Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Size Matters For Your SSD Purchase

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the taking-out-the-trash dept.

Data Storage 175

Vigile writes "Performance analysis on solid state drives is still coming into clarity as more manufacturers enter the fold and more of the drives find their way into users' hands. While Intel's dominance in the SSD market was once undoubted, newer garbage collection methods from Indilinx and Samsung are now balancing performance across the the major players. What hasn't been discussed in great detail yet is the effect that drive capacity can have on overall performance. Some smaller drives (64GB versus 128GB) will actually use fewer data channels from the controller chip and thus will have lower transfer speeds. The article compares drives using controllers from Indilinx, Samsung and Intel." Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147467)

fuck yeah deal with it

Re:first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147715)

yo mama said that size matters

Re:first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147945)

I congratulate you, Sir. That must have been the best (albeit off-topic) first post I've ever seen.

Size. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147481)

6.40 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Size. (4, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29147557)

I don't know whether to mod this troll, offtopic, flamebait, or funny, so I'm replying instead. Well played.

Re:Size. (3, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29147661)

Wow. I wasn't karma-whoring with that post, but I'll take it.

Now... the post I made below this one... THAT was karma-whoring.

Re:Size. (0)

cparker15 (779546) | about 5 years ago | (#29148105)

Funny mods don't affect your karma... you insensitive clod?

Re:Size. (1, Informative)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29148161)

Click the score. Insightful mods do affect karma.

Re:Size. (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | about 5 years ago | (#29149253)

The funniest thing is that someone modded it informative.

Re:Size. (1)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | about 5 years ago | (#29149459)

I'm not sure... I mean do they even MAKE 6.40-inch-long Super Star Destroyers???

Re:Size. (1)

stillnotelf (1476907) | about 5 years ago | (#29149667)

Re:Size. (1)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | about 5 years ago | (#29149707)

The Emperor is probably spinning in his grave!!! That is, of course, unless you're a douche and your think Expanded Universe is canon.

Re:Size. (0, Flamebait)

Conditioner (1405031) | about 5 years ago | (#29147755)

6.40 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

What, you mean if you measure starting from your butt hole?

Re:Size. (-1, Offtopic)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29147795)

It's not 6.40" from his butt hole if it's in his butt hole.

Re:Size. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147913)

flaccid or erect?

Re:Size. (0, Flamebait)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 5 years ago | (#29148545)

I didn't know Bill G. posted to slashdot! How does Melinda feel about your 6.4 inches?

Re:Size. (2, Funny)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 5 years ago | (#29149227)

6.40 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

I know there's a "your mom" joke here somewhere...

Re:Size. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29149447)

Except your mom. (apologies, you walked into that one)

Re:Size. (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | about 5 years ago | (#29149461)

whoever tagged it "thatswhatshesaid" is awesome

The short story (5, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#29147489)

Intel X25-M 160GB totally dominates in IOPS and doesn't suffer in the other categories. A clean win.

Re:The short story (2, Funny)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | about 5 years ago | (#29147561)

Price.

Price (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#29147681)

From the article:

I was going to include a price comparison, but a few of the units tested (like the Corsair P64) don't seem to be carried anywhere as of yet. That said, prices generally do not sway far from the cost/GB of ~$2.75 set by Intel when they released their G2 drives at record low prices. The exception here is the SLC-based PhotoFast V4S, which will retail for a whopping $499 (that's $15/GB in case you ran out of fingers and toes).

Re:The short story (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29149785)

Actually, Intel has priced this one very aggressively. I think they're seeing their chance to cease the storage market, since it's now chips like CPUs and RAID that they also have plenty experience with from motherboard/server RAID solutions. The way this is going, the HDD manufacturers should be very worried. Particularly in the business market I think a reasonable 80GB SSD is plenty capacity, that's damn many powerpoints and time == salary. In fact, with Intel broadening in every direction and SoC systems nearing usability for the laptop/desktop I think we're heading for the Intel PC, full circle 30 years after the IBM PC.

Re:The short story (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29147581)

They all meet the definition of 'blisteringly fast' when compared to my current disk, but they also all meet the definition of 'cost more than I want to pay'.

I guess it is still useful to figure out which one provides the best value.

