Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SSD: High capacity

simsaladimbamba said:
Of course they are, but since you access the OS and applications you use all the time, an SSD will improve access times.


And what would an SSD improve with that? Playback probably not. Backing up speeds probably, but using one HDD or SSD for storing the backup of a backup and again for storing the backup of the backup of the backup and so forth, is not really backing up.
You backup to different HDDs / SSDs to have a good backup strategy.

And why do you have ten layers of backups? If you really need that, to have a good backup, you would have to have ten HDDs or SSDs, not all the multiple backups on one device, because one device can break easier than ten devices.
Click to expand...

The Garageband loop sentence was a joke, hence the 'No' after the sentence.
Who in their right mind would keep 10 layers of backup on one device?
The reason SSDs are better is because they are more reliable, not indestructible, just more reliable.
Why does everyone insits knowing and changing what I really want? If no one knows the answer, either say you don't know it or just don't say anything at all.
 
mac-collector said:
The Garageband loop sentence was a joke, hence the 'No' after the sentence.
Who in their right mind would keep 10 layers of backup on one device?
The reason SSDs are better is because they are more reliable, not indestructible, just more reliable.
Why does everyone insits knowing and changing what I really want? If no one knows the answer, either say you don't know it or just don't say anything at all.
Click to expand...

Then why the **** keep posting ****?

Anyway, since I already gave you a plausible answer about that 4 TB SSD in some UAV, maybe, maybe just look at leman's suggestion. Or not.
I don't care anymore.

Have a good day/week.

----------
simsaladimbamba said:
Don't waste your time with that, I have similar down votes (though not in this thread, strange), when giving appropriate answers, most often when the answer is a repeated one and/or links to something, that will answer a question. It is just the followers of Facebook finally able to "NOT" like something. That is the nature of the internet, anonymous votes.
Click to expand...

And that is how you go from a +1 vote to a -1 vote. Calling those petty buggers out. Ah, **** them.
 
simsaladimbamba said:
Then why the 'barnacles' keep posting 'answers'?
Click to expand...

Because you keep asking me questions. Sometimes these are questions I have already answered. And that annoys me.

And although leman's suggestion was good, it doesn't suit me. As I've said before I like keeping my desk/work area free of any clutter and would like to put them into my iMac.
 
Last edited:
simsaladimbamba said:
Just so that you can see, that even a 2 TB SSD would be a bit big today, I show you a 2 TB SSD PCI Express Card, which costs 6.000 USD, thus a 4 TB SSD, if available, might cost up to 20.000 USD.

Otherwise good luck with your sarcasm. Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

Stop feeding the troll. 2x27" thunderbolt on a 17" '06 iMac? 4x256 GB SSD & 2x2TB? He said he didn't want clutter on his desktop ...
 
mac-collector said:
I need to store all my Garageband loop soundtracks in lossless data compression at 100 Mbps with over 10 layers of backup. No. Although there is some performance difference between 'conventional' HDD and SSD, that is not why I require them. As you all know they (SSDs) have no moving parts and are therefore more reliable. That is why I choose them over the old format. I store some very sensitive data for a research group, the Department of Defence (not really, but it might come in handy) and my amateur archeological excusions. And I want them to fit nicely into my iMac so my desk will be clean.

So if they are not available to consumers, does anyone know where the government gets theirs?
Click to expand...

You are drawing a completely wrong conclusion. There are officially no movable parts in an SSD drive, but smack it hard enough and the parts will move :) Seriously, SSD drives will fail for completely different reasons than hard drives, and usually when they fail they will be completely unrecoverable. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that SSD drives are more reliable at all.


mac-collector said:
The Garageband loop sentence was a joke, hence the 'No' after the sentence.
Who in their right mind would keep 10 layers of backup on one device?
The reason SSDs are better is because they are more reliable, not indestructible, just more reliable.
Why does everyone insits knowing and changing what I really want? If no one knows the answer, either say you don't know it or just don't say anything at all.
Click to expand...

