Given the quote of a $6000 computer. There target audience is the Mac Pro owner. So why not make it more compelling?Because it goes into desktops with a sata III connection?
Given the quote of a $6000 computer. There target audience is the Mac Pro owner. So why not make it more compelling?Because it goes into desktops with a sata III connection?
thats not an attractive color
That is my normal working position. ;-)If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes
If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes
Conversations with dead people are always futile....then a conversation between you and Steve Jobs would have been futile
Conversations with dead people are always futile.
thats not an attractive color
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.
thats not an attractive color
It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000
It's inside a computer i.e. not visible.
true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?
...
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.
The entire idea of places a large FLAS storage ion the end of a SATA interface is just a "stop gap" measure. From a design stand point it is a silly waste of expensive FLASH/
The best way is to put the FLASH directly on the PCIe bus with no SATA. But then you can't sell it to people with existing Mac Pros. The non-optimal design s just for marketing to owners of existing computers
The best way to go is to write a block storage driver for FLASH that is directly attached to the bus. It might look and work more like a high end video card and have higher bandwidth then a disk interface would allow.
Notice how Apple is NOT using flash that is pushed into the form factor of a disk. You only need to do that if selling into the after market. The disk-like form factor only adds weight, bulk and cost.
To those who wantto use this in a NAS: "What's the point?" the NAS' speed in limited by the Ethernet cable which for many of use in "only" 1000 bits per second. You can already build a NAS that hits this limit using just low speed disk drives.
----------
There is no point in building a fast NAS with FLASH, not until your install 10G ethernet to the desktop and even with 10G you can still do that with disks if you buy enough of them. Flash does make a nice cache. It can hold pending writes or read aheads
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650
Chris, a pci-e card does make sense whether it is directly on the card or as I stated above, a card that hosts 2-4 2.5" drives (perhaps another interface than SATA). Either the card goes into a Mac Pro or an external case to TBOLT. I find that the entire TBOLT exercise has been a tremendous waste of people's monies as it really is not accessible to the masses at the current pricing. In some sense, Apple did screw its fan base by pushing TBOLT before USB 3 and now we see a new USB 3 that is reasonably faster than the present incarnation. I just hope they are less costly than TBOLT and hopefully beat SATA out.
Sure hope it does RAID 0 for increased speed - with 4 drives, we're at 2 GB/sec !!!
SATA 3 has a 6 GBit/s transfer rate, if the cable supports this speed. That meansArsTechnica said:Dubbed the "Mercury Viper," the bright blue, aluminum-clad SSDs are designed to fit the larger 3.5-inch drive bays found in most tower-style PCs. The extra volume allows OWC to pack more high-capacity NAND chips on a single "board," starting at 240GB and going all the way up to 2TB. OWC also promises 600MB/s transfer rates from the SandForce-powered drives over an SATA 3 connection.