SSD Hard Drives

[Uncompetative]

Puts my rig to shame.

*sigh*
Someday....

Spoiler: Not mine...

The speed of my hard drive is not as big an issue as you would think, as I never turn my system off (except when annually upgrading the OS), I just walk in the room and touch the keyboard to wake it from its slumbers. All the applications I normally use are not only running, but contain the files that I was last working on. I have multiple desktop (Spaces) for different activities, all rapidly accessible. I have Spotlight, to show me all the relevant files that contain my query-text (not just in their filename and not just in the Documents folder). I have automatic, versioned, backups. The only real bottleneck in my system is my broadband (BT Option 3 Unlimited) and that is often more because of the obscure University servers and blog sites that I am downloading from than the fault of my connection.

I can't run Crysis, but then I didn't buy a computer to play games on - I have a 360 for that and funds to buy whatever console comes next...

Of course, none of this "instant wake from sleep and continue working from where you left off" would work in practice if I found that I was having to repeatedly shutdown my computer either for software upgrades, or for hardware maintenance and jiggery-pokery (e.g. Hackintosh).
I feel that this represents the essential difference in cultures between Windows/Linux PC users and OS X Macintosh users: the former are keen computer hobbyists as much interested in their machines as they are in what they do with them (hence the prevalence of overclocking), whilst the latter couldn't care less about the hardware provided their computing experience was optimally productive for the tasks they typically undertook (hence the Photoshop Macs Pros bought from Apple with lots of extra RAM).

So, a mildly amusing video of some PC hardware hacking, but nothing to do with real Computing...

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

No, not SSD Hard Drive. A Hard Drive is an HDD (Hard Disk Drive). SSD means Solid State Drive.

An SSD is not an HDD.

Anyway, SSD's are the future but it's not the future yet.

 

[massau]

cool but how much ram does it had and i hope computers get so fast after some years.than we don't ave to wait to long fore some crappy things to load. and the speed of internet must go higher and download limits must be banned

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Um no... RAID increases the speed at which a system can access a file (or several). Having different parts of the same file being saved on separate drives means that the system can actively use the bandwidth of multiple drives to load the same file as opposed to using a single drive. The actual read write speed for each drive does not increase though.

Also RAM speed had very little to do with the computer's performance in the video. The RAM they used was 800mhz. We have ram that goes at 1333mhz these days. With that many drives running under RAID though, the read/write speed of the drives is actually faster then the RAM, but for many SDD/HDD functions like copying and moving files, your system won't even touch the RAM.

If there's a slower drive in the RAID then that just means that accessing whatever parts of a file on that drive will be slightly slower, which yes it does affect the total access time.

not with any of the RAID configs i've used over the years in the various corporate environments i've worked in and server farms i've gotten to play with and you certainly can't add them up

also ram is VERY important in any system, as the ram helps to handle the reads and writes of the hard drives, ram can be one of the bottlenecks in a system

Also for their Defrag, you'll notice you can actually see how many files the system defragged in the video. The tests were NOT done on a system that had just the OS, Office and a few files installed, there were other things (Steam being one of them) installed on it as well. I think I saw the number being at around 24,000 files (56.17GB).

ok i never said "just the os" i said "brand new install" there is a big difference as with a "brand new install" you typically also install the software you are wanting to use on the system as well as the operating system

when you first install a system there is very little fragmentation because most of the files get to be allocated contiguously and therefore not be fragmented

 

[Zer_]

Um no... RAID increases the speed at which a system can access a file (or several). Having different parts of the same file being saved on separate drives means that the system can actively use the bandwidth of multiple drives to load the same file as opposed to using a single drive. The actual read write speed for each drive does not increase though.

Also RAM speed had very little to do with the computer's performance in the video. The RAM they used was 800mhz. We have ram that goes at 1333mhz these days. With that many drives running under RAID though, the read/write speed of the drives is actually faster then the RAM, but for many SDD/HDD functions like copying and moving files, your system won't even touch the RAM.

