Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives



Bill Bogstad wrote:
> And why does it matter that flash chips are slow?   The question is whether
> SATA connected SSDs are slow.  The first 500Gbyte SSD that I looked at

What do you think SATA connected SSDs are? They're banks of flash chips
with a RAID controller and some DRAM cache. Just as RAID 0 with two
spindles is ~twice as fast as a single spindle, RAID 0 with two flash
chips is ~twice as fast as a single flash chip. Stack up enough flash
chips and sure, you'll get performance that's better than a single
rotating platter.

> (Samsung 840 EVO MZ-7TE500BW) claims a >500 Mbyte/sec sequential
> read/write speed.   Lower capacity SSDs (fewer chips for internal RAID0)

Samsung claims "UP TO" 500 Mbyte/sec sequential read/write speed. Actual
values for that model fluctuate wildly:

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1519/Samsung-SSD-840-EVO-500GB


> Newegg claims same Samsung SSD has the an active power consumption of
> 0.24 Watts.   Here's some testing of a number of Samsung SSDs for
> power consumption:

It's not the watts. It's the watt-hours. A device that consumes 50% more
power than another but operates 75% faster is the more efficient of the
two. It consumes more watts -- joules per second -- but does so over a
shorter span. More watts but fewer watt-hours. So, like I wrote, it
depends on your usage but in general SSDs are about the same as HDDs in
general use.

-- 
Rich P.



BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org