Re:The short story (2, Insightful)

spinkham (56603) | about 5 years ago | (#29147943)

I bought a 30 GB OCZ vertex for my boot/application drive, and use a few 1TB drives in RAID for bulk storage. Best of both worlds.
Yes, the 30BG one isn't quite as fast as the 120GB one, but it's still 10x faster at loading apps and 3x faster at booting Ubuntu then my past HD.

But if you think yours is too small... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147531)

... don't worry what really matter is how you use it

Multi-Page = Horrible (2, Insightful)

PktLoss (647983) | about 5 years ago | (#29147541)

The odds of me reading page 2 of any article not paginated sensibly (reading a single page should take several minutes) are probably around 10%. Page 5? never.

I'll just be uninformed until information is published with a sensible pagination system. I'm okay with that.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (3, Insightful)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | about 5 years ago | (#29147825)

>Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages.

Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1, Interesting)

Phillup (317168) | about 5 years ago | (#29148389)

Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.

There are adds on those pages?

NoScript for the win!

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (0)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29149349)

You mean AdBlock Plus, of course. Or how does your NoScript block text ads? :)

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1)

Phillup (317168) | about 5 years ago | (#29149957)

Or how does your NoScript block text ads?

Well, either I'm lucky... or the ads are pulled in by javascript.

I just pulled the page again to double check, and I don't see any ads.

Which is pretty much what I always get unless the ad is a part of the html from the page I pull... because there is nothing else allowed.

Looking at the page source I see something from Google AdSense, among others... but they are all on my black list.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29149807)

Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.

There are adds on those pages?

NoScript for the win!

You must be a user of AdBlock Plus since you aren't seeing any "adds" [sic]!

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | about 5 years ago | (#29148461)

All Flash = I see none of them.

You mean 12 data channels (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 5 years ago | (#29148847)

Quoting from TFS:

Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages.

Methinks kdawson meant to say

Note that to allow reading on multiple web browser windows at once in parallel, PCPer spans this review over 12 channels, er, pages.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | about 5 years ago | (#29149609)

I don't see any ads on the pages, and that is with vanilla IE 8.

12 pages isn't a big deal when it is used to separate 50+ images.

I bet it's spanned across all those pages simply to try and somehow get a better pagerank.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (4, Interesting)

Vigile (99919) | about 5 years ago | (#29149585)

I don't want to turn this into the eternal "free web content ain't free" debate - but it's not. I run the site and yes this article might have been condensed to 9-10 pages more reasonably, but the author laid out the pages before filling in the content and was in a rush. Sorry.

As for those that block ads, etc. I realize WHY you do it but I would hope that once in a while you think of people that run these types of sites: we employee 8 people on pcper.com and we charge you NOTHING to read the content, etc. These 8 people depend on the ad revenue to live, function and continue writing.

Just a thought.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29149797)

As for those that block ads, etc. I realize WHY you do it but I would hope that once in a while you think of people that run these types of sites: we employee 8 people on pcper.com and we charge you NOTHING to read the content, etc. These 8 people depend on the ad revenue to live, function and continue writing.

Stop using 3rd party hosts. Learn to respect my browser's "no animations" setting rather than circumventing it. Don't use tracking cookies or bugs. Stop speading malware. And if you are just an innocent victim of your industry cohorts pissing in the well, then build a new advertising model that doesn't rely on these same asshole companies. Oh, but you won't do it because it is easier to complain and feel entitled. Block my ass if you don't want me - your shit content can be found elsewhere or safely ignored.

This is not a rant on your mild comment. Reality is that internet advertising is so thoroughly fucked up and tarnished that you ought to start over now and be ahead of the game. I recommend developing a parellel site with similar or identical content but using a non-3rd-party model.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (3, Interesting)

Vigile (99919) | about 5 years ago | (#29149885)

This doesn't make any sense actually. 60% or more of our ads are hosted on-site at ads.pcper.com. The others are hosted at Google Ad Manager service - widely regarded as one of the fastest and least obtrusive. And we are simply using that as a manager for our own in-house sold advertising. We have no malware but yah there are some cookies that are used in order to show you DIFFERENT ads rather than the same ones over and over if possible.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29149993)

yeah well, the truth is that all adverts are intrusive. they stink. and by association, so do you mate.

Re:Multi-Page = Horrible (1)

Reapman (740286) | about 5 years ago | (#29149829)

This.

