2011-09-29, 17:59
I have questions about SSD's.
When I read their specs, they only mention whether they are SATA II or III and they mention the maximum read/write speeds.
But they are "maximum" read/write speeds and they mostly matter when you're copying a large file to or from the SSD (sequential). But since we are using it in an htpc environment where the media is stored on HDD or NAS, the maximum speed only matters when we install the OS the first time (When it copies all the files)
I remember a while back I was reading that "random access" speed is what matters the most for xbmc because it is used when the skin loads all the thumbs and fanart, etc, that are all stored on different areas on the SSD as individual files, so it affects xbmc gui speed significantly. Obviously the random access speed to a bunch of individual files would be much much slower than the maximum sequential read speed (Just compare your copy speeds in windows between copying a single 300MB file and a 300MB folder with 100,000 files in it). And an SSD with a 180MB/s max read speed could technically be much faster at random access compared to an SSD with 500MB/s max read speed.
I was reading that the random access speed depended on the quality of the controller.
The problem is, when I am shopping around for an SSD, what spec should I be looking at to get an idea of their random access speed??
I guess this is the reason why some SSD drives get comments such as "It was really fast when I first started using it, but now it is as slow as my HDD". Because when they first got it, they used it to copy all their files and OS onto it, and it was fast due to its high max sequential read/write, but then when they started using it for xbmc or other software, where random access mattered and the drive just didn't deliver on that front.
That article also talked about how the intel x-25 had much lower max read/write speeds compared to other SSDs but it was actually much faster than most at random access, that's why they were more expensive. What about OCZ, Kingston and Crucial drives? How do I compare them?
Thanks in advance.
When I read their specs, they only mention whether they are SATA II or III and they mention the maximum read/write speeds.
But they are "maximum" read/write speeds and they mostly matter when you're copying a large file to or from the SSD (sequential). But since we are using it in an htpc environment where the media is stored on HDD or NAS, the maximum speed only matters when we install the OS the first time (When it copies all the files)
I remember a while back I was reading that "random access" speed is what matters the most for xbmc because it is used when the skin loads all the thumbs and fanart, etc, that are all stored on different areas on the SSD as individual files, so it affects xbmc gui speed significantly. Obviously the random access speed to a bunch of individual files would be much much slower than the maximum sequential read speed (Just compare your copy speeds in windows between copying a single 300MB file and a 300MB folder with 100,000 files in it). And an SSD with a 180MB/s max read speed could technically be much faster at random access compared to an SSD with 500MB/s max read speed.
I was reading that the random access speed depended on the quality of the controller.
The problem is, when I am shopping around for an SSD, what spec should I be looking at to get an idea of their random access speed??
I guess this is the reason why some SSD drives get comments such as "It was really fast when I first started using it, but now it is as slow as my HDD". Because when they first got it, they used it to copy all their files and OS onto it, and it was fast due to its high max sequential read/write, but then when they started using it for xbmc or other software, where random access mattered and the drive just didn't deliver on that front.
That article also talked about how the intel x-25 had much lower max read/write speeds compared to other SSDs but it was actually much faster than most at random access, that's why they were more expensive. What about OCZ, Kingston and Crucial drives? How do I compare them?
Thanks in advance.