The first sentence makes you a troll.
The answer to the second question: Anyone using Time Machine, and for very good reasons.
The next thing shows you are clueless.
The answer to the last item is that people here don't try to answer questions, but try to be helpful. You seem to be beyond help though.

You could have asked something like "I'm just curious; what is the biggest SSD drive you can buy and how much does it cost" and you would have got an answer to the question.
 
Sjhonny said:
Stop feeding the troll. 2x27" thunderbolt on a 17" '06 iMac? 4x256 GB SSD & 2x2TB? He said he didn't want clutter on his desktop ...
Click to expand...

You're a hypocrite.

He is just trying to be helpful. Believe what you want, but for the past 6 years I have been modifying my iMac to enclose more drives than it did, originally.
 
gnasher729 said:
You are drawing a completely wrong conclusion. There are officially no movable parts in an SSD drive, but smack it hard enough and the parts will move :) Seriously, SSD drives will fail for completely different reasons than hard drives, and usually when they fail they will be completely unrecoverable. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that SSD drives are more reliable at all.
-----------
The first sentence makes you a troll.
The answer to the second question: Anyone using Time Machine, and for very good reasons.
The next thing shows you are clueless.
The answer to the last item is that people here don't try to answer questions, but try to be helpful. You seem to be beyond help though.

You could have asked something like "I'm just curious; what is the biggest SSD drive you can buy and how much does it cost" and you would have got an answer to the question.
Click to expand...

My own experience tells me otherwise. I have owned 48 'conventional' HDD, 11 of them have failed. I have owned 12 SSD. None of them have failed and no problems what-so-ever. I understand this is in no way a scientific approach, but until I have a problem with an SSD I will choose them instead.

Am I a troll for trying to liven up this otherwise cold, dry and dull thread?
Everyone who uses time machine has 10 of them, sequentially? I've never heard that before. Not clueless, just using my (unscientific test) experience.
I was actually happy with the first few people who just answered "No", but then these other fellows just kept asking.
 
People, this guy is an obvious troll. Just stop responding. Anyway, I have proposed a realistic solution. If he has few dozen thousands of dollars to burn for the sake of "lulz", let him do it.
 
leman said:
People, this guy is an obvious troll. Just stop responding. Anyway, I have proposed a realistic solution. If he has few dozen thousands of dollars to burn for the sake of "lulz", let him do it.
Click to expand...

Finally! Listen to this guy! But I'm afraid you only get 9/10 on the anti-(alleged)troll scale. To get a 10 you can't respond.
And I already told you it's not for "lulz", it's for my amateur archeological excursion expeditions, which are surprisingly profitable.

Now let's bury this post into the waters of Lethe!

On another note: How do you change the name to [Resolved]? Since this isn't going anywhere?
 
Scrap all of the above!!! I for one am interested to see a 4TB SSD for no more than ***** and giggles :)

Anyone know of a solution that can be utilised in a 27" 11 iMac with 3 SATA ports?

Cheers
 
All Taken said:
Scrap all of the above!!! I for one am interested to see a 4TB SSD for no more than ***** and giggles :)

Anyone know of a solution that can be utilised in a 27" 11 iMac with 3 SATA ports?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I already posted a solution before, using an external TB enclosure. If you want to do it internally - this is possible, but reeeeaaalllyyy tricky. You'd want to find the space to pack numerous SSDs inside the iMac, connect them to a small RAID board which you tape somewhere inside which in turn will be connected to the internal SATA connector.

Would be a fun project for someone with too much money and free time on their hand. Be ready to short-circuit your first 5 iMacs before you get it right though ;)
 
Thank you very much

----------
leman said:
I already posted a solution before, using an external TB enclosure. If you want to do it internally - this is possible, but reeeeaaalllyyy tricky. You'd want to find the space to pack numerous SSDs inside the iMac, connect them to a small RAID board which you tape somewhere inside which in turn will be connected to the internal SATA connector.

Would be a fun project for someone with too much money and free time on their hand. Be ready to short-circuit your first 5 iMacs before you get it right though ;)
Click to expand...

