Why Size Matters For Your SSD Purchase 175
Vigile writes "Performance analysis on solid state drives is still coming into clarity as more manufacturers enter the fold and more of the drives find their way into users' hands. While Intel's dominance in the SSD market was once undoubted, newer garbage collection methods from Indilinx and Samsung are now balancing performance across the the major players. What hasn't been discussed in great detail yet is the effect that drive capacity can have on overall performance. Some smaller drives (64GB versus 128GB) will actually use fewer data channels from the controller chip and thus will have lower transfer speeds. The article compares drives using controllers from Indilinx, Samsung and Intel." Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.
Re:Pussy hurt much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Each page was was broken at logical point too. Sure, they could have done the same in 6 pages that didn't have logical breaks, but you know, some people think that everything should be on one long page. Yay for them.
Is it too hard to click "next" ???? REALLY???
You need AutoPager (Score:5, Interesting)
I use adblock primarily for these sites.
Then you're doing it wrong! The plugin you want for 12-page reviews is AutoPager [teesoft.info]. It works like the /. home page, loading 'next' pages as you get near the bottom. It's even smart enough to strip off headers and footers.
Filesystem vs drive size (Score:4, Interesting)
Slightly off topic, but it's often forgotten that the filesystem also plays an important role in drive performance. Newer filesystems like NILFS (http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7345/1.html) are created to suit SSD's instead of the legacy rotating media. It claims to hold the same performance, no matter how large the filesystem is.
Back on topic: We're seeing the same evolution with SSD's now like we saw it with spinning media several years back, when they started to increase the drive size ever more. Eventually these performance differences between larger and smaller drives will disappear: they will simply not be an issue anymore at all when you won't be able to get SSD's smaller than 200GB, like the similar trend with spinning media.
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:1, Interesting)
Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.
There are adds on those pages?
NoScript for the win!
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want to turn this into the eternal "free web content ain't free" debate - but it's not. I run the site and yes this article might have been condensed to 9-10 pages more reasonably, but the author laid out the pages before filling in the content and was in a rush. Sorry.
As for those that block ads, etc. I realize WHY you do it but I would hope that once in a while you think of people that run these types of sites: we employee 8 people on pcper.com and we charge you NOTHING to read the content, etc. These 8 people depend on the ad revenue to live, function and continue writing.
Just a thought.
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:4, Interesting)
This doesn't make any sense actually. 60% or more of our ads are hosted on-site at ads.pcper.com. The others are hosted at Google Ad Manager service - widely regarded as one of the fastest and least obtrusive. And we are simply using that as a manager for our own in-house sold advertising. We have no malware but yah there are some cookies that are used in order to show you DIFFERENT ads rather than the same ones over and over if possible.
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't turn off ads. I even click on them once in a while. Found Splunk that way. But I can't agree with the splitting of stories to multiple pages just for ad revenue. If you generate great content, and don't annoy people, maybe your stories will get millions of hits and putting them on one page will still generate great revenue.
On a side note, I think that Slashdot should really consider throwing around some muscle here. As everyone knows, getting a link on Slashdot's front page is a great boost for any site. If Slashdot editors, when reviewing a story, sent a nice e-mail stating "our policy is to not link to stories when we determine that the story is spanned over multiple pages to boost ad revenue. If you would like our story to run, with a link to your page, you'll need to modify it or provide a modified version for our readers".
Wanna bet on whether or not they would comply?
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:1, Interesting)
We have no malware but yah there are some cookies that are used in order to show you DIFFERENT ads rather than the same ones over and over if possible.
Bullshit. Pick them at random (and look up the coupon collector problem).