Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Intel SSD X25M Gen2 almost here
- Thread starter snowboarder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Read what I said....more than 25% of the SSD capacity. I don't have it backward, it matches up to what Intel said. They said less than 20GB a day, it should last 5 years. I'm saying more than 25% (more than 20GB) will shorten the lifespan down.
Seq write is not important when it comes to random writes. Typical user is like 65% random/35% seq.
Imagine your Browser, writing to multiple files for cookies, bookmarks, history, they are not in seq order. Add more multiple programs, like antivirus, email and so on, they can work in randomly order for reading and writing.
However OCZ would be better for people who mainly use the SSD for transferring huge files all the time as seq speed is more important than random in that situation.
Fun fact: most hdd is only less than 0.8MBps random speed for both read and write. So even an SSD that can do just 10MBps is extremely fast compared to a typical hd.
No you wont. The changing in counting from Base 2 to Base 10 make it seem like you got data back but really you didn't. I have 10A380 on a 20GB (Gibibyte that is with Base 2 counting) partition and SL takes up 8.76GB with just the base install and Rosetta (which is 3.5MB). That's no lees than what Leopard takes.
SL will be a lighter install. Thats why you will gain back space.
Also, sequential writes are very unimportant compared to random ones. You can buy your 250mb/s write drives, at least I won't suffer with 2mb/s randoms.
Are you running SL Beta? The base install of SL (10A380) is 7.99GB or 7.44GiB. The Base install of 10.5.6 is 6.1GiB. Snow Leopard is heavier.
Here's an article with some preliminary tests from Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3607
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3607
Guys so I read all the pages, but It wasn't clear for me if these new SSD's are already for sale or not, could anyone point me where can I buy ?
Thanks!
They are shipping the drives to the retailers this week. Many of the stores already have it in their systems, they are just waiting for the supply to come in.
How are you calculating the space? I don't think Apple meant base install size, instead they probably meant that upgrading Leopard to Snow Leopard will reduce the amount of crap that piles up over time from updates, installers and other crap like PPC code and it will get rid of those which can take up to 6GB.
Remember that Apple is intending Snow Leopard to be a simple upgrade for all Leopard users, not to be used as clean install. Most likely SL by itself will be smaller but not 6GB smaller due to the simple fact that it is a pure Intel codebase with no PPC crap.
We'll have to see the final version to see what's going on.
Also, this is pretty similiar to what SP2 of Vista did for people who installed it on top of both original and SP1. SP2 removed up to 20GB of crap from everybody's main partition, by removing all the shadow copies of the system partition, cache, and so on.
Basically it is getting rid of the excess space, not that the Vista is lighter.
The thing is, I already own a G1 80GB unit, so thinking is to add a G2 cheaper unit and have a faster, bigger boot volume. Don't think Apple's software RAID would balk at the different model numbers?
I own the gen 1 as well.
Doing a RAID 0 with the gen1 and gen 2 should not impede latency much. Latency in SSD is already so low so it's moot. Speed-wise, it should double the speed of the slower of the 2 drives; in this case it will be the gen 1. Overall speed will be boosted immediately, and I reckon even if the speed does not reach the optimum threshold of 2x, I think a 1.7x-1.9x should suffice given the lower cost of the gen 2.
However you gonna see significant improvement in large block seek time. The larger the block, the more apparent the improvement of SSD RAID 0.
Doing a RAID 0 with the gen1 and gen 2 should not impede latency much. Latency in SSD is already so low so it's moot. Speed-wise, it should double the speed of the slower of the 2 drives; in this case it will be the gen 1. Overall speed will be boosted immediately, and I reckon even if the speed does not reach the optimum threshold of 2x, I think a 1.7x-1.9x should suffice given the lower cost of the gen 2.
However you gonna see significant improvement in large block seek time. The larger the block, the more apparent the improvement of SSD RAID 0.
What's the difference between the 9 mm and the 7 mm?
