24 SSD's = Fast

[steronius]

just passing it along...
http://dvice.com/archives/2009/03/what-happens-wh-1.php

 

[lemon-tree]

1 SSD = Fast
24 SSDs = Biblical

 

[zen-r]

Yep, that's mighty fast by today's standards.

But these impressive specs become out of date overnight - people who may come across this post in future years will laugh at it.

My first computers loaded & backed up their data from audio tapes. Needless to say, it was slooooooow by todays standards, but felt pretty good at the time!

 

[steronius]

[...]
My first computers loaded & backed up their data from audio tapes. [...]

must have been a trs-80

 

[zen-r]

Good guess...but no!

The ZX80, Acorn Electron, & various PDA-type devices of the time would be closer to the mark

My question for other x10 members here would be; Has technology moved on much since your first device, or is it still too short a time frame to have noticed much difference?

 

[alexandgruntz]

I wonder how fast 24 hard drives would be in RAID on the same system?

 

[Smith6612]

I wonder how fast things would be if I were to put a 48 cluster of VelociRaptor drives into RAID 1 (2x 24 = 24 RAID) if that is even possible :biggrin:

 

[Zangetsu]

why would you need 24 ssd? when you only have to buy 6 1TB drives in order to get the same space i dont care if you can do file transfer at warpspeed or open up an XXX amount of programs or play crysis at high medium is good enough for me

 

[lemon-tree]

For desktop computing the effects are negligible. However, in industrial scale file and webservers this becomes more relevant as the faster you can read files and databases the better. For example, Google must have huge databases of data copied hundreds of times across multiple countries. A search engine is so effective because it can read copious amounts of data and return relevant results in a very short space of time. Large databases like that would just not be effective with standard transfer rates, so they have fast connections with fast drives that are also duplicated many times.
It is through this mix of quick speeds and efficient code that search engines can return results in well under a second from a database with billions of entries. Suddenly, those transfer rates seem little more relevant.

 

[OdieusG]

OK, for 1....that's INFREAKINGSANE!
I have 1Tb (not sure if it's SSD...highly doubt it) SATA drive running, and it's slower than a snail running uphill on a good day.....
Used as a server, I bet anyone's server would fly in comparison of resource usage, but the cost alone wouldn't make it useful on a large-scale since technology is becoming outdated so frequently......

And to add....I remember when cassettes were around for backing up...never had one, but I thought they were the coolest things

 

[mac173]

Good guess...but no!

The ZX80, Acorn Electron, & various PDA-type devices of the time would be closer to the mark

My question for other x10 members here would be; Has technology moved on much since your first device, or is it still too short a time frame to have noticed much difference?

LOL, my CURRENT machine is behind, much less my first one. Right now on a P4 3.2 gig machine. My first was an AMD 300, and shortly after I got a Pentium 75 from a friend. It crashed when they tried to upgrade to XP with only 4mb of ram..:nuts:.......It took me a couple of weeks to find that old 72pin EDO ram, but once I upgraded to 16mb, I was gtg!