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.
Size. (Score:5, Funny)
6.40 inches ought to be enough for anybody.
Re:Size. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know whether to mod this troll, offtopic, flamebait, or funny, so I'm replying instead. Well played.
Re:Size. (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. I wasn't karma-whoring with that post, but I'll take it.
Now... the post I made below this one... THAT was karma-whoring.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Click the score. Insightful mods do affect karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't know, I never post as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
The funniest thing is that someone modded it informative.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
6.40 inches ought to be enough for anybody.
I know there's a "your mom" joke here somewhere...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what SHE said...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That maneuver is called the "human Klein bottle."
Re: (Score:2)
That's awesome. That's just... Awesome. There are no other words to describe the fact that you took the time to think up that reply.
You, sir, are a winner. Your prize? One Internet.
On a side note, I recently purchased an ACME Klein Bottle. You really should get one.
The short story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Price (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
I was going to include a price comparison, but a few of the units tested (like the Corsair P64) don't seem to be carried anywhere as of yet. That said, prices generally do not sway far from the cost/GB of ~$2.75 set by Intel when they released their G2 drives at record low prices. The exception here is the SLC-based PhotoFast V4S, which will retail for a whopping $499 (that's $15/GB in case you ran out of fingers and toes).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Intel has priced this one very aggressively. I think they're seeing their chance to cease the storage market, since it's now chips like CPUs and RAID that they also have plenty experience with from motherboard/server RAID solutions. The way this is going, the HDD manufacturers should be very worried. Particularly in the business market I think a reasonable 80GB SSD is plenty capacity, that's damn many powerpoints and time == salary. In fact, with Intel broadening in every direction and SoC systems
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/seagate_suffers_setback_ssd_development [maximumpc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
While Intel has had many triumphs of engineering, don't forget that Intel has had significant setbacks in its history too.
Look how much they've sunk into their Itanium and all it's done for them in return, it might as well have been just a marketing program to spook the heavy iron architectures into closing up shop. They certainly didn't manage to make that research pay back for itself. Intel also made several RISC chips of their own that didn't do nearly what they expected.
They also tried to make an LCOS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They all meet the definition of 'blisteringly fast' when compared to my current disk, but they also all meet the definition of 'cost more than I want to pay'.
I guess it is still useful to figure out which one provides the best value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought a 30 GB OCZ vertex for my boot/application drive, and use a few 1TB drives in RAID for bulk storage. Best of both worlds.
Yes, the 30BG one isn't quite as fast as the 120GB one, but it's still 10x faster at loading apps and 3x faster at booting Ubuntu then my past HD.
Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:3, Insightful)
The odds of me reading page 2 of any article not paginated sensibly (reading a single page should take several minutes) are probably around 10%. Page 5? never.
I'll just be uninformed until information is published with a sensible pagination system. I'm okay with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.
so it's true (Score:2)
Size DOES matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how does your NoScript block text ads?
Well, either I'm lucky... or the ads are pulled in by javascript.
I just pulled the page again to double check, and I don't see any ads.
Which is pretty much what I always get unless the ad is a part of the html from the page I pull... because there is nothing else allowed.
Looking at the page source I see something from Google AdSense, among others... but they are all on my black list.
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.
Free isn't (Score:2)
Yes, with you there: I provide all my content free but it does cost me, out of my pocket. I typically only recover 30% of my costs from ad revenue, and that fraction continues to fall.
Remember that 'sticking it to the man' on some kind of principle is no kind of principle at all. In some cases that 'man' is a fellow geek being kind to you; would you piss in his/my beer too on some kind of principle (CmdrTaco excepted, my liege)?
And *no*, I absolutely seriously do not want advertisers' money stolen by clic
Re: (Score:2)
I run no-script because I hate bad UI and almost everything that people use javascript for is making their own custom UIs. In almost all cases it's annoying or interferes with my browsing habits (selecting links by text or number, etc).
I allow it places like here where I agree with the value-add, but it's my computer, my screen, my eyes, and my choice of how it's viewed. Not just because I can, but because depending if I'm on the projector or the netbook my viewing needs are totally different.