Which one should we get for the MBP and how do we know which one we need for other computers (Lenovo T500 to be specific).
Which one should we get for the MBP and how do we know which one we need for other computers (Lenovo T500 to be specific).
Get the 9mm, it is the size for standard 2.5in hard drives. The 7mm is the 1.8in hard drive for products like the Macbook Air.
You're right, the latency is so low in SSD, it shouldn't impede it at all but it will impede latency if you're using two different SSD with different latency seeks. It depends on the RAID controller, some onboard RAID controllers are actually faster for SSD than the real dedicated RAID cards. Many RAID cards were not designed for SSD, they were designed for hard drives. You won't get the benefit of the faster latency from Gen2. You might as well get Gen1 in RAID0 as it is always recommended to get the exact same model for any kind of RAID0 setup anyway. I think once the Gen2 comes out, Gen1 will probably drop prices as result as retailers need to clear the stock.
Gen 2 is 7mm but Intel added spacer on top to make it 9mm. So you get both anyway.
I am thinking about going for 160gb one, maybe I should go for two 80gb ones and put them in Raid0? (assuming I can safely remove the optical bay without breaking my MBP)
What do you guys think?
SSD is already fast enough but will the Raid0 make that much of difference in performance?
What do you guys think?
SSD is already fast enough but will the Raid0 make that much of difference in performance?
I am thinking about going for 160gb one, maybe I should go for two 80gb ones and put them in Raid0? (assuming I can safely remove the optical bay without breaking my MBP)
What do you guys think?
SSD is already fast enough but will the Raid0 make that much of difference in performance?
Depends on what you're doing.
In responsiveness, probably not, in transfer speed yes. The latency is so frigging low, it won't get any faster no matter how many SSD in RAID0 you have. You are basically just doubling the sustained seq transfer as well as random operatiions. Because the slight increase in random operations, you'll see things get done faster when you're multitasking seriously.
But if you're just a typical user, it is not worth the RAID0 inside your laptop. 160gb is fast enough for you.
Anything over 150 MBps of seq. read write is pretty much useless since you don't have a way to transfer files to and from your computer at such speed (Gb LAN tops around 100-120MB/s and so does e-sata if I am not mistaken).
It's all about latency and random speeds. So you're better off with a single 160gb drive and your secondary SATA port free for future upgrades.
It's all about latency and random speeds. So you're better off with a single 160gb drive and your secondary SATA port free for future upgrades.
That depends on how much is the price drop for the Gen 1. I am never in doubt that we will not attain the latency of the Gen 2, that I had already mentioned previously. However we can benefit from the fact that we are getting a newer technology at a lower price if we get the Gen 2. In any event if one opts to unRAID in the future, we have the comfort to know the spare SSD that goes elsewhere is not some outdated hardware. Though raiding with same model for RAID0 is theoretically sound, but in the context of SSD, model homogeneity raid0 has an almost negligible real life effect, since SSD latency itself is so low. Even if latency increase threefold, it will still be much faster than any conventional hdd raid0. To me, the latency increment is inconsequential in real life performance. We are talking about SSD here. Regardless, I agree with what you said from a theoretical standpoint.
Having said that, if there is a substantial price drop for the Gen 1, that might actually convince me to get one. Else it will be the Gen 2.
P.S. Since this is posted in the MBP section, raid cards are redundant.
Software raid FTW.
how much do SSD prices come down per month (usually)?
i consider a 160GB at $450 but i'm waiting because i think about a 13"MBP and/or tablet mac.
If those drives come down to 300 bucks by x-mas then tyhere will be an unbelievable rush on those because everybody will upgrade their old or new computer with those.
for most cutomers those drives make you think you get a twice as fast machine.
i consider a 160GB at $450 but i'm waiting because i think about a 13"MBP and/or tablet mac.
If those drives come down to 300 bucks by x-mas then tyhere will be an unbelievable rush on those because everybody will upgrade their old or new computer with those.
for most cutomers those drives make you think you get a twice as fast machine.