Overclock.net banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Are there ANY benefits of a 7200 HDD over a SDD? Other than price of course. I'm thinking of raid 0 2 80 gigs for my OS and common files, but i could buy a ton more storage (like: 3 1tb HDD) and raid those for about the same price
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
The only benefits of a HDD over a SSD are storage capacity. That being said, if you arent running out of storage, there's no reason to buy a ton more, and you would be better off buying a faster performing SSD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by AyeYo View Post
Less hassle, no worry about degrading it with writes, can have faster throughput in RAID0, cheaper...
* Less hassle? How so? Regardless of any hassles, a good SSD is still faster than a HDD.
* A performance degraded SSD is still faster than a HDD. A SSD with used cells is still readable.
* SSD in RAID0 usually have faster throughput than HDD in RAID0.

Cheaper has already been removed as a criteria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reista View Post
So i take it that 2 raid0 SSD > 4 raid2 HDD?
Depends on the benchmark and drives.

1000xRAID0 HDD < 1 SSD in random performance.

We are talking about .5-2MB/s vs 20-60MB/s... and RAID doesn't help random performance but short-strocking does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Quote:

Originally Posted by AyeYo View Post
Less hassle, no worry about degrading it with writes, can have faster throughput in RAID0, cheaper...
This is true but HDD's can be easily damaged through vibration. Also, i think the write degradation starts after the bit has been rewritten about 10,000 times. Correct me if im wrong, but thats a load (though in practical use, system files may incur that kind of use.)

DuckieHo- my HDD's would be in raid2. SDD in raid 0. any difference between the two as such? Twice as many HDDs aswell =p (also, +imaginary REP to you!)

Looking at those speeds it seems that i would need ~10 hdds to pull the performace of one SDD?

It looks like SDD is in my future =p The current outlook is 2 126GB in raid 0 (or 1?) with 2 1TB in raid 0 for storage
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Reista
View Post

This is true but HDD's can be easily damaged through vibration. Also, i think the write degradation starts after the bit has been rewritten about 10,000 times. Correct me if im wrong, but thats a load (though in practical use, system files may incur that kind of use.)

DuckieHo- my HDD's would be in raid2. SDD in raid 0. any difference between the two as such? Twice as many HDDs aswell =p (also, +imaginary REP to you!)

Looking at those speeds it seems that i would need ~10 hdds to pull the performace of one SDD?

It looks like SDD is in my future =p The current outlook is 2 126GB in raid 0 (or 1?) with 2 1TB in raid 0 for storage


RAID2? No one uses RAID2 anymore.

Again... "RAID doesn't help random performance." You would need hundreds/thousands of HDDs in a RAID0 just so you can short-stroke them to even come close to matching a SSD in random performance (with a low queue depth).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,246 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by est1984
View Post

have you considered noise levels?

He's looking for pros of mechanical drives over SSDs, not the other way around.

I've been on the fence for a week or so about SSDs and finally ordered one today. Should be pretty cool...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,051 Posts
Even if you had 1000 x drives in RAID 0, your seek time would still be to that of the slowest drive. Nowhere approaching .1 ms of that of an SSD.

Only advantage of mechanical is size for the price.

They have lower throughput, consume more power, produce more heat, higher seek times, delay will be exponential if you give it multiple tasks to do (seek delay and swapping between tasks is a BEYOTCH), prone to failure by movement, more sensitive to temperature, etc etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,911 Posts
This may fall under cost but not really.

HD maintain value much better than SSD. You can find 2TB drives for aound $100. In 1-2 years, the same drives will still be worth a good amount. 60GB SSD can be had around $100 and in 1-2 years these same drives and capacities will be almost worthless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Okay- the collective info that this thread has provided me with the following conclusions:

1. HDDs will never be as fast as SDD, no matter what RAID config
2. HDD are fit for non-performance based storage
3. SSD are fit for performance non storage
4. HDDs, due to reaching the limit of their tech will maintain their price
5. SSD due to still being in development will steeply lower in price and rise in storage
6. SSD are better for high vibration, HDD for high write times.

Thanks for the input guys =] Hope this helps anyone else who had questions and they stumble upon this
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,525 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Reista
View Post

Okay- the collective info that this thread has provided me with the following conclusions:

1. HDDs will never be as fast as SDD, no matter what RAID config
2. HDD are fit for non-performance based storage
3. SSD are fit for performance non storage
4. HDDs, due to reaching the limit of their tech will maintain their price
5. SSD due to still being in development will steeply lower in price and rise in storage
6. SSD are better for high vibration, HDD for high write times.

Thanks for the input guys =] Hope this helps anyone else who had questions and they stumble upon this

1) Correct. Access times matter too much - although if you're doing highly sequential stuff like video editing, you may as well get a spiffy RAID array and enjoy the extra capacity. SSDs don't give that much of a benefit.

2) HDDs are very high performance, as long as it's sequential. Seeking is what kills their speed.

3) SSDs cost too much for most of us to use them as storage - but if you've got the cash, they're a fine choice.

4) No, they will continue to drop. HDD manufacturers can take it to at least 750GB per platter. Probably farther. That means we'll eventually have HDDs with ~200MB/sec sequential speeds, as well as 3TB+ capacities.

Since the platter cost is quite minimal compared to the other parts, HDDs can't drop any farther than ~$40. SSDs could in theory decrease beyond this price, similar to SDHC camera cards.

5) Nope. Not without some huge breakthrough. Capacity will increase and price will drop, but not that fast. Eventually we'll even see good SSDs in the ~$50 range (Sandforce 60GB!
) - but don't expect SSDs to be 1/4th the price by next year. NAND fabrication isn't advancing at quite that speed.
The companies making the controllers also want enough profit to fuel their R&D for a few years.

6) Yes, SSDs are more vibration/shock resistant.
 

·
Man with Fans
Joined
·
7,746 Posts
The advantages of HDD are:

- More storage space for cheaper
- Longer life cycles than an SSD, if you use it heavily (read and write cycles outlast SSD)
- Much much much more affordable.

The advantages of SSD are:
- Silent
- Shockproof, essential if you are a rough laptop user
- High speed, infinitely faster than a mechanical drive.

There ya go.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,525 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Volvo View Post
- High speed, infinitely faster than a mechanical drive.
If "infinitely" is 2x-50x faster depending on the model(s), you're right!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top