boli

Patron
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About boli

  • Rank
    <a href='/patron.html'><b>StorageReview Patron</b></a>
  1. Fair enough, I appreciate you posting the capacity available to the end user. I just wish you'd call it GiB rather GB. You know, my OS * displays a capacity of 200.05 GB for my OWC SSD, so if I read "formatted capacity 186 GB" I'd scratch my head. Or rather I'd think the reviewers don't know the difference between GB and GiB. And in this particular review you make it sound as if the difference between the nominal capacity (120 GB) and the formatted capacity (~112 GiB) is due to over-provisioning, which is not the case. * Mac OS X 10.6.x. Also I think some Linux distributions display GiB when they mean GiB, unlike Mac OS < 10.6 or any Windows.
  2. I'm with udaman. The drive contains 128 GB of flash, of which 120 GB is "exposed". The RE edition has the same amount of flash, but exposes only 100 GB to the computer. That your OS displays a capacity of 111.79 GB has nothing to do with formatting, and everything with decimal vs binary multiples (your OS should say either 111.79 GiB or 120 GB). As a storage site you must be aware of this, and I'd certainly appreciate if you'd make use of the knowledge in your reviews, in order to educate the readers. Suggesting that ~8 GB is somehow lost due to formatting is misleading at best.
  3. BTW there may be reasons to prefer this SSD over others, but this is not one of them, because every SSD does this so-called wear-levelling (due to the nature of Flash they need to). (I'd love to test a Vertex for myself, but I'm quite happy with the X25-M and not ready to buy a new SSD just yet )
  4. It's only really cheaper if you compare it to Intel's X25-E, which uses much more expensive SLC Flash. I suggest comparing it with the Intel X25-M instead. The Vertex does have a much higher write transfer rate, while the Intel drive seems to be better at random access and has higher IOPS. A quick search brought up this review/comparison. Personally I've been using a MemoRight GT (SLC) SSD for a couple of months, and later an Intel X25-M. I've also tried cheap MLC drives from G.Skill and SoliData X2. The latter is marketed as "Faster than Intel X25-M" at DVNation.com. Unfortunately it doesn't have a cache, so while transfer rates (both read and write) as well as random reads are very good, random writes are extremely slow (to give some numbers: 10'000 random writes of 4 KB each took 23 minutes (!) on the SoliData X2, compared to 30s on a Velociraptor or 1s it took on the X25-M). In practice this means the Intel drive beats it by a wide margin, even though some benchmarks might tell otherwise. I'm aware the Vertex does have a cache, so this shouldn't be an issue. I'm just saying to take any hype with a grain of salt and wait for benchmarks that actually test the things you are interested in. I posted a MemoRight GT SSD vs VelociRaptor article last year. Haven't updated this with benchmarks of newer SSDs yet, but I've posted updated QuickBench scores.
  5. boli

    Fastest HDD on planet?

    Regarding binary vs decimal prefixes in the context of this thread: 1.5TiB hard drive is just wrong, it is a 1.5 TB hard drive. 160-180 MiB/s STR does probably make sense, because the program used to determine STR likely used binary multiples. Without specifying this you would have to know (or guess) which was meant (binary or decimal multiples) by context, which isn't always easy (as I pointed out in the previous post). So I think it's better to define it. It doesn't help if the prefixes are used in the wrong way though. BTW, this just came to mind: I assume the cache on a harddrive is a binary multiple, for example 16 MiB. More evidence of the dual systems in use today...
  6. boli

    Fastest HDD on planet?

    That's not true. In networking, kilobits and megabits are and were always powers of ten. Indeed, and that's not the only exception... RAM: binary File sizes: typically binary (!) But: Disk: decimal Disc: decimal Floppy: binary and decimal mixed (!) * Bit rate (networking): decimal Clock rate: decimal ... * The floppy example is particularly confusing: 160 tracks/side x 9 sectors/track x 512 bytes/sector x 2 sides = 2880 x 512 bytes or 1440 x 1024 bytes = 1440 KiB - often refered to as 1.44 MB (which is soo wrong) Good summary in the wikipedia article: binary prefix That's why personally I think the SI prefixes should be used more often, to do away with the ambiguity. So I try to use the SI binary prefixes when I mean binary multiples - to be clear and precise (rather than "cool"). Note (ramblings): As I've had a scientific education I also think the metric system should be more widely adopted - I mean, powers of 12, come on! Another example would be the physical keyboard layout: why are rows staggered nowadays? Or the logical keyboard layout: why are we still using an inefficient layout? All of these issues just show that an arbitrarily made decision is hard to get away from, because men do not like change.
  7. Yes, I recently added a Caviar Black 1 TB to my computer and replaced the original drive with 320 GB Scorpio Black in my PS3... You might want to take a look at the SR front page, particularly 4 Drives Added to Performance Database...
  8. Assuming the advantages of NCQ show mostly in Multi-User benchmarks I'd say WD does quite a good job. Compare Multi-User Suite results for the WD VelociRaptor, WD Caviar Black vs. Seagate Barracuda ES.2 (enterprise equivalent of 7200.11). The NCQ performance issues discussed in others threads sound like a Windows issue to me.
  9. boli

    Dell video card recommendations

    Little gaming? Then keep the stock Radeon HD 3870. For games the 9800 GT would have been the better choice.
  10. boli

    6*SDHC SDD

    Ok, so the STR of the 6xFlash-cards-in-RAID0 is in the same league as a VelociRaptor, whereas Random Read of 4K and 512K blocks is considerably faster than the VR, and Random Write of 4K and 512K blocks is considerably slower than the VR - which sounds like a typical SSD. A pity access time wasn't tested (or better yet the SR tests ).
  11. boli

    Reliable NAS 1tb hard drive

    Hmm, 1 TB drives haven't been on the market all that long (less than a year in most cases IIRC, except for the Hitachi 7K1000), so I doubt meaningful reliability-numbers can be determined yet. Personally I'd vote for the WD Caviar GP, for two reasons: - it spins at 5400 RPM, thus the mechanical wearout might be less than for 7200 RPM drives. - it's cooler than all other 1 TB drives, which is also good for longevity, especially in potentially hot external cases. Edit: In your case I'd recommend the enterprise version of the WD Caviar GP, that is the WD RE2-GP.
  12. Yeah, if we're lucky the 250 and 500 GB versions use short-stroked 333 or 320 GB platters, and if not maybe 250 GB platters (I assume th 320 GB version gets a single platter). This is of course still an improvement over the RE2 which AFAIK uses 4 platters for the 750 GB version.
  13. Forgott to add: The Caviar Black 750GB might be a bit faster, but it is considerably more expensive, hence I second the recommendation above. (Don't know if the Caviar Black 750GB uses three short-stroked 333GB platters, or three 250GB platters; the WD Caviar Blue 6400AAKS has two 320GB platters.) BTW I own 3 Samsung F1 1TB, none of which have any problems (neither have the 7 WD Caviar GP, nor the Caviar Black 1 TB, VelociRaptor or MemoRight GT SSD).
  14. Recommendations for a good 500+gig drive (WD6400AAKS has good value)
  15. You guys did notice the WD Caviar Black is in the SR Performance DB? WD Caviar Black vs. Samsung F1 vs. WD Caviar GP