On 08/03/2012 02:50 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I don't know, man. SSD is still too expensive for anyone except
>> performance freaks. More bafflingly, even though the performance of SSD
>> should be orders of magnitude superior to HD, apparently some of the
>> best HDs can actually surpass SSD. That shouldn't be possible, but
>> somehow it is. I find that utterly bizarre, but those are apparently the
>> numbers.
>
> Well I have two SSDs and I'm not a performace freak.

You clearly have a hell of a lot more money than I'll ever have.

Or rather, you /had/ a lot of money... ;-)

>> More bafflingly, even though the performance of SSD
>> should be orders of magnitude superior to HD, apparently some of the
>> best HDs can actually surpass SSD. That shouldn't be possible, but
>> somehow it is. I find that utterly bizarre, but those are apparently the
>> numbers.
>
> Depends on what key parameters youre looking at. In sheer bulk transfer rate and
> especially write speed, it's possible for a mechanical drive to outperform an
> SSD.
> But for random access you'll be hard pressed to find a mechanical drive
> outperforming an SSD.
> And that's the main reason I have my SSDs. For the random access speed.

You would expect an SSD to blitz a HD for random access. But even just 
for read access, you would have expected a purely electronic device to 
be many billion times faster than a mechanical HD. And they aren't, for 
some reason...

Write performance is another matter. Apparently you have to bulk-erase 
cells before you can write them again. So I can understand that being 
slower. Even so, you'd think some kind of parallel processing 
arrangement could hide some of that...

Post a reply to this message