Personally I don't get the big deal with seeing ad's. It's not like they're going to burn my eyes out. Now if the site uses some obtrusive blocking my view or sound clips or some such thing, THEN I'll block their ad's. But if it's some banner sitting somewhere quietly, it doesn't hurt ME to see it, so why not let it exist? If that's all it takes to show support and allow a site to exist and provide me with some value added service, what's the deal?

Granted I didn't actually RTFA since reading about stuff I can't afford makes for a sad panda :[

Free isn't (1)

DamonHD (794830) | about 5 years ago | (#29149971)

Yes, with you there: I provide all my content free but it does cost me, out of my pocket. I typically only recover 30% of my costs from ad revenue, and that fraction continues to fall.

Remember that 'sticking it to the man' on some kind of principle is no kind of principle at all. In some cases that 'man' is a fellow geek being kind to you; would you piss in his/my beer too on some kind of principle (CmdrTaco excepted, my liege)?

And *no*, I absolutely seriously do not want advertisers' money stolen by clicking on ads that visitors are not interested in as some kind of misguided 'tip jar': I'm an advertiser to bring new traffic in too.

Just allow a few more shades of grey in!

(I run NoScript, BTW, but primarily for safety; it's a jungle out there!)

Rgds

Damon

take a stand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147549)

Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.

They're not going to be more reasonable until we take a stand. Vote down the story, and make sure not to click the links.

Re:take a stand (4, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29147585)

I use adblock primarily for these sites.

When I come across a site that doesn't do this bullshit, I make sure to allow their ads.

Hell, Slashdot is giving me the option of disabling advertising just by clicking a checkbox; I'm not doing it.

Re:take a stand (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 5 years ago | (#29147687)

Yeah it gave me the option of blocking ads as well, when I noticed that I white-listed /.in ABP.

Re:take a stand (1)

GravityStar (1209738) | about 5 years ago | (#29148093)

Ever thought slashdot perhaps sniffed your use of ABP, and then 'gave' you the option of turning off ads?

This is, in fact, the /first/ thing that popped into my mind when I saw that checkbox to disable advertising. It would be a clever way to turn people who block ads into people who watch (your) ads.

Re:take a stand (2, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | about 5 years ago | (#29148147)

Nope, that's not the case at all. I can turn adds off too and I don't even run adblock. If a site has too many ads for my taste, I just close it never to return again.

Re:take a stand (1)

GeorgeS (11440) | about 5 years ago | (#29148197)

I have ABP disabled for Slashdot.org and I have the option to disable ads too but, I haven't checked the box and I don't see any ads.I always figured I screwed up some setting in ABP or Firefox but, now I see I'm not the only one experiencing this. Very strange that they would disable the ads just because we installed ABP.

Re:take a stand (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29147863)

That's alright, it shows me the ads even though I do have that box checked.

Re:take a stand (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29148063)

Try turning off NoScript.

Re:take a stand (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29148101)

I'm not running NoScript (though I do have the classic comment system turned on; it seems that they are not actively maintaining it, but some changes to the new system leak through (but this is only a guess)).

Re:take a stand (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 5 years ago | (#29148123)

For me, it means I get Google's text ads instead of Flash, which is nice as they are not really annoying and occasionally relevant.

You need AutoPager (5, Interesting)

Ben Jackson (30284) | about 5 years ago | (#29147951)

I use adblock primarily for these sites.

Then you're doing it wrong! The plugin you want for 12-page reviews is AutoPager [teesoft.info] . It works like the /. home page, loading 'next' pages as you get near the bottom. It's even smart enough to strip off headers and footers.

Re:You need AutoPager (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29148001)

I use that as well. Advertising trolls deserve as much feeding as forum trolls.

Re:You need AutoPager (1)

Goateee (1415809) | about 5 years ago | (#29149597)

And it can also be made too strip the ads, even if it isn't its main purpose.

Re:take a stand (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | about 5 years ago | (#29148215)

I use a hosts file to block ad servers, it gets probably 95% of the junk out there. As a bonus, the ads aren't even downloaded to my machine, so all my bandwidth goes to the page I'm browsing.

And since my internet at work is way over-capacity, that's a good thing. There are a number of lists out there, give it a shot. It's the geeky way to do it. ;)

Re:take a stand (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 5 years ago | (#29148605)

Not that it actually works - I have the box checked and now it shows an ad above a message saying ads are disabled.

