Noli

Member
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Noli

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Interesting product. Good review. This review of over 30 USB3 flashdrives from Tomshardware gives a lot of insight and depth: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3.0-thumb-drive-review,3477.html The SanDisk Extreme which was the overall winner topped out at 268MB/s read and 220MB/s write so on par, perhap edging this Lexar. It also did well in a whole host of other tests like small 4k random reads and writes (v v important for responsiveness if you use this as a small operating system drive on eg an HTPC etc) It would be interesting to see what the Lexar gets and put them head to head as the sequential read and write probably don't tell the whole story. Right now the extra analysis on the SanDisk would give me more comfort, unless you can provide those sorts of figures in future?
  2. True but I'll always avoid their portable drives because of the significant mark up anyway. Most of their sales will be to consumers who aren't tech savvy/confident enough to buy a compatible OEM HD and stick it in an enclosure anyway. I'll just have to turn to companies like IcyDock, IcyBox etc and give them my money instead.
  3. Why don't WD and other HDD manufacturers just sell a reasonably cheap version of the casing only so that those of us who want can just shove our own HDDs in there and upgrade when we want...
  4. Great, I wish there were more reviews of standard hard drives for domestic use on storagereview (like in the old days) rather than all this enterprise storage news. I guess there's hardly any new releases these days - things seem to have stagnated somewhat now that capacities are huge and SSDs have cornered the performance part of the market.... Would love to upgrade to 4TB drives. Problem is that most aren't even internal anymore! They seem to reserve the biggest drives for external enclosures. Must be higher margins or something. With 4TB drives, there's the Hitachi and now a Seagate and WD too but, excepting the Hitachi somewhat (who I don't trust as much), they're so expensive. Hitachi is £188 or £47 per TB whereas a 3TB drive can be had for £103.50 (Seagate) which is £34.50 per TB so I'll just stick with 3TB for now. Would be good to get hard drive enclosure reviews. I have an IcyBox 3.5" enclosure with SATA and USB connectors that can slide into a 5.25" dock in my desktop. This then gives it a SATA connection straight to the motherboard. If I pull it out, it's immediately portable, albeit with an external power supply. Brilliant - if my house is on fire, I can just yank and take all my personal data. So surprised no-one else makes/sells these any more but I'd pay good money for a decent enclosure that had this feature.
  5. I'm not sure that this drive is 'innovating' as you say as it just refines an existing model. Not saying there isn't value in that (half of Apple's products are evolutionary and we all know what their market cap looks like) but I'd just distinguish from actually inventing something that might become a new paradigm.
  6. Thanks but don't fully comprehend - since what use the same software? Surely not intel SRT & nvelo... But from what you've written, I presume that both SRT and nvelo have different modes where unplugging may result in data loss and others where it doesn't affect HDD data integrity?
  7. PS where I am (UK) the prices of this and the similar sized OCZ are about the same at £72 delivered. Normally I would find it hard to trust OCZ but the performance differential makes them much more compelling. Hence my question about whether they lose data on hot swapping/failure or not - if not, I'd easily get the OCZ, otherwise it's a bit more of a dilemma.
  8. Good write up as always. One question for you and one opinion: Qu: are these nvelo caching drives hot swappable? i.e. if I unplug one while in use, do I risk losing data? If at risk, can you just unplug when computer is off or do you need to uninstall/disable when the computer is on beforehand? Sorry if this is explained elsewhere. Small point on the graphs. They are very compressed vertically and wide horizontally. Whilst this still provides a fair representation of the values you want to represent, the width catches the eye so much that I think it takes away from the visual comparison of relative values. With thinner bars the eye tends to focus on height more, with fat ones, less so (or 'area' more which is harder to compare). Only imho of course. Thanks!
  9. I use sugarsync. Brilliant service and much better than dropbox or box imho. They just need to get their mobile apps easier to use...
  10. "The software itself is also drive agnostic and doesn't require any hardware like a RAID card." Drive agnostic but.... only available via OCZ! Why oh why and when oh when (and how!) is this going to be available as a commercial solution? Or at least via through more vendors' drives?
  11. About time - this has looked like great tech / software for a while and I hope it takes off.
  12. Noli

    SSD Giveaway Thread!

    Love the site - keep up the good work and thanks for the opportunity to win these SSDs!
  13. Thanks for the response and apologies if I sounded pushy. Whilst what they've created isn't completely revolutionary, it seems to me to be by far the best compromise of speed and size and cost for storage. As such, I'm really surprised it hasn't gotten more coverage in the tech review world / blogosphere, compared to all the yet-another-identical-sandforce2-based-SSD reviews! (not that they're pointless but I think we all know what to expect before reading those particular article). Noli
  14. Thanks for the time to reply. Ok I can now see what you did there. Obviously the lower the score the better. In which case I think you may have made a mistake in your calculations. Take a look again at the calculation for Gaming on the Synapse. $350 / 289.45 = 1.209 then divide that by 2 for the terabytes and you get 0.60 which is not the 1.21 that you publish (I think you forgot to divide by 2). Clearly 0.60 is much better and now makes the cached system surpass the RevoDrive for value in Gaming as well as the other two benchmark types. [bTW technically I don't think it is an arbitrary metric - it specifically shows, and can be labelled: $ per MB/s per TB (lower is better) - but I don't really care about that as much as the value conclusion which I think is really important.]
  15. Hi Kevin, First of all, this is a much needed insight into a new burgeoning area. I am especially thrilled that you bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis - something most tech reviewers don't bother to include. Having said that, I found it hard to believe in the numbers that the synapse cached solution wasn't doing better after what I'd read. First, I could not replicate your "Price-Performance-GB" data. Secondly - what does that even *mean*? I think I know what you're getting at though (accounting for all 3 variables to find best value) but I get very different results. I used 2 different methods using your data and both showed similar trends. I will use the Gaming Perf benchmark on the Synapse vs RevoDrive to demonstrate: 1) I calculate the same Price/GB as you have. Here, lower is better obviously (as it means cheaper/gb). Now if we take the performance figures (MB/s so higher is better), it would be best to divide it by the price/gb right? So with the resultant figure, a high performing but expensive solution is tempered and a low performing but cheap solution is bolstered. In Gaming, this gives me final numbers of (where higher is still better): 1654 - Synapse 1122 - Revo 234 - Vertex 194 - Momentus These are actually in line with expectations when I examine the numbers - the Momentus is cheap but not that large and is punished by being *so* slow. The Vertex performs well but is punished by being most expensive *and* not that large. The Revo is expensive but is quite well compensated by being large and very fast. The Synapse has a great mix of everything. 2) Alternatively, you could say that the total 'firepower' of a drive is its performance (mb/s) *multiplied* by its capacity (gb). This accounts for the small and fast trade off of SSDs vs the slow and huge trade off of HDDs. Finally you would then divide this total 'firepower' by the price to give its 'value proposition' (cost per firepower). Here I get (again higher is better): 4660 - Synapse 2773 - Revo 1921 - Momentus 300 - Vertex Sure the Momentus and the Vertex have swapped places but that's largely academic to me - just a different methodology giving different results. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but in that case I'd urge you to at least explain briefly how you got your final figures and what they mean. Otherwise I urge you to carefully rethink what the last 3 lines of your table actually shows as to me this is the crux of the article and I'm not sure it shows what you may think it shows. I'm genuinely not writing all this as criticism but because I really want to understand how valuable and cost effective this new tech is. You're welcome to PM me about it (if indeed you're able to on these forums). Otherwise, great write up. Noli