HTML was all a
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, I make sure that my sites work without JavaScript (indeed in just the way you want them to work). I too am technically and ethically and otherwise distressed by designers who break HTML's original contract just because they can and/or they are too lazy or ignorant to do better.
I don't take my ball and go home if you won't contribute because I provide many pro-bono services from my own pocket and accept that there are some freeloaders and some who genuinely cannot pay (for whom I primarily provide the
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I run the site and yes this article might have been condensed to 9-10 pages more reasonably
That's still idiotic. I refuse to hit page 2 of ANY site that has a bunch of idiotically short pages, and what's more, I refuse to return when I see one. Better you should grow your readership; you're better off having ten people read a one page article than have one person read a ten page article, because nine of those ten people won't be back.
Life's to short to put up with bullshit like that, sorry. Come back when y
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Your needs to make revenue from ads server side has absolutely NO bearing on what software i run on my client. that includes adblock software. you might be pissed off, but frankly, you don't have the right to determine if i watch ads or not. from my personal computer, I do. ads on eyeballs are like millionaires throwing rocks at your head.
thank you for your wonderful article, but understand you've marred your research with 12 pages of advertisements. i've published hundreds of pages of research and non
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I don't have the right to determine if you watch ads or not. But do I have the right to make sure you see ads in order to see my content?
Re: (Score:2)
Not when it's rendered on my computer. those are my CPU cycles, and that's my screen it's displayed on. it's actually a big hassle to click through all those pages, and as other people have pointed out, it's HTML. you're free to lay it out any way you want, and I can apply whatever filters or plugins to make your site finally readable to me.
it is actually because of this slashdot posting I found out about pagination firefox plugins. A lot of the Slashdot comments are about your formatting, partially becu
no (Score:2)
My computer, My time, my choice.
You can say anything you want (obvious 'fire' in a crowded theater, liable, slander etc. exceptions).
and people have a right to ignore any portion thereof.
Free speech != guaranteed audience or acceptance.
Haven't read the article yet, but if you want it read and the adds viewed, give folks a reason past a third grade 'not fair' argument.
Mcyroft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To those having a beef with our article page count:
- We have one bench per page (like everybody else), we do 7 benches.
- We have an intro and conclusion (like everybody else).
- I include several discussion pages and evaluate fragmentation-over-time and other important topics related to SSD performance, making the SSD pieces a few pages longer than the HDD pieces.
The additional content takes considerably more time to properly evaluate and discuss, but that is us going the extra mile for our readers. It's wh
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As for those of you with ads all over your sites, etc. I realize WHY you do it, but I would hope that once in a while you would think of the readers who have to be bombarded with your bullshit and slowed down pageloads and/or go to extraordinary measures to avoid it, who will never click on any of your stupid ads, and who are going to continue to block these ads at every opportunity. You say your site cannot exist without ads? Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
And another thought: maybe the author shouldn't be in such a rush. This lives up to the stereotype that free content is worth what you pay for it. Lame excuses don't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
First, let me say thank you for responding to this thread. It is useful to have a honest and informative debate about this.
I often start my day by reading the SlashDot front page. I pick a couple of summaries that look interesting and normally open both the SlashDot page and the article it links to in separate tabs.
However, if the SlashDot summary mentions multiple pages, login required, excessive advertising etc. I only open the SlashDot page and read the comments to see if it is worth reading TFA later. I
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: (Score:2)
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.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's pretty fucking dumb. Because if, on the remotest of remote chances, an advertisement actually broke through all the natural blindspots I have developed over time, I have one chance to click on the ad. Next time I go to the page, it's changed.
When I walk past a bus stop, or drive down the highway, the ads are the same over a per
Re: (Score:2)
Slight misunderstanding here - we have the same ads that cycle so you are likely to see the same ad if you hit the page enough times. But advertisers know (and have proven) that if the content remains TOO static it is more easily overlooked.
