The New Hyper-Speed Hard Drives... over 1TB per Second Write Speed!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 07:03 PM by abecedarian

Originally posted by Neilc1972
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

actually mate its 1024 bytes to a Mb 1024 Mb to gigabyte and 1024Gb to a terabyte

Actually, mate, it's 1024 bytes make a kibibyte, 1000 bytes make a kilobyte.
1 Terabyte is 1,000 Gigabytes (1,000,000,000,000) bytes; 1 Teribibyte is 1,024 Gibibytes(1,024,000,000,000) bytes.

This is why older hard drives said they had "X" capacity, but after partitioning and formatting had less capacity.

Not too difficult to understand, when you understand that base of the number system you're working with.

edit on 2/8/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 07:22 PM by IdeaLogical

reply to post by abecedarian

I can vouch this is correct terminology after reviewing the data rate units on wikipedia:

Data rate units (wiki)

By the way, this is extremely fast data transfer rates, but it uses heat? It would have to be protected from heat sources quite well I'd imagine.

Cheers

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 07:23 PM by Rocketman7

Originally posted by definity

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo.

As a comparison the fastest SSDs available right now can "only" write around 600MBs/second.

mine goes at about 1500MB/s

I was thinking of buying an SSD yesterday, but then I already have a portable USB 2.0/3.0 drive, so I figured, keep the internal harddrive I have for now, swap it into the new machine, then consider buying a 1TB USB 3.0 since the new machine I am putting together has USB 3.0. Simply because the time I need to use high speed data transfer, is usually when I am archiving some large files on a portable drive. If you are moving 100 GB from one folder to another on the same drive, just rename the folder, and in fact, that is all Windows does and so its almost instant. Its only when you are moving data from one drive to another, that you need the ultra fast speed.

But I was thinking an SSD as my C drive, might make an AMD3 FX6 processor pc even faster.
Whaddya think?

And do you have a link to that SSD?

edit on 8-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 07:32 PM by Rocketman7

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by Neilc1972
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

actually mate its 1024 bytes to a Mb 1024 Mb to gigabyte and 1024Gb to a terabyte

Actually, mate, it's 1024 bytes make a kibibyte, 1000 bytes make a kilobyte.
1 Terabyte is 1,000 Gigabytes (1,000,000,000,000) bytes; 1 Teribibyte is 1,024 Gibibytes(1,024,000,000,000) bytes.

This is why older hard drives said they had "X" capacity, but after partitioning and formatting had less capacity.

Not too difficult to understand, when you understand that base of the number system you're working with.

edit on 2/8/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Oh, is that why the system I am building, that says it has a max transfer rate of 6 Gb/sec in fact has a write speed of 400 MB and a read speed of 430 MB? (roughly speaking and keeping hand firmly on wallet)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 07:35 PM by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by abecedarian
So, how do you get 1 Tb transfers to a drive? SATA3 is only rated 6Gbps so you'd need 167 SATA3 connections to the drive to sustain that. Since even current DDR3 SDRAM is slower than that (fastest currently is around 16Gbps), using a "memory type" interface wouldn't even be fast enough. Then again, would it be possible to have the HD replace RAM?

What's the read speed?
What's the MTBF (mean time between failure)?

And what about RAID configurations- say 10 in parallel: 8 striped for data, 2 for parity/ECC? That could theoretically increase the rate at least 4-fold.

As for the heat issue, this would have to be some form of laser to make this precise of polarity shifts from heat wouldn't it? And when you are writing 500GB per second, I don't think heat would be much of an issue, at it wouldn't be that long-lived and could be dissipated immediately.

I would assume they would still use magnetism for regular read/writes that fall within the acceptable timeframe and for extremely large writes convert to the this? Shouldn't be impossible to use both depending on the scenario presented to the drive. Dunno, it's all hypothetical.

As for the RAM scenario... you probably wouldn't even need it anymore.

I think the main problem would be creating a way to transfer the data as fast as its being written/read.

edit on 8-2-2012 by YouAreLiedTo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 09:05 PM by abecedarian

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by Neilc1972
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

actually mate its 1024 bytes to a Mb 1024 Mb to gigabyte and 1024Gb to a terabyte

Actually, mate, it's 1024 bytes make a kibibyte, 1000 bytes make a kilobyte.
1 Terabyte is 1,000 Gigabytes (1,000,000,000,000) bytes; 1 Teribibyte is 1,024 Gibibytes(1,024,000,000,000) bytes.

