Check this out.

Basically they got 24 SSDs and hooked them up with raid, making up to 6TB of storage and 2gb/s transfer speed.

-its all cache performance
-he defragged the hard drive?!?!?
-Nice to see some real world tests

Now you don't need that many SSD's to get most of that performance, I'm running a OCZ vertex and its fast for opening programs,video,pictures just like the videe (who notices 0.5second difference? lol)

To save it in flash is really a good invention, so why not start making Nano-flash?
You could get at least 1000TB with it
Nano-technology would work, because its using basic materials like Fe. (Remember what it means? )
When you build something with atoms is unlimited possibilities for small-ness.
Why not make a suiting nano-keyboard?
But i dont think people are ready for Nano yet, neither the computers for too big storage..

The SSD sounds good, its like a memory card.
Why doesnt anyone try to extend the capacity of CF cards so they can be computer cartridges?
You insert a card named like, Win98 and get it.
It is possible, but too expensive now, and CF are big, SD is good, but isnt it odd that a Micro-sized MicroSDHC is bigger than a CF card?
Not physically..
I might try to load a SD with Windows 98, would be cool.
I have a Windows 98 disc.

To bad to get that raid array would cost more then some of your cars.



And defragging a ssd is not something I would recommend to anyone it kills them by wasting massive amounts of write cycles.

Uh what are you rambling about? Current flash technology comes in a few forms...
1) Densely packed, slow, and reliable (relatively speaking, current solid-state drives)
2) Lightly packed, fast, and reliable (high-end solid-state drives)
3) Lightly packed, fast, and "unreliable" (like RAM)

The issue is that #2 and #3 are expensive to manufacture. If you wanted a 1TB solid-state drive, it can be had for a surprisingly small chunk of change. However, there's little point to gigantic storage if your read rate is sub-par. And #3, RAM, is "cheap", but it's an entirely different sort. That's based nearly entirely on speed--you can store and read gigabytes of memory in a single second--which only lends its uses to being active memory. So #1 is relatively cheap for the storage but also relatively slow. Many consumer drives fall in this category, including portable storage. #2 is fast but very expensive to manufacture. And #3 is a tiny little niche for "permanent" storage, but all information is lost when the system shuts down, making it useful only as a write cache and system memory.

By the way--the reason that Compact Flash cards are so bulky is to fit the interface. Compact Flash is a rather old standard that has held on well due to some speed advantages. On the other hand, Secure Digital High Capacity cards are relatively large--with the ability to carry around 32GB of storage on a card as big as a postage stamp. It's more modern though definitely becoming antiquated, yet is popular because of its smaller and cheaper form factor.


Ahrim the Blighted
Posts: 3,100
I <3 Cabbage.

SDHC cards are very good for storage, SanDisk is working on 1TB cards, thats a big jump
I think it will use as small circuits as possible, down at micrometer maybe, it has to be very small.
The best part is that it will work with normal SDHC readers.

I might try out a SSD sometime, it sounds like a good way to store information, like a cartridge almost, how do they look acually?

I don't think $2,000 memory cards are going to sell very well

SDHC maxes out at 32GB IIRC. SDXC is going to max out at 2TB. I wouldn't want to store THAT much on a tiny memory card though--too easy to lose.