SPCR
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/

News: Sandybridge, Bulldozer and UEFI
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=60264
Page 1 of 1

Author:  MikeC [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  News: Sandybridge, Bulldozer and UEFI

http://www.silentpcreview.com/Sandybrid ... r_and_UEFI

Author:  dhanson865 [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

When I have a >2TB SSD I'll worry about booting from a >2TB drive. :)

Seriously anyone that makes a storage drive their boot drive right now isn't paying attention.

Author:  Mats [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

dhanson865 wrote:
Seriously anyone that makes a storage drive their boot drive right now isn't paying attention.

I agree. Still, iMacs can be configured with a single 2 TB drive, haha.

Author:  widowmaker [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm more interested in the promised blazing fast boot times of UEFI. Maybe when paired with SSDs I can finally have a machine ready before I'm done scratching my butt. :wink:

Author:  Monkeh16 [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

dhanson865 wrote:
When I have a >2TB SSD I'll worry about booting from a >2TB drive. :)

Seriously anyone that makes a storage drive their boot drive right now isn't paying attention.


Or, alternatively, they're using a large hardware RAID array which makes an SSD a pointless expense. ;)

Author:  Modo [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

This, the new Intel SSDs, new AMD CPUs, new Radeons—there's a very interesting synergy of product launches.

Author:  andymcca [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:09 am ]
Post subject:  hmm

Monkeh16 wrote:
Or, alternatively, they're using a large hardware RAID array which makes an SSD a pointless expense. ;)
Afaik you would need something like a 6+ disk RAID1 array to match the random access times of a good SSD. Talk about a pointless expense :D The SSD is probably the less expensive option if all you care about is boot/load times. (again, afaik)

Oh, and linux software raid ftw!

Author:  Metaluna [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: hmm

andymcca wrote:
Afaik you would need something like a 6+ disk RAID1 array to match the random access times of a good SSD. Talk about a pointless expense :D The SSD is probably the less expensive option if all you care about is boot/load times. (again, afaik)

Oh, and linux software raid ftw!


Also, from a system administration point of view, I would think you'd generally want to keep a RAID like that as a separate resource that can be taken offline for maintenance, etc., rather than having the added complication of saddling it with the bootable OS partition.

Author:  Monkeh16 [ Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: hmm

andymcca wrote:
Monkeh16 wrote:
Or, alternatively, they're using a large hardware RAID array which makes an SSD a pointless expense. ;)
Afaik you would need something like a 6+ disk RAID1 array to match the random access times of a good SSD. Talk about a pointless expense :D The SSD is probably the less expensive option if all you care about is boot/load times. (again, afaik)

Oh, and linux software raid ftw!


I know people with 6+ disk RAID5 arrays. Hardware with battery backing and RAM for performance. They make SSDs look like cheap toys, oh, and they store terabytes, not gigabytes. ;)

And yeah, software RAID is great.. Except it doesn't scale all that effectively to large arrays. A hardware controller is a much more effective option for arrays containing more than a handful of drives.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/