earlz wrote:syntropy wrote:pcmattman wrote:If you can find a cheap enough SSD for your primary disk, that might be more effective and efficient than the SATA disks (in terms of power usage and noise).
Apart from that, it sounds pretty good. What's it like in terms of cost?
To be honest I've looked into SSDs, and they aren't woth the effort. I had looked into Intel's X-25M, but for storage size vs. price the standard SATA disk proves a better choice, I think.
if all you care about is size:price, then hdds are better. SSDs have quite a few advantages though if you can afford them. That SSD beat the Velociraptor(fastest consumer hdd) in write speed like 3x and in read speed over 20x. Also with SSDs you have more stability in say laptops or other moving applications; there is no worries of hitting a bump too hard and damaging your fragile spinning hdd.
Yes of course. I'm definitely going to be offroading with a wireless media server. Frankly, besides the 'no moving parts' I have yet to see any real advantages to SSD that wasn't laboratory-tested-fanboyfaggin-market-bling statistics. A few rough benefits on sequential read speed really doesn't matter all that much to me, and I can't really afford to go throwing money out on hardware that is that finicky.
"You can have ZOMGFASTZORZ read and write speed!" (Only sequentially. Break the sequence and you get worse performance than IDE.)
"But you don't have any moving parts and it's dead quiet." (Really, does 'no moving parts' help one sleep at night? We've had moving parts for more than forty years without issues, and modern drives are almost silent anyway.)
"And their even CHEAPER and SAFER now." (Oh, yeah you know, 128GB at $400+ or 750GB at $60. Safer? After how many full disk rewrites would you like to test that?)
It's just not worth it in the long run.