Performance showdown: Flash drives versus hard disk drives

[DarkFury]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9080838

So have you ever wondered if it's really worth it to plunk down the extra $1,300 for an SSD-equipped MacBook Air? Or have you been tempted to swap the current mechanical hard drive out of your portable and slide one of these high tech bad boys inside?

32GB Crucial Internal 2.5-in. SATA Solid State Drive
32GB Ridata 2.5-in. SATA SSD
250GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 3.5-in. SATA hard drive
200GB Seagate Momentus 7200.2 2.5-in. SATA hard drive.

.
.
.

None of these results, in my opinion, show any clear and present advantage to these SSDs -- at least not on a price/performance ratio. I'd have to be in a severely time-critical situation to justify spending an extra $550 just to shave seven seconds off the cold boot time (or 1.7 ounces in weight). Even so, I'd lose that boot advantage when it came to transferring files from the drive.

.
.
.
So forgive me for being contrarian, but while I recognize the exotic and alluring nature of solid state disks as a technology -- and have certainly fallen victim to their potential "wow factor" on occasion -- after spending 12 days with a pair of them and a pair of mechanical drives, I'm, convinced that SSDs have yet to live up to their true potential

Pretty much, I guess this lets alot of air out of the ballon of wishing for a SSD to replace current HDD technology.

/me hugs my SATA and rolls with it until SSDs improve dramatically.

[mojo]

hm, surprising findings

[johnnymk]

Very interesting.

[Airencracken]

The new WD Velociraptor is supposedly wicked fast.

[Devhux]

The new WD Velociraptor is supposedly wicked fast.

I agree with you there. For desktop users, the upcoming Velociraptor will be the best drive to have if you crave performance.

I think SSDs will replace notebook hard drives faster than their desktop variences. Shock resistance, performance, and battery life will be much more noticeable/useful on a notebook platform first.

Finally, I see no reference as to whether these drives were MLC or SLC -- and based on the performance, I'd have to say it's the cheaper MLC method (Multi-level cell, I believe). SLC flash drives are horribly expensive right now, but they also are much faster than the MLC drives. Give it a few years, and I think we'll see these drives gain much more popularity.

[ArkiStan]

The new WD Velociraptor is supposedly wicked fast.

which ones are those? the 300GB ones? If so, I've got a question. It says it uses a new SATA 3.0GB/s interface. Can I still use that with my old SATA controller/motherboard and take advantage of its full performance?

[Jeffbx]

which ones are those? the 300GB ones? If so, I've got a question. It says it uses a new SATA 3.0GB/s interface. Can I still use that with my old SATA controller/motherboard and take advantage of its full performance?

Yes, they are the 300GB, and you'll get the fastest throughput your board can handle with that drive, if that answers your question. You might see a measurable difference going with a newer controller, but probably not a noticable one.

And not too surprising about the SSD drives - write time has always been a bit of an issue, and I still have a HUGE concern about the MTBF on those things. You could potentially see a normal end of life within a few years on those because of the limited number of writes.

The big advantage that they *do* have is lower battery usage - if that's critical to you, then go ahead & drop a $500 to $1000 premium on one of these. Personally, I won't see their worth until they're the same price as a mechanical drive.

[johnnymk]

I have a 15K SCSI drive and it's fast, but it gets so steenkin' hot. I also have a 10K Compaq SCSI drive..same story.