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:4, Insightful)
1)pricegrabber.com
2)skimlinks.com
3)googleadservices.com
4)quantserv.com
5)tribalfusion.com
6)pcper.com
You far exceeded my acceptable level of third party scripts by 400%. I don't care whether those scripts are advertisements or statistics or revenue generation or whatever. I do not consider your choices wise. I will block your advertisements until such time as you learn to understand your market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obviously coming from the view of someone who doesn't create content for a living. "I pay for my bandwidth and choose what to download. That is the model of the internet." is the grossest slight on the words net neutrality I have seen in a long, long time. You pay for bandwidth, but you didn't pay me, right? By your thought process then you should only be getting content from your bw provider and no one else.
Look, we provide our content to you, the reader, 100% free. Watching ads does not make i
Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (Score:4, Insightful)
No, your premise is wrong. It all starts with: you are under no obligation to put free content out there. Should you, in spite of this, choose to do so yet, you shouldn't be surprised if people leech it. If you disagree with this, then I'm sure (since you're posting on Slashdot), that you have the technological acumen to invent and implement and popularize a protocol that will provide content to people, all the while forcing them to see it as you want them to see it - including ads.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
take a stand (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not going to be more reasonable until we take a stand. Vote down the story, and make sure not to click the links.
Re:take a stand (Score:5, Insightful)
I use adblock primarily for these sites.
When I come across a site that doesn't do this bullshit, I make sure to allow their ads.
Hell, Slashdot is giving me the option of disabling advertising just by clicking a checkbox; I'm not doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I use that as well. Advertising trolls deserve as much feeding as forum trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a hosts file to block ad servers, it gets probably 95% of the junk out there. As a bonus, the ads aren't even downloaded to my machine, so all my bandwidth goes to the page I'm browsing.
And since my internet at work is way over-capacity, that's a good thing. There are a number of lists out there, give it a shot. It's the geeky way to do it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I administered a company's firewall I did something like that on April Fool's day. Only a few noticed. No, I didn't get sacked for it (anyway it did save bandwidth).
I suppose most people back then didn't really surf the web.
Re: (Score:2)
I have that checkbox too. Didn't turn them off. Slashdot ads have never bothered me and if it helps them keep the lights on, so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, Slashdot is giving me the option of disabling advertising just by clicking a checkbox; I'm not doing it.
I didn't either, untill CSS went haywire one morning and the ad covered the "you have comments" notification as well as the checkbox itself.
Re: (Score:2)
that's when you turn adblock on for /. for a few days while they sort their shit out
Re: (Score:2)
"Hell, Slashdot is giving me the option of disabling advertising just by clicking a checkbox; I'm not doing it."
The fact they do means I give them respect in my book, since many of us come here for the comments and slashdot editors know that comments and discussion are by and large what most people come for. Those that post a lot and add to the discussion are the ones adding value to the site so why shouldn't they have the option of disabling ads? Since most of the value of slashdot comes from the communi
Re: (Score:2)
I use a similar approach. Multiple pages don't annoy me as much as Flash ads that fill the screen and use up resources, so I just use FlashBlock. I don't mind just ignoring other ads, especially since most of the sites I visit are ad funded anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Try turning off NoScript.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it would be possible to make an extension that detected paginated sites and combined them down into a single page. Even if detection is too dificult I would think that you would be able to do one that would be a single button click for the user.
Re: (Score:2)
As posted above [slashdot.org] by Ben Jackson, there is.
SSD can be a pain because of extra work (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree entirely. Others (indeed, an AC already has) will go on about improved algorithms, but ATEOTD there's only ever so much improvement that can be made and IMO if there's that much headroom that can be fixed in firmware, it's an immature technology.
Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you're saying, but there's been some essential features in the firmware upgrades for SSDs. For example my Vertex didn't come with the TRIM command out of the box, it was added in a BIOS.
Also there's a lot of tuning that isn't done today but will be done in new OS releases, for example Ubuntu has this one:
SSD blueprint for Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) [ubuntu.com]
Basicly there's a lot to gain by changing some of the defaults, and it's being done but if you wanted it right now you'll have to use the forums. In a year
Re: (Score:2)
I've got two SSD's (80GB Intel X25-M), one in a laptop, one in a desktop. Never did any tweaking--just plugged them in and they worked. Haven't done any benchmarking, but boot time, application start-up time, and time for things like "grep -r large-directory/" are all (very) noticeably faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely that's three reasons.
