[vox] Fwd: SSD_performance_is_a_slowdown_inevitable?

[Bill Broadley]

Bill Kendrick wrote:
> Eric posted from a non-subscribed address...
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from vox-bounces at lists.lugod.org -----
> 
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:23:10 -0800
> From: vox-bounces at lists.lugod.org
> Subject: Auto-discard notification
> To: vox-owner at lists.lugod.org
> 
> The attached message has been automatically discarded.
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:23:40 -0800
> From: "Eric Pierce" <epierce at surewest.net>
> Subject: SSD_performance_is_a_slowdown_inevitable?
> To: "'General SacLUG discussing'" <lug-nuts at saclug.org>,
> 	"'LUGOD'" <vox at lists.lugod.org>
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132668/Analysis_SSD_performance_is_a
> _slowdown_inevitable_
> 

A somewhat dated article.  Short story on SSDs:
* longevity is related to design, reserved sectors, and type of flash
  used.
* Performance used to decay horribly
* Trim, passive, and active measures have almost completely removed the
  "decay" on the better drives.  Trim support is required on the SSD *and*
  the OS.
* SSDs do quite well on bandwidth, but really accel on random access,
  often faster than large arrays of fast disks with a single SSD.  So things
  like booting, large application launches (that load a zillion files) and
  related are hugely faster.  I've heard many stories where minimal hardware
  like a mini or netbook performs faster than a beefy desktop/server for
  those kinds of things.

The best SSD articles I've seen as of late is at anandtech.  So if you want
quiet, vibration resistant, great random access, lower power usage, and are
willing to pay more per GB I'd recommend SSDs.

The intel SSDs are pretty much the gold standard, they are great.  Depending
on your usage you might be able to find better, but certainly they are a good
starting place.