If there's a slower drive in the RAID then that just means that accessing whatever parts of a file on that drive will be slightly slower, which yes it does affect the total access time.

not with any of the RAID configs i've used over the years in the various corporate environments i've worked in and server farms i've gotten to play with and you certainly can't add them up

also ram is VERY important in any system, as the ram helps to handle the reads and writes of the hard drives, ram can be one of the bottlenecks in a system

Also for their Defrag, you'll notice you can actually see how many files the system defragged in the video. The tests were NOT done on a system that had just the OS, Office and a few files installed, there were other things (Steam being one of them) installed on it as well. I think I saw the number being at around 24,000 files (56.17GB).

ok i never said "just the os" i said "brand new install" there is a big difference as with a "brand new install" you typically also install the software you are wanting to use on the system as well as the operating system

when you first install a system there is very little fragmentation because most of the files get to be allocated contiguously and therefore not be fragmented

The whole purpose of a RAID setup is to increase the read/write speed of an array of hard drives. If you're running separate hard drives that are not set up in a RAID then all you have is a large number of drives not really working together but independently.

It's the exact same idea as having two 2ghz cores instead of one. The tasks are split up between the two cores so they both work in tandem thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the calculations. A RAID setup does the exact same thing but with hard drives.

Also, when you copy a file from one drive to another your RAM isn't even used. The data doesn't even touch the RAM, this saves time. What would be the point really. The system would copy the information into your RAM only to then copy it again to its destination. Only when a program or file is read and opened is it ever saved into your RAM.

You may see RAM usage in copying or moving files when the drives are slow and the system will then start an information cache in the RAM, but in the case of this experiment the array of drives is fast enough that the computer does not need to do this, as it would end up slowing down the entire process as opposed to speeding it up.

Also RAID means Redundant Array of Independent Disks, not random.

RAID's various designs all involve two key design goals: increased data reliability or increased input/output performance. When multiple physical disks are set up to use RAID technology, they are said to be in a RAID array. This array distributes data across multiple disks, but the array is seen by the computer user and operating system as one single disk. RAID can be set up to serve several different purposes.

* RAID 0 (striped disks) distributes data across several disks in a way that gives improved speed and no lost capacity, but all data on all disks will be lost if any one disk fails. Although such an array has no actual redundancy, it is customary to call it RAID 0.

* RAID 1 (mirrored settings/disks) duplicates data across every disk in the array, providing full redundancy. Two (or more) disks each store exactly the same data, at the same time, and at all times. Data is not lost as long as one disk survives. Total capacity of the array equals the capacity of the smallest disk in the array. At any given instant, the contents of each disk in the array are identical to that of every other disk in the array.

* RAID 5 (striped disks with parity) combines three or more disks in a way that protects data against loss of any one disk; the storage capacity of the array is reduced by one disk.

* RAID 6 (striped disks with dual parity) (less common) can recover from the loss of two disks.

* RAID 10 (or 1+0) uses both striping and mirroring. "01" or "0+1" is sometimes distinguished from "10" or "1+0": a striped set of mirrored subsets and a mirrored set of striped subsets are both valid, but distinct, configurations.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

The whole purpose of a RAID setup is to increase the read/write speed of an array of hard drives. If you're running separate hard drives that are not set up in a RAID then all you have is a large number of drives not really working together but independently.

no it's not, it's about REDUNDANCY, meaning if one drive fails you won't lose your data. it has little to do with read/write speeds and writing to a RAID array SUCKS or can depending on the size because the amount of waiting you have to do in order for all the drives to report they're finished

It's the exact same idea as having two 2ghz cores instead of one. The tasks are split up between the two cores so they both work in tandem thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the calculations. A RAID setup does the exact same thing but with hard drives.

actually not it's not, yet again. see having 2 chips that are both 2GHz does NOT give you a 4 GHz computer. it can speed up your performance when multitasking only if a few things are met. the os has to support SMP, Symmetric Multiprocessing and the program has to support it. even when these two things are present, you aren't guaranteed big speed boosts

Also, when you copy a file from one drive to another your RAM isn't even used. The data doesn't even touch the RAM, this saves time. What would be the point really. The system would copy the information into your RAM only to then copy it again to its destination. Only when a program or file is read and opened is it ever saved into your RAM.


You may see RAM usage in copying or moving files when the drives are slow and the system will then start an information cache in the RAM, but in the case of this experiment the array of drives is fast enough that the computer does not need to do this, as it would end up slowing down the entire process as opposed to speeding it up.

wrong yet again, the RAM is always used when doing anything in a computer, the files might not touch the RAM but certainly the various confirmations and processes that happen during a read/write will pass thru the RAM. try doing a read/write with a bad or mistimed RAM chip and see how well that goes

Also RAID means Redundant Array of Independent Disks, not random.

actually it's INEXPENSIVE

RAID's various designs all involve two key design goals: increased data reliability or increased input/output performance. When multiple physical disks are set up to use RAID technology, they are said to be in a RAID array. This array distributes data across multiple disks, but the array is seen by the computer user and operating system as one single disk. RAID can be set up to serve several different purposes.

