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.
SSD Drives for Mac Pro Boot Drive?
- Thread starter netdog
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a laptop thing generally, but it's possible that Leopard took a dose of stupid and enabled it on your machine, though I don't know how such a thing would happen.
http://brockwoolf.com/safe-sleep-guide-for-mac-os-x
Intel X25-M in Mac Pro
Guys
I got an Intel X25-M (2.5") when they first came out and purchased the MaxUpgrades "sled" for Velociraptor drives and it fit the drive and went into my Mac Pro perfectly.
The speed and responsiveness of the system has been nothing less than stellar! With Intel X25-M's now going for under $400 why would you not want to get one as your boot drive??
Aaron
Guys
I got an Intel X25-M (2.5") when they first came out and purchased the MaxUpgrades "sled" for Velociraptor drives and it fit the drive and went into my Mac Pro perfectly.
The speed and responsiveness of the system has been nothing less than stellar! With Intel X25-M's now going for under $400 why would you not want to get one as your boot drive??
Aaron
Because the 160GB model I'd need to hold my system and applications is a damned sight more expensive, for starters
But in all seriousness, the write speeds still aren't quite there as far as I'm concerned.
Its worth taking a look at Tom's Hardware, there are a number of reviews worth looking at. The Intel X25-E is probably one of the best out there - not all SSDs are the same as others have already stated.
You may or may not know that the cells in SSDs 'die' after a certain number of write operations; the enterprise class SSDs account for this and have algorithms that spread the writes as well as building in allowance for dying cells over time. Take a look at the MTBF and warranties as well; many of these are only two years.
In terms of performance SLC will outperform the lower priced MLC, some of the higher end Mtron and OCZ seem to come out well but you really want to look at other people's experiences. SSDs are still relatively new and I am still reading about compatibility/support issues people are experiencing with various setups; an expensive problem making for me at least the WD VelociRaptor a more attractive and larger capacity alternative at this time.
Maybe because a couple of fast 7k drives in Raid0 are just as fast, more proven, much cheaper and offer many times the space ?
Or is it because boot drive speed is neglectable ?
Maybe because a couple of fast 7k drives in Raid0 are just as fast, more proven, much cheaper and offer many times the space ?
Or is it because boot drive speed is neglectable ?
Well personally I would never raid0 anything, but that's just me. They certainly are NOT as fast with regards to latency, which makes a big difference in the experience. For outright write/read speeds yes, but that's not the whole picture.
For those of us coming from scsi backgrounds and used to 15K drives, it's very noticable the difference in system response with faster drives, it is not all about max read/write speeds.
I considered the velociraptor route and almost went that way, but I must tell you the overall "snappiness" factor is quite impressive with the SSD. Programs just open immediately. It just makes things fun!
Cost effective, probably not. Much better a year from now, certainly! Still some bugs - absolutely. I'm hanging in there however. I just got a new mac pro and felt it was a good time to fool around with this new technology. But honestly waiting a year will bring big improvements and probably what most people should do.
Maybe because a couple of fast 7k drives in Raid0 are just as fast, more proven, much cheaper and offer many times the space ?
Or is it because boot drive speed is neglectable ?
But 7200/10000/15000rpm drives are all prone to mechanical failure..
Nice to hear there are some folks on the cutting edge
What previous boot drive are you comparing the write speeds to? Also did you install the drive with an adaptor in one of the 3.5" bays? Could you not install Leopard straight from the DVD?
The MTBF of the Intel X25-M is the same as Enterprise class Seagate drives. In other words, don't assume because they are solid state that SSD drives are less likely to fail.
S-
Nice to hear there are some folks on the cutting edge
What previous boot drive are you comparing the write speeds to? Also did you install the drive with an adaptor in one of the 3.5" bays? Could you not install Leopard straight from the DVD?
I've used old raptors (not veloci) but most recently a 750gb Seagate.
I bought an adaptor, just for looks sake. No, couldn't install straight from DVD, though others have reported being able to do so. There is a thread in the macbook forum that has more info on this, I tagged along on someone elses thread there.
Fine. But why mention it unless you are suggesting that the reliability of the SSD is higher than a mechanical drive?
S-
Are you sure about that? They just make it up then? Please quote sources....
A hard drive with a 1.2 million hour MTBF is not any less reliable than an SSD with a 1.2 million MTBF. In fact, I would tend to trust the hard drive MTBF number more than the SSD number since they have a much shorter history.
S-
Well to me it's part of the pleasure of using a computer. I can't really describe it, but when I click on safari or mail and it's open -instantly- it really doesn't impact my day gaining that extra 1-2 seconds, but it does somehow deep down inside my geekly soul please me.
Ever since I've owned computers the delay in waiting for them to do what I've asked them to has annoyed me. Maybe I'm abnormal, but a few short seconds here and there seem an eternity to me sometimes.
Some people will blow a couple hundred bucks on a bottle of wine and take enjoyment in that. I take enjoyment in using fine computer equipment that does the job quickly and efficiently and allows me to be creative. That's why I started using my Mac, why I bought the Mac Pro, and why the SSD seems a "once you've used one there is no going back" type event in my computing experience (and I've owned computers now for 25 years).
