For Mfusick - Sneak Peek - Page 2

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it isn't factually correct.

64MB? Not 64GB?

Might be a stupid question, but how did you pool all the drives together?

He said he spanned them per customer's request. I take that to mean he converted them to dynamic discs and then spanned the volumes together. All built into Windows Disk Management. DriveBender or FlexRAID would have been another option, but those aren't free.

Yes, this is factually correct. (minus my GB/MB typo's..lol)

Larger SSD's are faster than smaller ones. There is no doubt whatsoever this is true and correct.

Now add in a superior controller, and faster style memory chips and the difference is quite obvious in the higher premier tier SSD's in larger sizes.

Even of the same brand and model- the 512GB should no doubt be quicker than the 64GB/60GB of the same variant.

Your splitting up the reads and writes across more chips simultaneously.... so there is a real reason why they perform faster in larger sizes. It's a direct result of how they are engineered.

The only people that think this might not be true would be an owner of a small drive that does not want believe. Otherwise it's well known fact.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, but a quick glance at any performance benchmarks easily disproves this.

Here's the first spec I found for two models on same controller. Notice which one is faster?

The customer is going to badmouth you when one of those drives fail and he loses everything on every drive...saying you should have stopped him from doing something stupid since you are the expert.

If the disk is spanned then you only lose the data on the disk that fails, not all of them.

Mfusick, what kind of setup do you have where you can use the touch screen on your case?

Oh ok. From the title I thought it was. I'm just curious what kind of setup someone would have to have to make a touchscreen practical or even really useful. If it was somehow combined with a coffee table then I'd see the merit of a touch screen.

Then he is a truely unusual customer. You are lucky to have found him.

I wish this was for me.... Lol

Doubt I could afford it though ...

People who feel this way always make me curious.

Do you just assume that because this *could* happen that it will ?
It's pretty unlikely. I have 20 HDD's in my system and I can't say HDD failures are at all common or likely based on my PC experience in last 15 years.

Also,

You make the assumption the customer cares. We are talking about a HTPC here. Some people might not care if a drive fails and they loose some TV recordings or blu ray rips. It's not irreplacable material or specifically of any utmost importantance.

I am generally cool with the idea and reality of losing a drive or the data I have collected on it. I realize it's going to happen at some point.

For ultra senstive stuff I store it in duplicity. Or on devices that utilize RAID like RAID 5 - and every drive has a back up clone.

Judgeing by the price and components selected in this build I am sure the owner or customer could both afford and utilize a RAID5 array easily if it was deemed neccessary and appropriate.

Also- with that kind of budget and build it's likely that if it becomes an issue in future a home server with back up features- and redundant storage- does not seem that far out of reach.

Your entire statement and feelings make a critical error in assuming everyone thinks like you- or cares about the same stuff you do.

Call me weird- but I totally accept the failure of electronics and computer stuff with open arms as part of life. As it pops up- I compensate and react accordingly. I don't fear anything I own breaking- and any storage stuff I really want saved I have it backed up in an appropriate manner and store in a duplicitous place like external HDD or RAID5.

I can understand why the customer might want that. Perhaps he just wants to be able to store his favorite Blurays on the machine- and enough storage room to record many hours of HDTV without worrying about deleteing or running out of room.

Sh!t- I understand it just for the cool factor based on being totally excessive, overkill, and over the top alone- even if he never used half the storage.

My experience with HDD and storage is that you can never have enough. I thought 8TB was enough. I passed that , then 10TB, then 12TB, and it keeps climbing.

A blu ray rip can take as much as 25GB commonly for a single movie (no trailers menus or extra features) Any decent collection will fill up any ordinary HDD array inside a PC with ease.

Your looking at MFG specs not actual benchmarks.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want. If I push the issue any further I risk sounding even more like an A$$ that I already did above.


I am just telling you, a 512GB SSD drive is faster real world and in benchmark tests than a 60GB or 64GB SSD drive of the same variant.

Across the same MFG and model line- it's true.

it's probably true that any 512GB SSD is faster than any 60 or 64GB drive. Even if you took a cheapo or slower 512GB model vs a premium high end 60GB or 64GB drive.

Show me a benchmark source that has a 60GB drive performing faster than a 512GB drive. Please use the same source for both. (Like same website or reviewer)

I am certain a larger SSD is faster than a smaller one. It might not make a huge difference from say 90GB to 120GB (although it is still true and correct) but certainly in 64GB vs 512GB it's going to be a real speed increase.

Keep in mind a cheapo low end 60GB SSD is still 88% faster than a high end HDD- and there comes a point of diminishing returns. I am not saying you need a 512GB SSD for all people.

But- There is no doubt in my mind the larger SSD is faster, and if your looking for extreme performance you will find it in the larger sized SSD's. Once you hit the size limit of say 512GB area- you must RAID0 them to find further speed increases.

Why are you so adamant I am wrong?

(FYI I own and use small, medium and large SSD's daily)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1393537

That is one of my more costly recent builds.

I am also currently building and Asrock Z68 mobo based HTPC on a 60GB SSD that is networked. it's an i3 CPU- and no HDD's, no video or soundcards.

Not fancy but quite nice and capable for cheap $.

I have built about 8 PC in last 12 months. Most of them for friends, family or my office. All a bit different.

With sandforce drives this isn't always the case compared to drives like the M4. So the link that the guy posted is legit. BUt when you get a crucial drive then yes write speeds go up dramatically the larger drive you get

Mfusick, you trolling again?

Here's an extensive article about SSD scaling: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21843/12 (this is the last page)

"Although we've only scratched the surface of the SSD scaling picture, we've learned a few important things about how contemporary controllers and drive configurations behave when transitioning from the 120-128GB sweet spot to higher capacity points. For the most part, performance goes up. The improvements are much more substantial with writes than with reads, but each SSD family has its own set of quirks"

And, Anandtech's latest article on the OCZ Octane:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5272/o...8gb-ssd-review

"SSDs get a good amount of their performance by executing reads/writes in parallel across multiple NAND devices. Higher capacities have more devices to read/write in parallel, and thus generally deliver the best performance."

I think the last quote sums it up best. When/where parallel reads/write can happen, since a large capacity SSD has more NAND devices it can access simultaneously, it can generally take advantage and performance is increased. It looks though like there are some models/families where this doesn't happen as expected. The articles don't seem to dive into why however. The Anandtech article at least goes into depth about how many devices in the 128GB vs the 512GB.

Basically everything you posted is correct.

None of it is anything different than I have claimed above, or elsewhere.

Did you mean to direct this at me? Or just the first sentence?

I think the first line was sarcasm and he was backing you up.

It's a pretty simple discussion point. Mfusick made a definitive, all encompassing statement. Several benchmarks were linked to give direct examples where a definitive statement of "always" is not accurate. Unless someone is disputing the findings of those benchmarks or can provide ample, all encompassing evidence to the contrary, I don't really understand what further discussion is about.

I was also thinking this but unsure. Tough to tell in an internet forum.

My wife yells at me in text messages all the time for my "tone". Can you even deliver "tone" through a text ??? lol....

Mfusick most of the time I disagree with you, being the OCZ fanboy that you are. But you are correct bigger SSD's do produce better preformance. Here's a link to where it stands right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3-b...37FAAAAAAAANAA

I might get away with it if the money comes from a hidden bank account unknown to wifey and the proof of purchase is locked away in a secret safe she has no access to...

$1.2K on an HTPC case... hell will surely break loose...

What mobo are using on this?

Lol yes I often come off as a jerk in text. Its really hard to identify sarcasm.

Thats funny about your wife, apparently you can.

People are amazing.

I guess I am guilty as charged.