* RAID 0 (striped disks) distributes data across several disks in a way that gives improved speed and no lost capacity, but all data on all disks will be lost if any one disk fails. Although such an array has no actual redundancy, it is customary to call it RAID 0.

* RAID 1 (mirrored settings/disks) duplicates data across every disk in the array, providing full redundancy. Two (or more) disks each store exactly the same data, at the same time, and at all times. Data is not lost as long as one disk survives. Total capacity of the array equals the capacity of the smallest disk in the array. At any given instant, the contents of each disk in the array are identical to that of every other disk in the array.

* RAID 5 (striped disks with parity) combines three or more disks in a way that protects data against loss of any one disk; the storage capacity of the array is reduced by one disk.

* RAID 6 (striped disks with dual parity) (less common) can recover from the loss of two disks.

* RAID 10 (or 1+0) uses both striping and mirroring. "01" or "0+1" is sometimes distinguished from "10" or "1+0": a striped set of mirrored subsets and a mirrored set of striped subsets are both valid, but distinct, configurations.

yeah i do know what types of RAID are, kinda comes with the territory of actually using them

but bravo on the wikipedia cut and paste, shame you got so much of your other info wrong

 

[Gamer137]

/drool

I NEED that.

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

Actually, the write speeds of a RAID 0 are not affected much as opposed to RAID 1. And yeah I copied that from Wikipedia, glad you noticed, but I also copied some other stuff that you didn't seem to notice. Because you know "More recently, marketers representing industry RAID manufacturers reinvented the term to describe a Redundant Array of Independent Disks as a means of disassociating a "low cost" expectation from RAID technology." Also from Wikipedia!

RAID 1 is slower because it has to have the same data written several times, and it's at that point the Processor can actually get bottlenecked. The RAID you're talking about is the Redundancy application to safeguard data. The RAID this video is talking about is for purely performance purposes which is more to what I am referring to.

I also like how you completely misinterpreted my dual core analogy, congratulations. I never said it resulted in double speed (seriously try to find it somewhere in there, but don't try too hard). When we want computers with faster read speeds we do RAID 0, if we want it even faster we go for the Solid State solution.

The way you interpreted the video is completely false. You can use a RAID array to have increased performance. Take a gander at the purpose of the many different RAID setups which include Redundancy and Increased Input/Output performance.

The most common home applied RAID setups involve RAID 0 and RAID 1. A typical home user might like RAID 1 because they will have a reliable back-up. RAID 1 can also provide improved read speeds, but usually has a slower write speed due to everything being written twice. A PC enthusiast type such as I would go for RAID 0 because it provides improved performance with both read and write speeds. The RAID 0 setup does not need to have each file written twice. Of course if one drive in RAID 0 fails, then the whole array fails which is one of the major drawbacks.

 

[Sewblon]

I am jealous. One of the Seagate Barracuda drives that was in my 0RAID failed do to defective firmware and UPS is shipping it to the i365 lab in California for repair, but I still lose my data forever.

 

[cathou]

i've sold a couple of servers with SSDs. they work very fast. The largest SSD on the market is a toshiba if i'm correct that hold 512 gb. But in server we mostly put 73 gb, often in raid 5 with a fiber channel SAN that usually hold between 800 gb and 15 tb of data.

and note than the most common configuration for servers now is 32 gb of ram. and in blades clusters the ram can be enormous sometimes. The point on thoses more than 200 gb of ram is to virtualize hundreds of server on a single cluster. So each virtual servers have around 32 to 64 gb of ram...

 

[cleverlymadeup]

*snip*

Actually, the write speeds of a RAID 0 are not affected much as opposed to RAID 1. And yeah I copied that from Wikipedia, glad you noticed, but I also copied some other stuff that you didn't seem to notice. Because you know "More recently, marketers representing industry RAID manufacturers reinvented the term to describe a Redundant Array of Independent Disks as a means of disassociating a "low cost" expectation from RAID technology." Also from Wikipedia!

actually i did, you still are getting the acronym wrong, it's INEXPENSIVE, no matter what marketing likes to call it. there's TONS of stuff that marketing mislabels and calls the wrong thing


RAID 1 is slower because it has to have the same data written several times, and it's at that point the Processor can actually get bottlenecked. The RAID you're talking about is the Redundancy application to safeguard data. The RAID this video is talking about is for purely performance purposes which is more to what I am referring to.