And I'd worry about a SSD that needs upgrades to ensure data retention (and, additionallly, some SSDs have had firmwares issued that the manufacturer then warns "Don't upgrade the firmware again... we broke the update / storage mechanism and you'll lose data until we sort out a NEW new firmware"). SSD's have one job - store data. That part should NEVER need updating. Performance, possibly, longevity and data retention - holy shit.
It's like saying that occasionally your fuel ta
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, when I wanted to update my SCSI card 20 years ago there wasn't a firmware flasher - I had to buy a new chip, pull the old one off the card, and socket the new one in place. (The reason for the update? To add 'Seagate Mode' because Seagate drives didn't all spin up properly and without the new chip, the machine wouldn't boot off some Seagate drives.)
While things should certainly work right in the first place, being able to update them via software is a godsend.
Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (Score:4, Informative)
This is the problem - 20 years ago you DIDN'T need a driver for your monitor, or a flashing utility for your hard drive, or any of the other ridiculous things caused by not sticking to standards and/or designing the hardware badly.
I wasn't using computers 20 years ago (I was 6 at the time), but I was a computer tinkerer 15 years ago, and I certainly remember needing drivers for things like monitors (not the video card, the monitor, it was a pain), driver updates for hard drives, etc. Without the drivers you had a standard, very basic functionality because the OS had a built in generic that would just barely work.
Ever heard of a Plug 'n Play monitor? Of course you have, it's what all monitors are now. But there was a time when there was no such thing. When PnP came out, it was revolutionary, because you didn't need drivers for the stupid simple stuff, like monitors and hard drives. To use PnP required a PnP capable motherboard, hardware device, and OS. A lot of BIOSs still have the setting to disable PnP if the OS isn't capable of it - then you'll need drivers. And of course, even after PnP for many years it was dubbed "Plug 'n Pray" because you were never sure it would actually work right, if not you'd better have drivers on hand.
Hell, Windows XP still won't run a SCSI drive unless you have the driver for it, and SCSI has been around FOREVER.
You may not know this, but even today you need drivers for your ATA/SATA hard drive to work properly. Some companies even send you a disk still, just in case. You don't recognize it, because after 20+ years the technology has been pretty well nailed, and new drivers are rarely - if ever- necessary. 99.9% of mass storage drivers are built in to any OS later than XP, but under certain cirumstances it's good to be aware of them and which ones you need (it comes up when using Sysprep sometimes, specifying your drivers can really speed up a re-image). Most of the drivers are contained in one or two INF files, but without them your drive will not work.
In other words, STFU, it's new technology, and even at its worst it's better than what we have currently. Soon things will be pretty well standardized, and the only substantive difference between brands will be the number of channels, chips, and levels which determine speed, capacity, and price.
Kinda like hard drives now, where we look at RPMs, cache, and seek times to find the best drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years ago you dodn't need drivers because you had dip switches, but you had kilobytes of memory and megabytes of drive space instead of megabytes of memory and gigabytes of drive space. If it wasn't for drivers you'ld have a refrigerator sized box full of dip switches and it would be hell on earth getting it configured.
I only have two problems with drivers: First, if you lose the CD you're hosed. Second, sometimes Windows Update will replace a perfectly good driver with one that won't work at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can't be bothered with tweaking, doesn't mean others don't want to. The fact these drives can be enhanced is a selling point. When better algorithms come along, people can update their existing products if they choose to. I guess you're a conditioned consumer? Throw it in the bin and buy another? Like Apple's bling too I suppose?
Maybe he's just not that obsessed with having the very latest and best performance regardless of whether the tradeoff would be money or hassle.
Ever consider that *your* obsession with having the latest and the best might be a greater reflection of consumer conditioning?
I doubt it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um ... why would they do that if their 12-page version gets slashdotted anyway? The whole point of the splitting it up is to get page views.
signoff tag? (Score:2)
What's with the 'signoff' tag?
(Off topic, I know... if only slashdot had a 'General Discussion' thread.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just curious too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it's just plain old douchebaggery. If you pay attention for long enough you'll see days where some kook tags every story with a nonsensical word like this, or gathers their buddies to mod everyone in a thread -1 Offtopic, or any number of pointless things.
