Four X25-E Extreme SSDs Combined In Hardware RAID 228
theraindog writes "Intel's X25-E Extreme SSD is easily the fastest flash drive on the market, and contrary to what one might expect, it actually delivers compelling value if you're looking at performance per dollar rather than gigabytes. That, combined with a rackmount-friendly 2.5" form factor and low power consumption make the drive particularly appealing for enterprise RAID. So just how fast are four of them in a striped array hanging off a hardware RAID controller? The Tech Report finds out, with mixed but at times staggeringly impressive results."
Actually, that RAID card seems more interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
A 1.2 GHz processor with 256 DDR2 memory? Holy crap! That's faster than my new Celeron 220! And the perennial quesion: can this thing run Linux?
What I want to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Is 4 of these in a RAID-1, running a seek-heavy database. Nobody does this benchmark, unfortunately.
If I keep my current 15K drives that long (Score:4, Interesting)
I will be surprised.
See, in the enterprise environment that I work in the majority of our big hardware is leased. I am quite willing to use what I can to maintain performance and reliability. That being said my system is built entirely on 15K drives of various sizes. I am not worried about five years or so of read/write that SSD drives have, all I want to see is a track record. I expect to replace most of the drives I have now within five years so this "five year limit" many like to toss out is immaterial to me. Reliability over that lifetime is of more importance.
Besides, the nice benefit of SSD drives is I don't need special enclosures (read: ones that can handle the torque these puppies can put out)
Re:paging benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm no expert, but wouldn't that be a redundant statistic? if it handles normal read/writes faster than a disk drive, then could you presume paging would be faster as well?
Although it would be interesting to see a RAM-less PC try and run on SSD's only... somehow using normal data read/write, and memory read/write on the same SSD (if thats possible). Guess that's what we'll end up with eventually anyways, where your amount of MEM is the amount of free-space you have on your SSD, no longer seperated components.
Re:Oh good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What I want to see (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:paging benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you go multiprocessor (not multicore) then you get much higher memory bandwidth (NUMA). Sometimes that matters more than CPU power.
Re:Oh good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh good (Score:1, Interesting)
Does this take into account things like, half the drive is filled with stuff that doesn't change or does it imply nothing is on the drive and you just keep writing to it for no reason? ie that would drop those MTBF factors by half? Tried to wrap my brain around wear leveling and can't seem to grasp it.
Re:Oh good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:paging benefits? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm Betaing Windows 7. Before going to bed I set up a swap partition for it. After getting up the next morning and checking, it was full.
I have *no idea* what W7 put in there while I was sleeping.
USB flash drive RAID? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to ask but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed (Score:2, Interesting)
I have actually run this exact controller in a Pentium M motherboard during my 3ware to Adaptec transition phase, and the results are entirely different. Especially since the Adaptec drivers are poorly suited for single core systems. After all, you just don't add a $300-$1700 controller to a computer that costs more to ship than to buy on eBay.
So far as I'm concerned, the test is entirely unrealistic and invalid. It's time these guys "rebooted" and got at least a quad core PC, at least using the x58 chipset, bus performance is less of an issue and peripherals should perform at their full potential.