I also like how you completely misinterpreted my dual core analogy, congratulations. I never said it resulted in double speed (seriously try to find it somewhere in there, but don't try too hard). When we want computers with faster read speeds we do RAID 0, if we want it even faster we go for the Solid State solution.

actually no i got your dual core and here's where you said it does increase the speed

The tasks are split up between the two cores so they both work in tandem thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the calculations.

so yeah i didn't have to try very hard. the thing is it doesn't give you vastly improved speeds. it is more efficient yes, but not always faster, it is just able to handle certain things a lot better, such as multitasking and concurrent processes, things like sql perform really well on multi-processor systems and ONLY if the system itself supports it. the only consumer level ones that do with any great efficiency are the *nix based os's

The way you interpreted the video is completely false. You can use a RAID array to have increased performance. Take a gander at the purpose of the many different RAID setups which include Redundancy and Increased Input/Output performance.

The most common home applied RAID setups involve RAID 0 and RAID 1. A typical home user might like RAID 1 because they will have a reliable back-up. RAID 1 can also provide improved read speeds, but usually has a slower write speed due to everything being written twice. A PC enthusiast type such as I would go for RAID 0 because it provides improved performance with both read and write speeds. The RAID 0 setup does not need to have each file written twice. Of course if one drive in RAID 0 fails, then the whole array fails which is one of the major drawbacks.

i am well aware of what RAID can and can't do, as i do happen to work with RAID arrays on a daily basis and have over the years and the "speed" boosts if anything are for reading and NOT writing

and really RAID 0 isn't really RAID, as there is no redundancy, which is why you create a RAID array is for the redundancy. it's just really an array of disks

 

[kjrubberducky]

*snip*

Actually, the write speeds of a RAID 0 are not affected much as opposed to RAID 1. And yeah I copied that from Wikipedia, glad you noticed, but I also copied some other stuff that you didn't seem to notice. Because you know "More recently, marketers representing industry RAID manufacturers reinvented the term to describe a Redundant Array of Independent Disks as a means of disassociating a "low cost" expectation from RAID technology." Also from Wikipedia!

actually i did, you still are getting the acronym wrong, it's INEXPENSIVE, no matter what marketing likes to call it. there's TONS of stuff that marketing mislabels and calls the wrong thing


RAID 1 is slower because it has to have the same data written several times, and it's at that point the Processor can actually get bottlenecked. The RAID you're talking about is the Redundancy application to safeguard data. The RAID this video is talking about is for purely performance purposes which is more to what I am referring to.

I also like how you completely misinterpreted my dual core analogy, congratulations. I never said it resulted in double speed (seriously try to find it somewhere in there, but don't try too hard). When we want computers with faster read speeds we do RAID 0, if we want it even faster we go for the Solid State solution.

actually no i got your dual core and here's where you said it does increase the speed

The tasks are split up between the two cores so they both work in tandem thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the calculations.

so yeah i didn't have to try very hard. the thing is it doesn't give you vastly improved speeds. it is more efficient yes, but not always faster, it is just able to handle certain things a lot better, such as multitasking and concurrent processes, things like sql perform really well on multi-processor systems and ONLY if the system itself supports it. the only consumer level ones that do with any great efficiency are the *nix based os's

The way you interpreted the video is completely false. You can use a RAID array to have increased performance. Take a gander at the purpose of the many different RAID setups which include Redundancy and Increased Input/Output performance.

The most common home applied RAID setups involve RAID 0 and RAID 1. A typical home user might like RAID 1 because they will have a reliable back-up. RAID 1 can also provide improved read speeds, but usually has a slower write speed due to everything being written twice. A PC enthusiast type such as I would go for RAID 0 because it provides improved performance with both read and write speeds. The RAID 0 setup does not need to have each file written twice. Of course if one drive in RAID 0 fails, then the whole array fails which is one of the major drawbacks.

i am well aware of what RAID can and can't do, as i do happen to work with RAID arrays on a daily basis and have over the years and the "speed" boosts if anything are for reading and NOT writing

and really RAID 0 isn't really RAID, as there is no redundancy, which is why you create a RAID array is for the redundancy. it's just really an array of disks

Wow. The semantics being argued and the general nitpicking is incredible. You are wrong. He is right. Get over it.

On topic: I put one of these in my laptop, and the difference was HUGE. Mind you, a laptop HDD (mine included) is usually a 5400 rpm drive; whereas your normal desktop drive is 7200 rpm, so the difference in speed for mine was VERY noticeable.