This is why older hard drives said they had "X" capacity, but after partitioning and formatting had less capacity.

Not too difficult to understand, when you understand that base of the number system you're working with.

edit on 2/8/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Oh, is that why the system I am building, that says it has a max transfer rate of 6 Gb/sec in fact has a write speed of 400 MB and a read speed of 430 MB? (roughly speaking and keeping hand firmly on wallet)

Nope. It has write of 400 and read of 430 because that's where the drive controller (within the drive) maxes out at. Don't forget that SATA2 adds features SATA1 didn't have, and SATA3 adds features SATA2 (and 1) don't have, so sometimes it's worth it for the drive manufacturer to support newer interfaces without implementing the actual speeds the interface is capable of.

The fastest SSD on the market can't fully utilize a single SATA3 connection. It's even hard pressed to fully utilize an SATA2 connection's bandwidth.

edit on 2/8/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 10:57 PM by jonnywhite

reply to post by mainidh

We all feel you. It's different music, but the same feeling. You're not alone.

I remember reading that we soon might not have to suffer through a reboot process because load times will be significantly(!) decreased. I wonder if something like this will happen purely out of the need for convenience or because the technological hurdles that separate ram from hard-drives will be removed?

More importantly, will we ever have hardware that doesn't fail except through overuse (old age)? Forums and comment lists are filled with complaints about faulty or failed hardware that had to be replaced.

edit on 8-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 11:11 PM by jonnywhite

reply to post by Hellhound604

Well as a convenience factor people might increasingly decline to buy machines with long reboot times.

Look at tablets and portables. They're popular even though they're slower than desktops. The convenience of their small size and being able to take them wherever you go has trumped their slower speed.

Trends can change. Computers can be smaller and still be very practical, depending on the details.

This idea can lend itself to lots of things. Things that're yet to be.

Our expectations about things are present day. It's hard to say how they will change.

If you had asked me 13 years ago about portables, I'd laugh at you. I was a desktop junky. Computers are like sports cars to me. I like to see the big mean powerful ones. Portables are so wimpy.

Kids nowadays are growing up on portables. I grew up on desktops and programmable calculators.

The future is hard to predict. Computer industry rapidly advances too. Fun to speculate.

edit on 8-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 12:39 AM by mikefromspace

NOW THAT is some very REAL and useful news.

I am mikefromspace on youtube; and although I don't say anything about it there, I've found how to make a microchip that makes switchings not from material, but hydraulic paths etched by lasers in crystal, fed a flow of heavy ions in powerful concentration, superconductive. Well the problem of engineering has been how it might communicate fast and cheap, so hope this hd tech helps with the bus problem. Ram is expensive, but when trying to make very large calculations over time, this stuff is very useful. Only when modeling a galaxy for example, or testing a physics theory.

reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 04:41 AM by Labdarex

This would be perfect for Server applications and Cloud Computing. Those crawling servers will be a thing of the past, ones this HDDs hits the market. Great news man.

edit on 2/12/2012 by Labdarex because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 06:14 AM by WHOS READY

i find it rather convenient that they've 'just' discovered this after not long ago the discovery of the potential of graphene processors...

coincidence??lol.

what would the military do, hush something like these developments up, do all they can with it and at the right time release it as a 'new find' to help distract the people with or would they wait for the university to play around with it and... just my 2cents..

the mind boggles as to what technology the terrorists are sat on!!

edit on 12/2/12 by WHOS READY because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 12:57 PM by C0bzz

SATA III is 6 gigabits per second, 8 bits in a byte, so the max theoretical speed is about 750 megabytes per second. The fastest SATA III SSD drives cap out at around 550 MB/s (Intel 520) in sequential read due to the controller, which is enough to saturate SATA II but not SATA III.

If you want something even faster look into RAID arrays and PCI-E SSDs.

edit on 12/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 02:20 PM by Rocketman7

Originally posted by C0bzz
SATA III is 6 gigabits per second, 8 bits in a byte, so the max theoretical speed is about 750 megabytes per second. The fastest SATA III SSD drives cap out at around 550 MB/s (Intel 520) in sequential read due to the controller, which is enough to saturate SATA II but not SATA III.

If you want something even faster look into RAID arrays and PCI-E SSDs.
edit on 12/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

Well thats helpful. Thanks.

