What I meant was that during computer USE, the laptop drives stop spinning, unless they are being accessed, while desktop drives don't.
Obviously, when the machine is off, they aren't spinning. That was hardly worth your commenting on.
You should have known what I meant.
Regardless of whether it was worth it or not, you're totally missing the point. This story is about Robson, which is used mainly, if not exclusively, for booting. Nothing more, nothing less. Why is the speed of the drive once it starts spinning relevant when this is used only for booting up and not for storage of normal files and/or programs?
Regardless of whether it was worth it or not, you're totally missing the point. This story is about Robson, which is used mainly, if not exclusively, for booting. Nothing more, nothing less. Why is the speed of the drive once it starts spinning relevant when this is used only for booting up and not for storage of normal files and/or programs?
Because, if you didn't notice, the discussion, as always, moves sideways from the original article to cover the larger issues involved. We do that. You have to get used to it.
Because, if you didn't notice, the discussion, as always, moves sideways from the original article to cover the larger issues involved. We do that. You have to get used to it.
Well the discussion kinda always splits - one alongside the original article with various usual comments. Then one part branches of to a bit of silliness, name calling, and insulting. Then the third part sort of expands rapidly to cover the much much larger ramifications of any AppleInsider article, going far (too) deep into every single dribble of information. 8)
So anyway is there a head-to-head comparison with booting up off say a 512MB or 1GB or 2GB Flash vs a 7200rpm or 15,000rpm SATA2 desktop hard disk? I'd love to see soe benches on this.
I had seen that. The FLASH used in this won't be used in cheaper solutions. They also didn't bother to do any lifetime testing.
Hmm... There are some interesting points out of that but yeah,
1. As you mentioned this Samsung FLASHdrive, how does it compare to, if I used my suggested FlashDrive Array PCIExpress/ SATA2 card that takes say current 2GB modules...
2. They use UtraATA/66 for the Samsung FLASHdrive, that's problematic in the some sense, but the read speed was frickin FAST. Again, current NAND modules on a SATA2 or PCIExpress channel? Speed may be faster?
Writes are problematic because yeah, there is no lifetime data but it seems writes are slowish. However, for my SnapStart FlashDriveArray strategy you wouldn't be writing so much, because it chews up the write cycles and the life of the NAND module. So writes would be more to prep things for FAST READS.
In this case the Samsung FlashDrive halves boot-up speeds. Intel's demo using let's assume newer, fast, NAND modules (maybe somewhat different or could be similar to Samsing FlashDrive) shows quick boot-up speeds.
Clearly booting up is a case where access times extremely favour the virtually instantaneous file addressing of NAND. Coupled with fast read speeds unhampered by something stupidly obsolete like UltraATA/66 and starting Windows, OSX, applications and games could be TehUltraSnappy(tm).
Again we go back to, I suggest, a system of hardware and software that manages a scalable NAND drive array which has a high speed channel into the system BUS. Not something idiotic like UltraATA/66 but SATA2(300MBytes/sec) and PCIExpress (250MBytes/sec per lane).
This system with newer NAND modules could be more favourably used in Bootup and loads of OSes, Apps, and Games.
At say USD $40 per GB of NAND retail, you could have the interface array card at say USD $150, then say 8GB (4x2GB modules) for $320.
A bit tricky here because a WD 74gb 15,000rpm Raptor Hard Disk is USD $160. A pair of two at RAID 0 is $320. I know RAID 0 read/writes have been debatable in terms of improvements in OS, application, and game load times.
But here's an interesting tidbit from HardMac.Com:
They show a mind-blowing almost 300Mbytes/sec read and write speeds, and that seems to be AVERAGE (!) for a four 7200rpm SATA(2?) RAID 0.
It will be interesting to see NAND and HardDisks duke it out for commonly-read blocks of data which do not really change much over time. Throw in access time differences, power consumption, heat, noise, speeds, read/write cycle limitations, no moving parts vs moving parts, it seems like an interesting fight scene laid out over the next few years. As NAND and HardDisks dazzle us for our love. But the way I like it is all ways so we could see a mix of NAND and HardDisks even in desktops.
Looks like Intel's Santa Rosa is going straight for the juicy low-hanging fruit with speeding up boot times using an on-motherboard NAND chippy.
My FlashDriveArray is something a bit more ambitious but we could see that - anyway it was just an idea floating around in my head.
The TomsHardware article provides some more grist for the rumour mill and future "Intel-Apple" genius. ....?!