One thing you have to be careful about (more so in single disks than a RAID like in the video) is that frequent read/writes to different memory locations can lock up the drive from 0-2 seconds or so. In my experience, disabling the pagefile fixed this, but you want to make sure you have plenty of RAM.

I got mine for 130 dollars for a 64 GB drive, so they are going down a little bit. Don't hold your breath, though.

 

[Laughing Man]

The guys arguing about RAID get over yourselves. In the real world RAID 0 is a worthless increase in expense for results you will never really notice. Getting a Raptor over a huge 1TB Samsung is another example of cost for cost sake. You'll never notice the speed difference as the HD will always be the bottleneck in any modern system and anyone that says they can spot the 3 seconds load time difference is a liar of unspeakable proportion.

The only time you'll ever notice the difference from a RAID array is if you have a set up like in the video above and let's face it no one is going to have a set up like the one shown in the video.

Now you can argue about the other main benefit of RAID but you have the overhead from having to write everything twice and no one has data on their home or gaming computer that is so valuable that they can justify having a backup RAID array. Buy a second drive install it as an independant back up drive and use backup software ever week or so. Job done same benefit for the average man as a RAID array with none of the down sides.

The only time RAID is of worth is in corporate circumstances were speed isn't an issue but immediate data backup is and let's face it why the hell would you want to argue over something that dull?

secondly the "fast" defrag would happen on ANY type of drive, defraging a brand new drive/install will always be fast as there haven't been a lot of writes and deletes.

You also don't defrag SSDs since it provides no benefit whatsoever to them.

End of the day, however x million writes they have at the moment isn't really good enough. 1 segment of the the chip goes... that's a dead SSD.

Um no SSDs have onboard controllers that ensure data is written evenly across the available space, also most average write amounts will cover about 10 years for the average user. Also SSDs work the same as standard HDD. If a section of the drive dies or fails then your OS sees that and ignores that area. Ever done a HDD error scan and found a bad sector? That's usually a damaged section of your drive and Windows will just ignore that if it can;t repair it. SSDs work the same, you don't lose the whole drive just because one part of it doesn't work anymore.

I am gonna get an SSD to use as a primary install drive. I'll stick my OS and any regular use software on it for quick access. I'll also get a 1TB Samsung HDD for storage purposes; videos, music, images, little used software. I am just waiting till Windows 7 comes along first.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

secondly the "fast" defrag would happen on ANY type of drive, defraging a brand new drive/install will always be fast as there haven't been a lot of writes and deletes.

You also don't defrag SSDs since it provides no benefit whatsoever to them.

you can defrag them, if they use either a fat or a ntfs file system as they can be fragmented. other file systems, such as the ext family don't suffer from file fragmentation

 

[Laughing Man]

you can defrag them, if they use either a fat or a ntfs file system as they can be fragmented. other file systems, such as the ext family don't suffer from file fragmentation

I didn't say you couldn't just their is no point in doing so. Most of the manufacturers recommend not to defrag the drives as it can actually have a detrimental effect on the SSDs life.

The only reason you defrag a regular HDD is because a fragmented file could be stored in two parts of the HDD. To access the file requires two movements of the read/write head which takes longer than a straight forward read of a non fragmented file. It also moves all the files from their random locations and sticks them close to the start of the HDD meaning quicker access times as the read/write head doesn't have to move as far. Since SSDs have no read/write head and the access time is uniform irrespective of weather the file is fragmented, defragmented, or it's location on the drive their is no benefit to defragmenting an SSD.

The downside though is because SSDs have a limited write life the last thing you want to do is start a process that performs multiple writes to the drive and ultimately yeilds little if any benefit.

Oh you'll get lots of people trying to claim some sort of increase in HDD space once the defrag has been completed but I've defragged my HDD from any number of fragmentation levels, the worse being a 35% fragmentation and I've never made any more than a meg or two worth of additional space as a result of defraging.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

actually it's INEXPENSIVE

Actually, that's largely been dropped. It's usually now referred to as Independent because many RAID drives aren't cheap. However you define it, 73gb 15k drives for £220 is not Inexpensive. Our Database servers are ridiculously expensive. Mostly because you've got a few opinions, cheap, large but not as quick drives and blisteringly fast low capacity drives which are expensive.

