SSD really worth all the hype?

[ispano]

Back it up. I can easily see someone responding the way you stated, because they assumed you wanted the drives linked together VIA Fibre Channel, since it has such high bandwidth, it's VERY useful for very large arrays.

http://www.tech-faq.com/fibre-channel.html

If I made a very large array, say 30 drives like your example using SCSI, it would NOT be called Fibre Channel, because it in fact is not.

---------- Post added 2011-04-09 at 03:45 PM ----------

if you are Bill Gates, run Fibre Channel, then you can /lol at everyone who think's their SSD is fast

Going to poke at your original post here as well. Fibre Channel = The Interface to the drive(s). The SSD = The drive itself. You don't compare the two. Of course 30+ drives in RAID can outdo an SSD, put 30+ SSDs on the same interface and it will outdo those 30 physical disks in a heartbeat.

ie, what you compare is the SSD to a single drive on the Fibre Channel network.

[Deleted]

but i don't know where you are getting a 35% in 3 months

Its well known that hard drives have elevated failure rates shortly after being brought into production, which just has to do with that any mechanical faults in the production are likely to present themselves during this time.

A hard drive that has been used for a year is more reliable than one that has yet to be put into use.

Usually we just measure it at the 3 month point; and on a per hard drive basis that failure rate sits around 5-6% average.

[ayako]

From a production standpoint, RAID0 is amazing for a low cost, high throughput scratchdisk solution.

---------- Post added 2011-04-09 at 12:41 PM ----------



It's because addon initialization is what makes up most of the load time.

And if you saw my addon folder it'd make sense ;P

[Deleted]

And if you saw my addon folder it'd make sense ;P

Optimize that shit!

[ayako]

Optimize that shit!

I've already started using external libraries and trying to cut down on its size but its still:

[Deleted]

I've already started using external libraries and trying to cut down on its size but its still:

<IMG>

Ayayay, can't imagine your WTF folder being nice either.

[Cyanotical]

Back it up. I can easily see someone responding the way you stated, because they assumed you wanted the drives linked together VIA Fibre Channel, since it has such high bandwidth, it's VERY useful for very large arrays.

http://www.tech-faq.com/fibre-channel.html

If I made a very large array, say 30 drives like your example using SCSI, it would NOT be called Fibre Channel, because it in fact is not.

---------- Post added 2011-04-09 at 03:45 PM ----------



Going to poke at your original post here as well. Fibre Channel = The Interface to the drive(s). The SSD = The drive itself. You don't compare the two. Of course 30+ drives in RAID can outdo an SSD, put 30+ SSDs on the same interface and it will outdo those 30 physical disks in a heartbeat.

ie, what you compare is the SSD to a single drive on the Fibre Channel network.

okay, lets say i build you a 30 drive array for your SR-2 (/jealousfist)

30 drives, RAID10, SAS, thats a max theoretical bandwithth of 75Gb/s, far more then any SATA port or your board can handle, so you transfer data through in a PCIe card

the result is i sell you a:
"30 drive Serial Attached SCSI RAID10 array interfaced by PCIe, and connected via Fibre Channel"

it's much easier to just say i sold you a Fibre Channel


the usage of the term is similar to RAID, everyone knows that a RAID is a storage method using multiple drives, and capable of several different interface mediums, PATA, SATA, SCSI
but most people use the term RAID in a singular method referring to the array itself as a storage drive, when in reality it isn't the drive

[Asera]

I've already started using external libraries and trying to cut down on its size but its still:

Jeez. Mine's only 61mb. D:

[ayako]

Ayayay, can't imagine your WTF folder being nice either.

>.<

That's with auctioneer files deleted too!

[Milkshake86]

no no no AND NO.
a SSD Disk does NOT give any more FPS at all. a ssd is not some kind of magic cpu or gfx card. the only benerfit the ssd disk gives in wow is faster load time when you log in to major city`s like ORG or SW. ones all the textures is loaded there is zero gain with a ssd disk in wow. so no you wont get any higher fps in wow then you allready have.
the only reason why you should get a ssd disk is because of the super read/write speed on them. onese you put windows on a ssd disk you will inter a whole new world of speed. every thing is loaded in seconds, but don`t get a ssd disk if you think it gives you higher FPS because it doesn`t do that at all.

Except improving loading speeds does infact increase fps...so your wrong.

[Deleted]

>.<

Yup, thats a lot of data for a lot of addons to process.

Except improving loading speeds does infact increase fps...so your wrong.

Generally the defenition of improving FPS is in a static or preloaded situation (Encounters in Raids & Instances for example). A SSD does nothing in those cases and should remain inactive.

However in the overworld, WoW is heavily reliant on loading information on demand. This as you mention can result in the machine having to briefly halt while essential data is loaded - which will result in a noticable drop in framerate.

[ayako]

Except improving loading speeds does infact increase fps...so your wrong.

Depends on the coding of the game and the CPU-impact of the disk access.

[Asera]

Except improving loading speeds does infact increase fps...so your wrong.

...only when stuff is loading and choking I/O.

Otherwise it, in fact, doesn't.

[ayako]

Yup, thats a lot of data for a lot of addons to process.

It actually contains alot of .bak files.



Here is post .bak removal

[Deleted]

It actually contains alot of .bak files.

BAK files are usually a bit below 50% of the folder size - so nothing unexpected.

[ayako]

BAK files are usually a bit below 50% of the folder size - so nothing unexpected.

Just saying it'd make it look nastier than it is :P

[ispano]

okay, lets say i build you a 30 drive array for your SR-2 (/jealousfist)

30 drives, RAID10, SAS, thats a max theoretical bandwithth of 75Gb/s, far more then any SATA port or your board can handle, so you transfer data through in a PCIe card

the result is i sell you a:
"30 drive Serial Attached SCSI RAID10 array interfaced by PCIe, and connected via Fibre Channel"

it's much easier to just say i sold you a Fibre Channel


the usage of the term is similar to RAID, everyone knows that a RAID is a storage method using multiple drives, and capable of several different interface mediums, PATA, SATA, SCSI
but most people use the term RAID in a singular method referring to the array itself as a storage drive, when in reality it isn't the drive

It's still the interface, and you don't have to connect it via Fibre Channel either, there are other ways. Calling something Fibre Channel when it isn't, is incorrect, no matter how much you insist upon it. And you're right, RAID isn't the drive itself, it's the array of drives together. Which is actually correct, because those drives are in a RAID array, so calling it a RAID is correct. Calling something connected via SAS, that has nothing to do with Fibre Channel Hardware or Protcols, Fibre Channel, is flat out incorrect.

My point was that you compared a single SSD, regardless of the interface, to an interface, when the two are not the same at all. If you compared that SSD to one drive on the FC controller, that would be more correct. Or comparing 30 physical disks on that controller to 30 SSDs on that controller. The SSD will still win in both cases. The only time this is not true is when the SSD is limited by an interface and the Physical Disk is not.

[Asera]

That folder gets larger with more characters you use too.

Mine's only like 20mb, with BAK files, but I currently only use my mage and 2 alts.

[ayako]

I have my 10 characters with fully set-up uis and a few characters here and there :) But I prune the characters I don't actively log on :)

I also haven't redone my UI in ~1.5 years so its gathered stuff over the server-xfers and such.

[Draeblin]

read/write values are totally uninteresting. The reason SSD is so fast is because of the latency in read. That matters mainly - not the fact that you can read xxx MB/s.