed... , syncing only the last 5 minutes journal... largely possible if your are not running a Enterprise class website...)
What would be the results of this test, aka a db with almost no latency and 100MB/s bandwith ?
Wouldn't that have been more intersting than using it as a pagefile ?
Re:No Way! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now most HDD will do 20MB/s so either this is going to be to small or a normal HDD is going to work fine for you. Anyway look into getting a 4+ disk RAID 5 array. I got one for 800$ that can store 900Gigs and can do something like 50MB/s transfers.
PS: What this disk is going to be great for is non-sequential storage. If you work with 30+ tracks you either need to have a lot of buffer / ram space (So you can store up lots of info then put it to disk.) or a non-sequential storage system.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Non-Technical Users Don't Understand (Score:3, Interesting)
I do this all the time (it makes windows tolerably fast). You do get a strange "out of memory" warning when the memory is about half full.
It might be memory overcommit which is a problem under Linux too.
Re:No Way! (Score:3, Interesting)
OK WTF??
Again, from the freaking article:
"Armed with a 64-bit memory controller and DDR200 memory, the i-RAM should be capable of transferring data at up to 1.6GB/s to the Xilinx chip; however, the actual transfer rate to your system is bottlenecked by the SATA bus. The i-RAM currently implements the SATA150 spec, giving it a maximum transfer rate of 150MB/s."
Someone please explain what's going on here?? Did the person that wrote the description EVEN READ THE FRICKIN ARTICLE?? 150MB/s is no where near 6x faster! Modern SATA drives easily get 80MB/s, so how is 150MB/s "up to 6x faster"??
IMHO this seems to be the biggest waste of money ever. For much cheaper I could RAID 0 two SATA drives and get the same transfer rate and have 100x more storage.
Even the article proves it:
Game Level Load Time Comparison (Lower is Better)
_________________Splinter Cell: CT___Doom 3___Battlefield 2
Gigabyte i-RAM (4GB)_______8.0s__19.6s__20.83s
Western Digital Raptor (74GB) 10.59s__25.78s__25.67s
wow, so for $500+ I can load Battlefield 2 five seconds faster?!? Yeah, that's worth it :rollseyes:
Re:Let me think. (Score:0, Interesting)