It's really down to purpose really.

actually it's still inexpensive, marketers MIGHT call it independent however much like the word hacker (which means programmer) is referred to in the media as a criminal who breaks into computer systems, no matter what someone else calls it, the definition is still the same

yeah RAID arrays are "expensive" but so is most things in the corporate world, 5K for a server is a deal you can't really pass up

you can defrag them, if they use either a fat or a ntfs file system as they can be fragmented. other file systems, such as the ext family don't suffer from file fragmentation

I didn't say you couldn't just their is no point in doing so. Most of the manufacturers recommend not to defrag the drives as it can actually have a detrimental effect on the SSDs life.

yeah and microsoft says you shouldn't have to defrag any of their drives but that's a pipe dream as well

The only reason you defrag a regular HDD is because a fragmented file could be stored in two parts of the HDD. To access the file requires two movements of the read/write head which takes longer than a straight forward read of a non fragmented file. It also moves all the files from their random locations and sticks them close to the start of the HDD meaning quicker access times as the read/write head doesn't have to move as far. Since SSDs have no read/write head and the access time is uniform irrespective of weather the file is fragmented, defragmented, or it's location on the drive their is no benefit to defragmenting an SSD.

The downside though is because SSDs have a limited write life the last thing you want to do is start a process that performs multiple writes to the drive and ultimately yeilds little if any benefit.

i do know what contiguous and non-contiguous files are and their effects on a hard drive and it's performance

figured you'd know that by the fact that i was mentioning the ext family of file systems that aren't affected by file fragmentation

Oh you'll get lots of people trying to claim some sort of increase in HDD space once the defrag has been completed but I've defragged my HDD from any number of fragmentation levels, the worse being a 35% fragmentation and I've never made any more than a meg or two worth of additional space as a result of defraging.

you won't gain space, you will gain read and write speed

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Tsk, definitions do change though. I doesn't really matter who changes it, if it becomes accepted. You can cling to Inexpensive if you like, and you can call a Programmer a Hacker if you please but you could also go down to Ye Olde Pub and ask for a Flagon of their finest Mead and no ones going to have a clue what you're on about!

actually they really don't change, it's only a marketer calling it that, a large chunk of the industry still calls it inexpensive, they're trying to appeal to stupid bosses who have no clue about computers. sure a 20K RAID array might not be very inexpensive but when you have to go up against things that are 50K, then yeah it's pretty inexpensive.

same goes for hacker, there's tons of coders and geeks out there that call a coder a hacker. editing code is still called "hacking the code" which is in part where the term came from

as for a flagon of mead, they wouldn't have a clue what i was talking about cause most bars/pubs don't serve mead. mead is NOT beer, it's type of wine made from honey. oh and a flagon is a rather large pitcher, don't think most places are legally allowed to sell .5-2 gallon drinks. so that's a rather bad comparison

just because you want to call it something else, doesn't really change the name, it just means you're calling it the wrong thing

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The only problem with SSD a 80GB SDD drive is about 300$

So if you want to pay 320 per 100 GB I would not worry about it for 5 or so years....

http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=636&name=Solid-State-Disks&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA

Raid is bloated and not worth it I still prefer disc archiving.


Also I haz a dumb question..... dose not flash based SSD stuff have a write limit?

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

That is amazing, to bad it costs SO DAMN MUCH FOR A SSD!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

*snip*

also, they're a forensic investiation goldmine. because of the way that blocks of data are erased, they are just freed up on the controller, the actual data isn't erased. So one would have 512kB-1mB of latent data on their hard drive.

At least until they come out with EMP devices that can fit into a 3.5" drive slot.

EMP my ass, I have a hammer, let's see them reconstruct the dust.

I'd have to agree. The Army plan for destroying equipment (if it was being decommissioned or about to be captured) was fairly simple. The first was thermite platters (exactly what it sounds like - a large plate of thermite with a detonation system - enough firepower to put a hole through the engine block of a HMMWV and a few feet into the concrete below), but because most units don't actually have them on hand this "prefered" option was rarely used. The second was incendairy grenade (same concept, smaller package), but the process was the same. Place grenade on object to be destroyed, pull the pin and look away. The third was "use this axe" - every major piece of Military Intelligence equipment comes with an axe for this very reason (this is an extra axe beyond the kit that accompanies every military vehicle). The final option was "well, you DO have a gun, just shoot it". Sadly, I never was allowed to use any of the fun options. I was once ordered to destroy a case of decommissioned KVM switched (in spite of the fact that KVM switches store no data, rules are rules I suppose) with a 10 pound sledge hammer. I was in charge of the detail so I smashed them and the losers with me had to pick up the pieces. It was the best day ever.