256GB SSD vs 512GB SSD. Which one?

[theluggage]

Originally Posted by el-John-o

Yeah. I'm really not sure that there is any real-world difference between a 500MB/s SSD and a 900MB/s RAID0 setup, but, it sure is cool for bragging rights! :P

Originally Posted by Ploki

My needs? In real-life i didn't past 200mb/s so far...

Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.

[betman]

Originally Posted by Ploki

true. They're samsung though, all of them i believe

So regardless of size they are all Samsung SSDs?

[needfx]

not the 256, but that really depends on your wallet, usage, other data holders lurking around your home/office, though it is strongly advised to never keep important files on primary disks.

[Ploki]

Originally Posted by betman

So regardless of size they are all Samsung SSDs?

yeah i have 256 and its "Apple SSD SM256E"

----------

Originally Posted by theluggage

Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.

true... :-)

[betman]

Originally Posted by needfx

not the 256

Your 256 GB SSD is made by another manufacturer?

[Ploki]

Originally Posted by betman

Your 256 GB SSD is made by another manufacturer?

mine isn't.

[el-John-o]

Originally Posted by theluggage

Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.

I think so too, it's more for bragging rights.

The real reason I did the RAID 0 was because NewEgg had a sale plus a rebate on 256GB Crucial M4 SSD's, so I got 512GB of storage for under $300, down around $250 when the rebates come in. Score!

But I mean, if you're gonna do it, post the benchmarks right? hehe. It IS helpful working with high resolution DSLR files though, being able to read them at near 1 GigaBYTE per second!

[tivoboy]

I went with the 256GB on a 2.6 15" rMBP. I din'dt really want to fork over the 500$ extra for the 512GB and in a year, I think i'll be able to put a 512GB in there for 200$-250$ or so.

With the 500$ extra $$ I picked up a nice thunderbolt 1TB external, small, thin and self powered for my photo library, itunes library and other stuff.

I can live with it as 256GB for a while, currently after 60 days I'm only using 110GB of the 256GB and that is with all my programs and TWO VM's.

[derbothaus]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

256GB, plus 480GB OWC SSD, plus OWC external blade SSD housing.

Faster SSD, plus a "bonus" USB3 256GB SSD for the grand total of 30 bucks more than just getting the 512GB SSD from Apple.

I don't want OWC garbage. 2 dead already. The 6G's with the good NAND to boot.

----------

Originally Posted by theluggage

Methinks people are getting a bit too obsessed with transfer rates.

AFAIK, unless you're all into 4K video production and continually accessing huge single files, the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.

Yes. The 4k randoms and iops make the difference. Bandwidth hype is marketing. There is too much interaction for the sequential to matter all that much after a certain point.

[betman]

Originally Posted by theluggage

the speed increase from SSDs in general use has little to do with ~2x faster read/write speeds and more to do with the 100x reduction in seek times, that vastly speeds up the reading of multiple small files or multiple processes trying to access the disc.

Hmm, so if I had a server whose primary function was to run a discussion forum with a big 4GB MySQL database then would na SSD help or is a database treated as one file?

[MacMan988]

512GB. It has twice the capacity of the 256GB SSD.

[theluggage]

Originally Posted by betman

Hmm, so if I had a server whose primary function was to run a discussion forum with a big 4GB MySQL database then would na SSD help or is a database treated as one file?

Possibly what I should have said was not "accessing large single files" but "accessing large files sequentially" (as you would with video).

In theory: whether or not the data is in one file is irrelevant as the database will rarely be reading it from start to finish, but will instead be randomly reading and writing chunks of data scattered over the whole database, sending the head of a rotating HD scurrying back and forth. Plus, even if the 'primary function' is a database, there are 101 other processes also accessing data.

However, both OS X and MySQL will cache frequently-accessed data in RAM, so unless you are running on a hand-me-down G4 with 500MB RAM I'd be vaguely surprised if disc access was proving a major bottleneck. You might want to look for some MySQL/Apache/PHP tuning tips before shelling out for an SSD (although you'll probably get sand kicked in your face because of your puny 4GB database :-) ).

The most obvious speed-ups from an SSD are boot times and application loads where data is being read into RAM for the first time.

[chelch]

Originally Posted by MacMan988

512GB. It has twice the capacity of the 256GB SSD.

^^^ Best answer.

But I'm going with the 256GB and 1TB Thunderbolt. I'll upgrade when the prices come down if needed. Thanks all!!

[cosmicjoke]

if you're going to dual boot windows i'd def. get the 512gb