News? (Score:2, Informative)
How is this news?
The number of channels increases the theoretical and actual read and write speeds.
Did anyone NOT know this?
No one needs to look at capacity to guess the number of channels, and no one needs to dig around for a review site that cracked the bitch open / contacted the Chinese manufacturers to get the number of channels used.
All you need to look at is the specs, and in case they're lying, benchmarks. No guess work. No hunting for obscure information that might not apply to your particular har
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.
Super Star Destroyer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Common Cents (Score:2)
So two 64GB drives in RAID0, or even on just on different SATA channels are faster than one 128GB drive.
Spread the word! This will change database disk design for decades to come.
---
I've got several OCZ 32GB SSD with the partitions aligned. Wildly faster for running my VM's off of. Windows boots in about 10 seconds onto a LAN. Don't really see a notable difference with my *small* database servers. That's likely because they load huge pages of the database into RAM and serve it from there. I have yet
T400S / Linux people (Score:2)
I just ordered a Thinkpad T400S with the 128GB SSD option. It was impossible to determine whose SSD it is - some reports said Samsung, some said Toshiba, reps don't know. Small random writes (eg generating class files, but very commonly used in apps ranging from Pidgin to Firefox) can be quite slow with SSDs. I intend to use the device with Ubuntu installed for typical desktop use, and developing server ware that uses Java, PHP, and MySQL.
Anyone have insight with this device combination and know of any issu
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah (Score:2)
My "drive" is in a solid state, and it's size is massive.
Re: (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???
Re:Pussy hurt much? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Saliva???
Do you chew on your books?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ [youtube.com]
Re:Pussy hurt much? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The codex [wikipedia.org] was invented long before the Gutenberg printing press.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is when each spam filled page takes at least 5 seconds to load (at least in some cases).
fewer pages = better server performance (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, fewer pages with more text content delivered per http request would reduce the load on the server. The bigger impact on the server is repeated visits to the hard drive and trips to the database. When one article requires 12 separate page requests, that cranks up the number of http requests coming in that have to be responded to with hard drive file reads and database queries.
Not knowing their specific server architecture, the above is a generalization. Caching, virtual memory mapped file systems, etc. can alleviate these bottlenecks.
Seth
The pages are decidedly graphic-heavy (Score:2)
I know what you're talking about. However, for a report formatted the way this one is, likely not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You also have twice as many points of failure. Three times as many, if you count the RAID controller. Four, if you count the firmware in the RAID controller. Five, if you consider the increased load on your PSU, having to power the additional drive and RAID controller.
That's ignoring the additional traffic on the bus. That RAID controller doesn't work on FM[1], you know. Then again, it probably doesn't matter; it's not like you'd want faster disk access in a machine being used for video or audio capture, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Additional hardware on a bus leads to... oh fuck it, here's a car analogy.
I have one road. On that road, I have one car; this car can do whetever it pleases, whenever it pleases. When I add another car, both cars now have to watch out for each other, or they'll eventually crash.
This is traffic.
Also, yes, the more parts, the more points of failure.
I hope you enjoyed your meal; now, please, go troll elsewhere. I hear 4chan is nice this time of year.
Re: (Score:2)
In a RAID situation, with a real raid card, there is no additional bus data at all. The data is sent along the same bus to the RAID card. The raid card then splits it into whatever is requireed and writes it to the disks that are connected to that same RAID card. The RAID card creates more data yes (with parity etc) but this is all onboard and the card is designed for this. Data over the PCI-E bus is exactly the same
Re: (Score:2)
Data still travels the bus to control the card. Unless you're removing the onboard SATA controller... which is onboard... presumably you're not ignoring its existence...
Re: (Score:2)
You're saving 100GB. Whether it ends up on one drive or a RAID of a billion drives, it's still 100GB of data going through the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll concede on that point. On modern systems, it's negligible. More hardware DOES still mean more bus traffic, however; that RAID card does use bus bandwidth to report status, as well. Unless, of course, you're not running any sort of daemon to monitor the status of the disks in your array; a highly unrecommended configuration, at any rate.
And still nobody can legitimately attack my point about increasing the number of possible points of failure.