32gb intel x25-e

what to do with it? getting one on the cheap cheap. missed out on a 64gb version for $120 and 32gb is too small to put in my sager np2092. ideas?

 

Hmmm... I have SD cards bigger than that.

If you have a system with two HDD bays, then use this method to have a lot of the benefits of an SSD but without filling (and killing) it:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/win...gramdata-folder-separate-drive-partition.html

 

yeah. kicking myself in the butt for passing up on the 64 gig one. after looking around it doesn't seem there is much to do with it. i see that i'm going to have to trim a lot of duplicate data i have already because of the 160 gig drive on it's way. i think i'm going to use it as a very, very portable storage drive. i've been carrying my backup a lot lately and hdd's fall short to the durability of ssd's. plus, you can't beat the transfer speeds of ssd drives even when limited to usb 2.0.

 

Assuming your laptop has Z68, there's always Intel SRT.

 

nope. just hm65. i don't know if ready boost is similar to ssd caching, but an 8 gig microsdhc card added a little pep to my 5160.

 

ReadyBoost augments RAM. It has no impact on disk operations at all.

It also has no impact on memory access operations unless if you're running low on RAM. And even then, having the page file on an SSD is faster than ReadyBoost.

 

sdlfasjdlgasdlgj ask later.

 

you can't kill it, tiller. it's an E drive. slc and all.

but of course, a secondary drive is very useful for that small of size, except if you have a very specific workflow with a small fileset, then it works.

if you can set up for 2 drives, do that.

 

davepermen,

yeah - I can kill anything.

Even an SLC drive - especially one so small.

With a 500GB or larger SLC 50nm nand SSD - I might admit defeat (I'll probably be dead before such a thing dies!), but such beasts are now in fairy tale land - they'll never be made as 'new' - just too costly for such a small return.

 

well, i can kill anything, too. take out the screws, and break the green platter in two pieces.

other than that, no, my slc drives are serving me well (and much worse than the intel slc drive..). killing that is near-impossible. obviously it gets slower when completely filled, but that is true with any drive (including hdd). and at the point where you can't store anything anymore, performance doesn't matter anyways.

yes, it's tiny. but very hard to kill, too. i doubt you could kill it. fill it, that you could. but that's no "it's dead now". just delete the stuff, and it's back to normal.

you should have admitted defeat long ago, but you just can't, for ego reasons.

still waiting for your fairy tale post about hdds still winning over ssds in any fair test.

 

You know, you keep trying to move the target without addressing the actual questions/concerns.


Don't mean physically kill it. (And you know that).

No ego: I have real demands from my equipment. You seem to just 'play' with them or otherwise live a very sheltered (tech) life.

 

as said, offtopic.

but you fail to deliver what "your real demands" are. because i have tons of real demands, all perfectly served by ssd, but none by a hdd (except pure storage demands).

you still fail to prove your point you make all the time.

so show it, show what you do, and how an ssd that is in ALL cases better than a hdd can not deliver.

the only case is "if one needs the storage space". and there, the 32gb ssd obviously is a bad choice. thus, paired with a hdd, it should be rather nice.

and please, pm for your offtopic fairytale. means clear defined requirements on what you do, which apps, which data, workflow, etc. i'd like to hear it. as if you'd be the one and only who really puts his stuff to use, and does real work and not just play around. what an ego you show up here.

 

I have already stated my demand of my tools and they are very real. If you forget what you read, can't help.

Again, no ego - you're just trying to make it seem so.

 

"I have real demands from my equipment. You seem to just 'play' with them or otherwise live a very sheltered (tech) life."

massive ego here.

so please re-post the link or the information. about impossible to find it in the mass of ssd-are-bad posts you spread

and still offtopic, pm, own thread, or what ever. phil will come and clean this up for sure. and rightfully so.

 

no, please continue. i want to see some digital blood.

anyways, got all the excess cut off, and have 25.0 of 29.7 gigs filled. the 64 e gig popped back up on the radar but the guy is obviously a flake. called me at 10 at night and said let's deal the next day. he posts the drive back an hour after we talk. too far to drive to deal with a nincompoop. anyways, aside from needing more space, the x25 e did rather well filling up. i did it over usb2.0. speeds varied depending on files sizes and such, but they were very consistent which really seems to matter the most. i.e. a 100mb file on a hdd might transfer at 20.0 mb or so it says, but take a minute. with the x25 e if it said it transferred at 30 megs a second that same 100 meg file didn't take more than 5 seconds.

and it was like that the whole 25 gigs. consistent more or less. slowest speed was 20 megs a second and 50 for the fastest, and i probably averaged about 30 mb/s overall. once speeds stabilized they usually stayed there too. i hope i can find a 64 x25e for a good price. that would serve my needs much better rather than traveling light. then sell the x25e to somebody who needs a fast memory card that doesn't have to fit in a phone or camera.

 

the x25-e is designed to be used nearly filled. it's a drive for servers, where you put the fast part of the database onto it. so it should work perfectly well being nearly full.

a friend of mine uses one of my first ssds, an mtron 1.8" ide 32gb ssd. much slower than that, but same size. still performing well (slc, too). the storage size is acceptable, but obviously something to get used to.


i contacted tiller over PM to continue it there, or maybe finally publish repeatable results where a hdd beats a good ssd by a noticable margin. (and btw, even while he hates them, the result of those repeatable results, the prove he doesn't lie, will in the end by a synthetic benchmark, a specific setup. nothing else). and even when he can prove a specific such setup (highly unbelievable but i give him the chance to prove it), it does not disprove the fact that ssds overall result in a huge gains in performance. but i doubt he can prove it. as we all do. thus we wait for his amazing results that he promised over two weeks ago and then got quiet about it.