Writes are problematic because yeah, there is no lifetime data but it seems writes are slowish. However, for my SnapStart FlashDriveArray strategy you wouldn't be writing so much, because it chews up the write cycles and the life of the NAND module. So writes would be more to prep things for FAST READS.
I'm trying to get it straight, because sometimes I mix them up. But NAND and NOR perform differently. One has faster reads, and one has faster writes.
Again we go back to, I suggest, a system of hardware and software that manages a scalable NAND drive array which has a high speed channel into the system BUS. Not something idiotic like UltraATA/66 but SATA2(300MBytes/sec) and PCIExpress (250MBytes/sec per lane).
This system with newer NAND modules could be more favourably used in Bootup and loads of OSes, Apps, and Games.
At say USD $40 per GB of NAND retail, you could have the interface array card at say USD $150, then say 8GB (4x2GB modules) for $320.
A bit tricky here because a WD 74gb 15,000rpm Raptor Hard Disk is USD $160. A pair of two at RAID 0 is $320. I know RAID 0 read/writes have been debatable in terms of improvements in OS, application, and game load times.
But here's an interesting tidbit from HardMac.Com:
They show a mind-blowing almost 300Mbytes/sec read and write speeds, and that seems to be AVERAGE (!) for a four 7200rpm SATA(2?) RAID 0.
It will be interesting to see NAND and HardDisks duke it out for commonly-read blocks of data which do not really change much over time. Throw in access time differences, power consumption, heat, noise, speeds, read/write cycle limitations, no moving parts vs moving parts, it seems like an interesting fight scene laid out over the next few years. As NAND and HardDisks dazzle us for our love. But the way I like it is all ways so we could see a mix of NAND and HardDisks even in desktops.
Looks like Intel's Santa Rosa is going straight for the juicy low-hanging fruit with speeding up boot times using an on-motherboard NAND chippy.
My FlashDriveArray is something a bit more ambitious but we could see that - anyway it was just an idea floating around in my head.
The TomsHardware article provides some more grist for the rumour mill and future "Intel-Apple" genius. ....?!
I'll post this again, as it's the way the future for FLASH will be heading. It will be much more effective than this current stuff.
Comments
If nand on the motherboard makes things faster, then why wouldn't they be interested in doing it with the desktops too?
Desktop hard drives are fast enough where the performance boost would not be as noticable (if at all).
Continue to rotate when the power is *off*? I said booting up not waking up.
What I meant was that during computer USE, the laptop drives stop spinning, unless they are being accessed, while desktop drives don't.
Obviously, when the machine is off, they aren't spinning. That was hardly worth your commenting on.
You should have known what I meant.
What I meant was that during computer USE, the laptop drives stop spinning, unless they are being accessed, while desktop drives don't.
Obviously, when the machine is off, they aren't spinning. That was hardly worth your commenting on.
You should have known what I meant.
Regardless of whether it was worth it or not, you're totally missing the point. This story is about Robson, which is used mainly, if not exclusively, for booting. Nothing more, nothing less. Why is the speed of the drive once it starts spinning relevant when this is used only for booting up and not for storage of normal files and/or programs?
Regardless of whether it was worth it or not, you're totally missing the point. This story is about Robson, which is used mainly, if not exclusively, for booting. Nothing more, nothing less. Why is the speed of the drive once it starts spinning relevant when this is used only for booting up and not for storage of normal files and/or programs?
Because, if you didn't notice, the discussion, as always, moves sideways from the original article to cover the larger issues involved. We do that. You have to get used to it.
This story is about Robson, which is used mainly, if not exclusively, for booting.
That is incorrect, sir.
Because, if you didn't notice, the discussion, as always, moves sideways from the original article to cover the larger issues involved. We do that. You have to get used to it.
Well the discussion kinda always splits - one alongside the original article with various usual comments. Then one part branches of to a bit of silliness, name calling, and insulting. Then the third part sort of expands rapidly to cover the much much larger ramifications of any AppleInsider article, going far (too) deep into every single dribble of information.
So anyway is there a head-to-head comparison with booting up off say a 512MB or 1GB or 2GB Flash vs a 7200rpm or 15,000rpm SATA2 desktop hard disk? I'd love to see soe benches on this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/...ve_obsoletism/
Here's one, I'll have to read it later. Going for lunch. Some sashimi sounds good
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/...ve_obsoletism/
I had seen that. The FLASH used in this won't be used in cheaper solutions. They also didn't bother to do any lifetime testing.
I had seen that. The FLASH used in this won't be used in cheaper solutions. They also didn't bother to do any lifetime testing.
