Solid State HDs - worth the cost?

[ted leslie]

i have the top of the line intel 32gb one, it does 220mb / second r/w approx.
and i belive is 1M+ writes cycles.

it was about 550$ and is about 450 now (as i have had it for about a year)

for loading openoffice, yes its way faster, and booting is fast,
about 15 seconds faster.

having said all this, i can say that the 550$ would have been better 
spent on ram, i.e. buy another 8gb or ram, and over all it would
have been a better improvement for the system, however,
since the drive can last for ages , ....
i am going to wait until the price drops more, and they are
sata3 based (or whatever that new sata standard is)
then attach 4-8 of them to a 3ware card on raid 6,
and then we're talking,
but for now, the money is better spent (i think) on other improvements,
unless you have popular tasks that work within 32 gb (or 64) that
have alot of seeks, and you value benifit in that.

tl

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:12:13 -0500
"William O'Higgins Witteman" <william.ohiggins-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> My reading suggests that using a solid-state drive for the OS would
> result in a noticeable (perhaps significant) speed increase to a
> system.
> 
> I have one user who has a SSD in his laptop, and it is not noticeably
> faster than a regular HD, but it is a laptop, and it is running Windows.
> So, I have one data point which suggests it's not worth doing.  Anyone
> have any experience to share?
> -- 
> 
> yours,
> 
> William
> 
> 


-- 
ted leslie <tleslie-RBVUpeUoHUc at public.gmane.org>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists