SSD vs HDD

Why do people keep saying SSDs are a meme?

Attached: ssd-vs-raid0hdd.png (1328x573, 295K)

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/12541/unlimited-5-year-endurance-100-tb-ssd
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

SSDs are more expensive than HDDs per 1GB.

The poor don't like to be reminded of what they can't afford so they try and convince themselves it's a meme and don't wan't it.

Obvious shit is obvious.

But your OS doesn't need a TiB to run, just get a cheapo SSD and put the OS on there, then put the rest of your shit on the HDD

literally this

source: personal experience

They aren't a meme, but they also aren't worth the increase in price for the layman.

It's kind of like OLED TVs. No doubt they provide a better picture, but there hits a point of diminishing returns, especially when you can get an LED equivalent from Sony for like 10% of the cost (and it gets even cheaper if you go to bargain-bin brands).

SSDs are the future, same as USB-C. But, like all newer tech, it takes a while for production costs to come down enough to where the tech will be ubiquitous.

I can use two HDDs rather than HDD and SSD.

see pic related

I could install 8 more TBs instead of 250 GB SSD.

"But if you installed the 250GB SSD, you could save a whole 45 seconds of boot time!"
I'm not actually for SSDs at the moment, I'm just guessing the next argument that will be made.

8x250GB SSD > 8TB HDD

#poorpeopleproblems

it still won't do 3 gigabyte per second

They're poor.

>2TB SSD > 8TB HDD

Attached: 1518434844001-int.gif (213x222, 351K)

Are you guys telling me that there are people who are not smackheads and crackheads that cannod afford an SSD?

Are you guys shitting me? An SSD will cost, what?, well in British money about £60 ! that is about 85 US dollars hahahahahahahaha
Damn I would have thought that unless youre jabbing a hypodermic needle into your balls to find a vein then you could afford that

Poor people are poor, more at 11!

>hello I have come from the year 2007 to deliver this message

why not both?

Poverty.

ran out of sata ports on mobo

>he cant afford a 15.5TB SSD
lmao poorfags

Attached: 1500573769868.png (1123x490, 92K)

Oh you mean like homeless people and those people who walk around with bottles in a brown paper bag, the ones who shake their fist at the sky and shout stuff like "gerrrr fuck you god come down and fight me ya bastard"

Or do you mean people who are so poor their 3 year old kid gets a couple of biscuits and a glass of pepsi for breakfast while the parents watch TV before collecting social security?

Yes, poor people.

>15 TB SSD vs 800 TB of HDDs

>1 slot in a tiny U1 blade vs an entire network rack and all the extra cooling and power it requires

that thing sucks, 640 MB/s is pathetic

holy shit.

They're not even that expensive anymore. You can get basic 2.5"/m.2 250gb ones for under $80 at times.

what the hell is the average user going to use 800TB of storage for? I have a 256 GB ssd in my one laptop and a 1Tb in the other, and neither are anywhere close to running out of room

>not a single post about NVMe
Sup Forums is pathetic

Attached: nvme.png (1536x592, 165K)

>he doesn't use NVMe in RAID

Attached: 7553_53_samsung-950-pro-2-pcie-gen-3x4-nvme-ssd-raid-report.png (406x364, 183K)

It's the "everything I can't afford is a meme" complex.
Just ignore.

Attached: 1521359545239.jpg (482x482, 28K)

Should I get one of those to pair with 2200G APU?

>he doesn't use memetane for superior random read/write that is what a computer does 99% of the time

Attached: image-1[1].png (402x367, 29K)

a __lot__ of porn.

Why are you comparing an array with one disk?

That's still more expensive than magnetic drives, it adds up when you have to buy dozens. Of course the children here playing with their dad's work laptop don't need to worry about this.

to show that even a bunch of HDDs working together still can't beat an SSD in speeds or latency

It was a meme 4 years ago. Today, not so much since prices have dropped. If you cant even afford a 256gib ssd, you should consider death.

Because they're too poor.

boot times are irrelevant nowdays, i reboot my pc once a week to once a month
but fileaccessspeed, lower power consumption (less heat) and no moving parts is a huge advantage

They're only a meme for long term and/or large capacity storage. But they're fantastic as boot disks. I've put at least one in nearly every machine I own.

The 275GB Crucial SSD I'm using now was only $90. They aren't expensive at all.

SSDs are cheap as fuck unless you're planning on archiving all your pirated software.

Happened to me and I will advise against one of those pci sata things. For some reason, even though my OS is on an ssd plugged into slot one of the mobo, my fucking desktop takes like 7 or 8 seconds to even get to the loading screens once I installed it. From there it's as fast as it should be but it's really odd

People who think SSDs are a meme don’t understand how virtual memory works

On linux, I don't really see a difference between SSD and HDD

op is nvme

SSDs had some issues 7-8 years ago that are not present today. People on Sup Forums are pants on head retarded and think those issues still exist.

for example?

Sandforce
OCZ

These issues are largely gone, but cheap drives, like the PNY CS1311 don't like to be used as cache for tiered storage.

And their warranty sucks.

Sandisk Ultra 2s were cheap a bit ago, the 4 or 5 I have have been abused and run well still.

This

I somehow get fucked reading speeds while getting much faster writing speed.

Attached: DiskMark64S_2018-03-19_04-02-23.png (1604x1379, 1.78M)

Workload ratings were shit at first. Been vastly improved over the years even at the consumer level where you'll never have to worry about this. If you buy enterprise SSDs the workload ratings are even more insane.

I haven't had issues with my SSDs, they've all been fast, even up to like 80% capacity filled.

Of course the speed is gonna suffer when I copy from one place of the drive to another, but I get decent speed from the raid configuration.

Attached: explorer_2018-03-19_04-08-33.png (898x581, 23K)

what is the raid configuration

RAID1+0

They are not enabling you to do something, that you could not do before. You can't play a game if your video card is not good enough. You will have longer loading times if you have HDD and not SSD.

# of disks? and is that a BIOS fakeraid or hardware PCI raid?

>play open world game with very large textures on HDD
Stuttering madness

>play open world game with very large textures on SSD
Smooth as possible withing GPU/CPU/RAM limitations.

4+4
hardware (RS3UC080)

that's legit
i must know if it can do 3 gigabyte per second now

I sadly can't test it since I only have one server, but it should hit 3GB/s+ since it can write+read at 1.97GB/s,
so take that and multiply by two and +/- a few hundred MB/s.
I've never had enough peers connected to hit a transfer bottleneck so far.

>casual 10k discount
yeah nah

>Stuttering madness
Not if you use linux

The RAM caching just pops any 4k, 2M, and 1GB chunks of disk into free memory when requested, effectively reducing latency on request to nano second and smoothing out the bumps.

HDDs are unsable in windows where the scheduler just clobbers more I/O when programs request it and only use RAM for writeback.

>Linux
>gaming

You haven't played FFXV with the 4K textures.

Linux actually allows you to throw more RAM at the problem of disk speed and have it work.
That's what the yellow bar is in htop.

My passthrough takes care of SSD caching as well with a 16GB SSD hooked up to a 1TB and the RAM acts as the last layer, XFS over the rest.

It's still technically NTFS under it all but the RAM backing speeds it up significantly and XFS keeps overhead low.
Game devs could have a shitload less problems to deal with if they wanted to make viable linux ports, besides the AMD free and open drivers are HOT ATM.

I tested my setup disks in passthrough to windows 10
these readings for my raid0 > cryptdevice > brtfs > qcow2 image for windows 10 don't make any sense compared to what I found by just testing the mdadm block device

Attached: ssd-vs-raid0hdd.png (1328x925, 366K)

You can get SSDs for 20 € used nowadays. The 500 GB EVOs cost around 120 €.

What a fucking waste. Better off buying infidividual 1-2tb SSDs, raiding that shit and gaining a fuckload of performance.

These are server grade SSDs.

Raiding is shit in a time where NVMe exists. But RAIDING NVMe is even better if you have the lanes and money.

>And their warranty sucks
I had 5 years on my Plextor, same as my WD HDD.

poor fag

Kek

Or poor as in I can buy 120 loaves of bread for the price of a shitty SSD

Or poor as in I can buy 120 loaves of bread for the price of a shitty SSD

No one says that anymore. The price per GB and lifespan of drives has improved significantly.

Wow congratulations, it only took 5 years for SSDs to reach DDR1 RAMdisk speeds

Until they come out with 5TB SSD for ~$100, its useless.

Nah, they are using poorboy $300-500 solutions, the high-end nvme raid gets full 15.54GB/s saturation of 128Gib bandwidth. This beats DDR3 as far as throughput, latency is another thing entirely.

Gaming on linux just slaps 25% of my FPS away so who cares

So what you be sayin is, I can spend 10x the money for the same performance?

a ram disk won't be persistent

I want one. Heck, I'm fine even with a SATA one, even though I'd like an NVMe. But money doesn't grow on trees.

So I'll check my facebook real quick while my SSD offloads the saved image of the ramdisk if I have to restart my PC

anandtech.com/show/12541/unlimited-5-year-endurance-100-tb-ssd

>100TB on single SSD NAND 3.5 inch

You can spend 10x the money for superior read/writes by a factor of 3x. The fastest storage solution is 2x Asus Hyper M.2 x16 + 8x Samsung SM961 in VROC.

Reads:
Seq(Q32T1) 15464
4KiB(Q32T4) 3867.9
4KiB(Q8T8) 3729.1
4KiB(Q1T1) 1450.7

Writes:
Seq(Q32T1) 14682
4KiB(Q32T4) 4124.3
4KiB(Q8T8) 3207.6
4KiB(Q1T1) 1010.8

So how does that compare to 3ghz ddr4

HDD's are more reliable in the long run 5+ years. newer SSD's are advertised to last the same but it hasn't been long enough to know.

It would cost you $10k+ to buy 8TB of 2.4ghz ddr4, let alone 3ghz. You can also boot of of this, you can also install many applications, and even use it as virtual ram as a cheaper ram alternative that yeilds similar results for largely ram intensive computing, such as hightmap generation.

I'm talking about bandwidth and latency

I'm using 1333 ddr3 on athlon so that's why I'm asking

>tfw my OCZ vertex 3 is now almost 6 years old
Did I luck out or am I moments away from critical failure? I've plenty of other ssds laying around but I don't feel like it's needed.

Ddr4 would@3k would have marginally better latency than ddr3@3ghz, the throughput is roughly 16gbps per channel

you're probably not really making that many writes

that's not the point of a ssd
the point is to have your frequently used binaries and files ready to go at 3GB/s, not some currently cached in ram picture you downloaded at 100megabit/s

>still using mechanical drives

Attached: poorfags cannot compete.png (396x72, 5K)

It's a meme to call them a meme.