Hmm... There are some interesting points out of that but yeah,
1. As you mentioned this Samsung FLASHdrive, how does it compare to, if I used my suggested FlashDrive Array PCIExpress/ SATA2 card that takes say current 2GB modules...
2. They use UtraATA/66 for the Samsung FLASHdrive, that's problematic in the some sense, but the read speed was frickin FAST. Again, current NAND modules on a SATA2 or PCIExpress channel? Speed may be faster?
Clearly booting up is a case where access times extremely favour the virtually instantaneous file addressing of NAND. Coupled with fast read speeds unhampered by something stupidly obsolete like UltraATA/66 and starting Windows, OSX, applications and games could be TehUltraSnappy(tm).
This system with newer NAND modules could be more favourably used in Bootup and loads of OSes, Apps, and Games.
At say USD $40 per GB of NAND retail, you could have the interface array card at say USD $150, then say 8GB (4x2GB modules) for $320.
A bit tricky here because a WD 74gb 15,000rpm Raptor Hard Disk is USD $160. A pair of two at RAID 0 is $320. I know RAID 0 read/writes have been debatable in terms of improvements in OS, application, and game load times.
But here's an interesting tidbit from HardMac.Com:
http://hardmac.com/news/2006-09-28/#5971
They show a mind-blowing almost 300Mbytes/sec read and write speeds, and that seems to be AVERAGE (!) for a four 7200rpm SATA(2?) RAID 0.
It will be interesting to see NAND and HardDisks duke it out for commonly-read blocks of data which do not really change much over time. Throw in access time differences, power consumption, heat, noise, speeds, read/write cycle limitations, no moving parts vs moving parts, it seems like an interesting fight scene laid out over the next few years. As NAND and HardDisks dazzle us for our love. But the way I like it is all ways so we could see a mix of NAND and HardDisks even in desktops.
Looks like Intel's Santa Rosa is going straight for the juicy low-hanging fruit with speeding up boot times using an on-motherboard NAND chippy.
My FlashDriveArray is something a bit more ambitious but we could see that - anyway it was just an idea floating around in my head.
The TomsHardware article provides some more grist for the rumour mill and future "Intel-Apple" genius. ....?!
Writes are problematic because yeah, there is no lifetime data but it seems writes are slowish. However, for my SnapStart FlashDriveArray strategy you wouldn't be writing so much, because it chews up the write cycles and the life of the NAND module. So writes would be more to prep things for FAST READS.
I'm trying to get it straight, because sometimes I mix them up. But NAND and NOR perform differently. One has faster reads, and one has faster writes.
Again we go back to, I suggest, a system of hardware and software that manages a scalable NAND drive array which has a high speed channel into the system BUS. Not something idiotic like UltraATA/66 but SATA2(300MBytes/sec) and PCIExpress (250MBytes/sec per lane).
This system with newer NAND modules could be more favourably used in Bootup and loads of OSes, Apps, and Games.
At say USD $40 per GB of NAND retail, you could have the interface array card at say USD $150, then say 8GB (4x2GB modules) for $320.
A bit tricky here because a WD 74gb 15,000rpm Raptor Hard Disk is USD $160. A pair of two at RAID 0 is $320. I know RAID 0 read/writes have been debatable in terms of improvements in OS, application, and game load times.
But here's an interesting tidbit from HardMac.Com:
http://hardmac.com/news/2006-09-28/#5971
They show a mind-blowing almost 300Mbytes/sec read and write speeds, and that seems to be AVERAGE (!) for a four 7200rpm SATA(2?) RAID 0.
It will be interesting to see NAND and HardDisks duke it out for commonly-read blocks of data which do not really change much over time. Throw in access time differences, power consumption, heat, noise, speeds, read/write cycle limitations, no moving parts vs moving parts, it seems like an interesting fight scene laid out over the next few years. As NAND and HardDisks dazzle us for our love. But the way I like it is all ways so we could see a mix of NAND and HardDisks even in desktops.
Looks like Intel's Santa Rosa is going straight for the juicy low-hanging fruit with speeding up boot times using an on-motherboard NAND chippy.
My FlashDriveArray is something a bit more ambitious but we could see that - anyway it was just an idea floating around in my head.
The TomsHardware article provides some more grist for the rumour mill and future "Intel-Apple" genius. ....?!
I'll post this again, as it's the way the future for FLASH will be heading. It will be much more effective than this current stuff.
http://samsung.com/PressCenter/Press...911_0000286481