Could I RAID through the 3 internal SATA ports? Bypassing the need for a RAID card or are the RAID options available to OSX a bit *****?

----------
mac-collector said:
Why is everyone so helpful when he asks? Why is he so special?
Click to expand...

It's because i'm British ;)
 
A lot of chat for a little question that was answered so quickly

As a big user of SSD I thought I'd throw in my 2c.

SSD is no more reliable that HDD - less so in most cases, although the latest drives are starting to claim similar reliability to HDD's. But, it will take a few years of real-world use before we really know.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ssds-no-more-reliable-than-hard-drives/1483

When they fail, they typically do so without warning - and I've never been able to recover data from a failed SSD. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I had backups so once the recovery failed, we just replaced the drive and rebuilt from a backup.

As one poster mentioned, where SSD's shine is with applications that require non-sequential access, namely databases. You're unlikely to perceive any better performance if you're just loading files (unless you load thousands of files at once), or playing movies.

The biggest SSD's at 2.5" are currently 1Tb, for example: http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-octane-sata-iii-2-5-ssd.html

As mentioned a number of times, there are companies that build 2 or more SSD's into a single enclosure giving the impression of a 2Tb or 4Tb SSD - most likely the kind used by the OP's military tech friend.

The limitation at the moment is the manufacturing size of the chips. We've had memory manufactured at 32nm a few years back, to 20nm a couple of years ago, to 19nm last year, and this is only likely to continue. Larger capacity in smaller drives is always ongoing.

Coming soon (or not-so-soon as the case may be) is ultra-reliable memory:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2009/06/03/billion-year-ultra-dense-memory-chip/
...and even more fun, computing and memory based on quantum theory:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/38495/

When we get that, we'll still get questions about how to make backups of my 500PB media files, and even bigger holographic porn library.
 
Thanks for the laughs. Funny, funny thread, especially the post about the bit rate of music.

Anyway, if you have lots of money spare and a computer with free PCIe slots (i.e. not an iMac) then you can buy one of these

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/32tb...d-pcie-20-(x8)-sandforce-2281-mlc-flash-read-

3.2 TB for only only about £12,700

These PCIe solutions are available right now and are not just the domain of your friend working on secret blackops government projects. And yes, those "secret devices" wouldn't be using 2.5" SATA SSDs; they would be using PCIe based flash solutions.

Or you could also wait for these:

At CES recently, OCZ showed off a pair of new drives that should make storage architects sit up and take notice. The Z-Drive R54 CloudServ RM161 delivers 16 TB on a single PCIe card, coupled with transfer speeds up to 6.5 GBps to enable 1.4 million IOPS. Meanwhile, the Chiron 4 TB SATA 3.0 device provides up to 4 TB in a 3.5-inch form factor while still maintaining an impressive 560 MBps transfer rate and 100,000 IOPS. The Chiron 4 can be deployed in rackmount server environments for up to 96 TB of bulk storage.
Click to expand...
 
This is one of the two major disadvantages of the SSD.
1.) The limit of the 2.5" SSD Capacity is around 600GB (Approx).
2.) It's ****ing expensive!

But the last one doesn't matter if you have a Lamborghini in the garage.

----------
theSeb said:
Anyway, if you have lots of money spare and a computer with free PCIe slots (i.e. not an iMac) then you can buy one of these

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/32tb...d-pcie-20-(x8)-sandforce-2281-mlc-flash-read-

3.2 TB for only only about
Click to expand...

$20,000?! WOW! ?! THAT'S A KILLER! I remember the times when SSD were like HDDs. You know, when we used to scream "OH MY GOD! THAT THING HAS A GIGABYTE HARD DRIVE ON IT?! AMAZING!". Of course, I guess their 3.2 terabyte HDD back then were like, $20,000

Maybe in 10 years. I am pretty sure in 10 years, every computer (except the really cheap ones) are shipped with SSDs on them and the 1TB SSDs will be just $150. Then you could go RAID+SSD. I can't imagine how fast that would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back