My new parts are coming tomorrow, and I didn't opt for the hard drive I am going to use my last years hard drive, until I figure out what I need, and what is a practical expense. Currently the SSD's around the price I want to pay, are only 65 GB.

So then, with WIndows, even on my lap top, I think its about 40 GB now, and then my user folders would push that over 135 GB. Thats my C drive.
So there is no practical purpose in me getting a 65 GB drive.

So yesterday utorrent was complaining that my lap top disk was overloading, and I was downloading using utorrent at 4 MB per sec.
So obviously thats not the disks capability, but the disk in the lap top is not capable of handling the speed.

So my last years disk, probably won't be able to in my new machine either, however, I can use USB 3.0 to a portable drive, and make that the download target drive.

You see this Seagate SCSI

claims to have an IO Data transfer rate of 600 MB per second. At $125.00

Thats about as much as I want to spend.
You see this SSD

has a read speed of 415 MB but look at how crappy its write speed is. 95 MB per sec.

And its only 64 GB.

Maybe I am better off getting a SCSI internal harddrive, that spins at 7200 and has a high data transfer rate.

At least its only 125 bucks.

What do you think?

edit on 12-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-2-2012 @ 09:37 PM by C0bzz

reply to post by Rocketman7

Most or even all hard disks, like the one you linked, are far too slow to saturate a SATA II or a fast SAS bus. The 'IO Data transfer rate' is how fast the SAS bus is, but the hard disk won't even reach that.

Most motherboards do not come with SAS or SCSI either. Go with SATA. SATA is what the majority of hard disk and motherboards use. SATA II has a max transfer rate of 3 gigabits or about 375 megabytes per second and SATA III has a max transfer rate of double that. The Crucial M4 will be bottlenecked if operated on a SATA II motherboard because its maximum read speed exceeds SATA II bandwidth.

The SSD you linked has several times the read speed of a typical hard disk (like the one you linked) and a similar write speed. However, remember the SSD has no moving parts, so latencies are massively reduced. In some benchmarks where the HDD head has to move across the disk, a SSD will be a hundred times faster.

I just went from a Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 7200 rpm to a 160GB Intel X18M G2 (same as Intel X25M G2). The X18M G2 is somewhat slower than a Crucial M4 64GB provided the M4 is operated with SATA III bandwidth, and the Spinpoint F3 is faster than a 500GB 7200rpm drive. The difference in speed between the HDD and SSD though, is large. Everything on the SSD occurs almost instantaneously, whereas the hard disk, even when defragmented with a payware defragmentation program, takes significantly longer to load programs.. Anandtech said one of the biggest upgrades to a PC is changing to a SSD. I can see why.

My only concern is the 64 GB SSD might be too small. I would aim for a minimum of a 120 GB. If you cannot afford that, either get a cheaper SSD, wait until they are cheaper, or get a HDD. Go with a 1TB drive as the $/GB is usually much lower and the larger a hard disk or SSD is the faster. Also often external hard drives are bottlenecked by the interface they are using, so if you get an external make sure it and your machine have eSATA or USB 3.0.

Samsung Spinpoint F3 is a great drive. I highly recommend it. Remember there is a HDD shortage at the moment because of flooding in SE Asia. I got mine for $59 AUD, the price should return to around that level towards the end of the year.

My Intel X18M G2 came out in 2009. I got it second hand for $150 AUD. Don't get this drive unless it's second hand, because it's outdated. I recommend any new Intel SSD and the Crucial M4. OCZ have some cheaper SSDs but I am unsure how good or reliable they are.

Also check out a store called newegg.

Also laptops typically only fit 2.5 inch drives, not 3.5 inch drives.

edit on 16/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-2-2012 @ 12:19 PM by Hellhound604

reply to post by C0bzz

That is why you use 5 SSD's in a RAID array. (4 for striping, and 1 for redundancy). Then you get the throughput of 4, depending on SSD type, you can get up to 2GB/sec throughput.

Of course, if you have drives like that sitting in a central server, a 1Gb/s LAN speed becomes too slow. Heck, it already is, I work a LOT with huge video files, and the waiting time to get it from my server, is frustratingly long.

LOL, where is the old floppy drives, which had a throughput of max. 125kbits/sec, and my old harddrives that managed to hit 1Mb/sec!!!!

Just one thing to remember with SSD's. They have limited write-endurance.

edit on 17/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-2-2012 @ 01:01 AM by C0bzz