 

I'm 'quiet' about it because I'm still evaluating them.

Patience, not taunting is a virtue.

 

well, i was a naysayer more because of the costs at first and then reliability. i kept researching though and intel/micron seemed to be garnering a lot praise when reliability was at stake. longevity shouldn't too much of an issue unless you I/O a lot of stuff quite often. what sucked me in, was multi tasking. i'm not a heavy multi tasker and i don't claim to be a multi tasker because i have 20 windows/tabs/programs open at the same time and need them all open because little do people know i have 20 brains and 40 hands and a magic monitor. i can't wait to try it out. having 5 to 7 moderate things going on in the background, one being music will put a great big smile on my face. i hate doing stuff and my music/video lags/stutters/skips because i have 2 or 3 I/O processes going on from a single hdd. and i find myself traveling more often with my laptop so a ssd going full blast still beats a parked head any day of the week. BYAH!!

 

yeah, writes should be no issue as it's slc. we're at flash that can life for 3000 writes. yours can have 100000. and even the 3000 write ones are no issue for normal usage. so yours should under the most heavy usage a single user can put on it last for ever.

 

have they stopped selling slc drives or has the market moved to corporate/data side sales only?

 

what to do with it? boot drive on a linux server?

or you could put it in a box and ship it to me for free

 

Which means no prove, no sign, no hint, nothing. Nothing but the big void that is tillers story of having an ssd beating hdd..

The benefits of slc are not worth the cost in most cases. They're unpayable for any bigger storage pool. They use it now for a cache-ssd of 20gb in a new mainboard setup. And in businesses, requirements differ sometimes, which make it worth the extra cost. For home users, outside of small caches, not worth it.

 

Each time I have said the HDD was better (in my use) than an SSD, the proof was there for all to read. Can you read?

I do not have a 'story' - that part is all yours and yours alone. I am after increasing my productivity and my profitability. No benchmarks or other's approval is needed to justify what I buy - the ROI is enough for me to believe in my decisions - even if they fly in the face of the almighty dave.

I am not conducting my testing for your personal satisfaction - I am evaluating where my company will invest (computing-wise) for the next few years. SSD's are only part of that evaluation. If you're interested in my results, you'll have to wait. Just like I'm doing too (a crazy little concept called work keeps interfering with playing with all these new toys).

If you can't wait? Who cares!

 

no. you just said "hdd is better". you don't show how the hdd increases your productivity. what you do, how you do it, and the numbers, where it's better. that is what i want to see.

you just say stuff like "don't get an ssd, a hdd can be just as fast for real work".

so what is your real work that differs from so many others real work (i have ssd both in my work laptop and in my private laptops, where i do other kind of work).

that is what i want to know. and that you can tell RIGHT NOW.

on the results, i have to wait (you're two weeks late on schedule, though.. which shows how "good you work" ).

i just want to have an idea WHAT you do on those drives.

what i do:
video editing
music production
programming
websurfing
lots of file shuffling
at work, doing stuff with around 30 apps open all day long, from excel to support stuff to development stuff to web stuff, all mixed up.
then i do a lot of technical support for friends, test out installation stuff.

so i think i have quite a broad spectrum of stuff that i do on my ssds (all my life goes trough computers, all of it. and i'm not a consumer, i'm a producer, that means i don't lay back and watch dvds or tv all day long. i'm always thinkering with something. be it at work, be it at home, be it at the club, be it with friends. and about all involves ssd based systems. and i benefit in most of those cases).

sometimes (few times) i play games. last game: portal2. before that, about a year no gaming at all on my own system.

so what is your magical work you do that is faster on a hdd. because stuff that needs random access (compiling for example) can't be it. stuff that needs serial access can't be it, too (video editing). stuff that needs multiple read writes in parallel can't be it, too (30 different apps up and processing stuff). what else can it be?

the only thing i know, where an ssd can fail, is the moment you need more storage, and thus have to shift around data all the time from disk to ssd.

i'm not discussing if an ssd is WORTH IT. i'm asking you specifically in what situation you can beat the performance of an ssd with a single hdd.

being worth it, that is a whole other topic, and can need a lot of evaluation in case of a company, or not that much for a home user.

i'm not asking if it's worth it. that's to each it's own. my mom's happy with a netbook. atom netbook. terrible slow tiny system. she loves it, good enough for her. would an ssd be worth it for her? NEVER (except for dropping and killing maybe).

i'm asking what usecase you have, where a hdd beats an ssd, and storage size is not an issue.

and no, in the last months, you have not stated that. and i won't read trough months of posts of you.


oh, and not replying to PM but spamming threads, well, phil wouldn't like that. but he wants that answer, too. because no one on this world knows that answer. where does a hdd beat an ssd. show it.

 

dave. i do have to say get over it. i see tiller's point and many people, including you miss it. what's the point of a ferrari if you have to drive in rush hour traffic? and once you do get to work, you're sitting at your desk with out hundreds of horsepower at your fingertips. armani suits and alligator skin shoes don't increase productivity nor the pace of your productivity. you still sweat the same wearing a suit and tie or tshirt and shorts. tiller may concede when somebody can type 9 billion words a minute or come up with 33 million ideas a second and be able to at least execute 32 million of those ideas a second at a time. a dollar goes a longer way buying a fishing pole than it does buying a fish at the corner store. on the outside looking in, i can see here and there where an ssd can benefit speed wise, but not always. intel must've given some people a speed demon tattoo. i just got a sticker.