YMMV, of course, but maybe to some people what I've just written might resonate.
I've been hopping the fence on current-SSD's each way for a while, and you've made a very eloquent point for me to chew on.
I know what you mean, I'm a bit of a geek myself - posting on computer related message boards and all that
.It's just that I'm using my computers for work, and when someone mentions speed in the back of my head that gets connected to application performance only.
As for system response, it almost seems to me the faster the hardware gets, the slower and more bloated they make the OS and basic apps like Mail or Safari.
I remember the days when I first installed OS 10.1 on my B/W G3, and compared that to OS 8.6 ...
dr. shdw,
Note: MTBF and MTTF are two different measurements. Manufacturers us MTBF so I am not sure why the article decides to use the MTBF as if it were an MTTF.
That article, while interesting, does not suggest that MTBF numbers are made up. Just that the testing methodology employed by the manufacturers does not match real world numbers. Not surprising since the MTBF tests are done without access to real world data. This does not mean that the MTBF numbers cannot be used to get an idea of which drives are likely to be more reliable than others. In other words, a drive with 10 percent more MTBF hours is likely to be more reliable.
Obviously the MTBF numbers are created using statistical analysis estimations. How can a product that has been out for a year (8760 hours) have real world data to suggest it could last 1.2 million hours? That's almost 137 years.
View MTBF as a reliability score, not as actual reliability. The higher the MTBF, the more reliable the drive is likely to be.
In this case, with an MTBF of 1.2 Million hours, the Seagate ES drives are likely to be as reliable as the Intel X25-M.
S-
Note: MTBF and MTTF are two different measurements. Manufacturers us MTBF so I am not sure why the article decides to use the MTBF as if it were an MTTF.
That article, while interesting, does not suggest that MTBF numbers are made up. Just that the testing methodology employed by the manufacturers does not match real world numbers. Not surprising since the MTBF tests are done without access to real world data. This does not mean that the MTBF numbers cannot be used to get an idea of which drives are likely to be more reliable than others. In other words, a drive with 10 percent more MTBF hours is likely to be more reliable.
Obviously the MTBF numbers are created using statistical analysis estimations. How can a product that has been out for a year (8760 hours) have real world data to suggest it could last 1.2 million hours? That's almost 137 years.
View MTBF as a reliability score, not as actual reliability. The higher the MTBF, the more reliable the drive is likely to be.
In this case, with an MTBF of 1.2 Million hours, the Seagate ES drives are likely to be as reliable as the Intel X25-M.
S-
Hello. Long time reader, first time poster here. I just got one of the new Mac Pros and decided to try out SSD for my startup drive. When I ordered my new Mac, I also ordered an Intel X25-M 80GB SSD and the Icydock 2.5" to 3.5" SATA adapter. Everything arrived the same day, so I left work early to set things up (hehe).
I was a bit worried at first because I read reports that you needed to clone an HDD to get the SSD working. But, I decided to give it a whirl. I took my Mac Pro out of the box, opened her up, and swapped the pre-installed HDD with my SDD in the Icydock adapter. Then, I booted up with the install DVD that came with the Mac.
When I got to the installation screens, and it was time to select my drive, there was nothing available. But then I noticed on the top menubar that I could run Disk Utility. I used that to quickly create a partition on the SSD, and when it was done, my SSD showed up as a possible destination for Mac OSX. I chose it, and OSX installed in about 15 minutes, start to finish!
Once installed, I added on a few other things. Xcode installed in 5 minutes. And I don't think I even saw the Firefox installation bar. Then, the reboot. A whopping 11 seconds.
So, let me say, from my experiences so far, the SSD is amazing.
* It was easy to set up...no HDD cloning required
* I can sleep my computer without the beach ball of death showing up as described by pprior
* Wicked fast bootup and application launching
Thus far it has been AWESOME! Very happy with my choice.
I was a bit worried at first because I read reports that you needed to clone an HDD to get the SSD working. But, I decided to give it a whirl. I took my Mac Pro out of the box, opened her up, and swapped the pre-installed HDD with my SDD in the Icydock adapter. Then, I booted up with the install DVD that came with the Mac.
When I got to the installation screens, and it was time to select my drive, there was nothing available. But then I noticed on the top menubar that I could run Disk Utility. I used that to quickly create a partition on the SSD, and when it was done, my SSD showed up as a possible destination for Mac OSX. I chose it, and OSX installed in about 15 minutes, start to finish!
Once installed, I added on a few other things. Xcode installed in 5 minutes. And I don't think I even saw the Firefox installation bar. Then, the reboot. A whopping 11 seconds.
So, let me say, from my experiences so far, the SSD is amazing.
* It was easy to set up...no HDD cloning required
* I can sleep my computer without the beach ball of death showing up as described by pprior
* Wicked fast bootup and application launching
Thus far it has been AWESOME! Very happy with my choice.