Re:take a stand (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 5 years ago | (#29148559)

I wonder if it would be possible to make an extension that detected paginated sites and combined them down into a single page. Even if detection is too dificult I would think that you would be able to do one that would be a single button click for the user.

Re:take a stand (1)

Ironica (124657) | about 5 years ago | (#29149569)

As posted above [slashdot.org] by Ben Jackson, there is.

Size matters. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147593)

It's not the size of the SSD, but it's the motion in the Information Superocean... ... but it takes a long time to download from England to New York in a dingy sized Hard drive!

SSD can be a pain because of extra work (5, Informative)

damonlab (931917) | about 5 years ago | (#29147679)

I have never bothered with firmware updates and additional configuration steps with standard IDE, SATA, SCSI, and SAS drives. While looking around at various SSD, I found that you need to go though all of this additional crap to get things working right. OCZ, for example, has a whole forum dedicated to help tweak out their drives. http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=186 [ocztechnologyforum.com]

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147837)

Just because you can't be bothered with tweaking, doesn't mean others don't want to. The fact these drives can be enhanced is a selling point. When better algorithms come along, people can update their existing products if they choose to. I guess you're a conditioned consumer? Throw it in the bin and buy another? Like Apple's bling too I suppose?

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 5 years ago | (#29148979)

Just because you can't be bothered with tweaking, doesn't mean others don't want to. The fact these drives can be enhanced is a selling point. When better algorithms come along, people can update their existing products if they choose to. I guess you're a conditioned consumer? Throw it in the bin and buy another? Like Apple's bling too I suppose?

Maybe he's just not that obsessed with having the very latest and best performance regardless of whether the tradeoff would be money or hassle.

Ever consider that *your* obsession with having the latest and the best might be a greater reflection of consumer conditioning?

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147889)

I have never bothered with firmware updates and additional configuration steps with standard IDE, SATA, SCSI, and SAS drives.

Pretty much the only reason to issue a firmware update for a hard drive is performance, longevity, or data retention.
Ignore at your own risk.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

ledow (319597) | about 5 years ago | (#29148155)

Surely that's three reasons.

And I'd worry about a SSD that needs upgrades to ensure data retention (and, additionallly, some SSDs have had firmwares issued that the manufacturer then warns "Don't upgrade the firmware again... we broke the update / storage mechanism and you'll lose data until we sort out a NEW new firmware"). SSD's have one job - store data. That part should NEVER need updating. Performance, possibly, longevity and data retention - holy shit.

It's like saying that occasionally your fuel tank needs updating to improve it's fire-prevention, stop leakage etc. Maybe it does, but hell, I'd want a DIFFERENT fuel tank if that was the case, not one that "gets updated"... fix it in the design, not the firmware.

This is the problem - 20 years ago you DIDN'T need a driver for your monitor, or a flashing utility for your hard drive, or any of the other ridiculous things caused by not sticking to standards and/or designing the hardware badly. Today even the bloody photo-keyring I bought for someone had a firmware update issued for it.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (2, Insightful)

damnbunni (1215350) | about 5 years ago | (#29148289)

On the other hand, when I wanted to update my SCSI card 20 years ago there wasn't a firmware flasher - I had to buy a new chip, pull the old one off the card, and socket the new one in place. (The reason for the update? To add 'Seagate Mode' because Seagate drives didn't all spin up properly and without the new chip, the machine wouldn't boot off some Seagate drives.)

While things should certainly work right in the first place, being able to update them via software is a godsend.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (3, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | about 5 years ago | (#29148809)

This is the problem - 20 years ago you DIDN'T need a driver for your monitor, or a flashing utility for your hard drive, or any of the other ridiculous things caused by not sticking to standards and/or designing the hardware badly.

I wasn't using computers 20 years ago (I was 6 at the time), but I was a computer tinkerer 15 years ago, and I certainly remember needing drivers for things like monitors (not the video card, the monitor, it was a pain), driver updates for hard drives, etc. Without the drivers you had a standard, very basic functionality because the OS had a built in generic that would just barely work.

Ever heard of a Plug 'n Play monitor? Of course you have, it's what all monitors are now. But there was a time when there was no such thing. When PnP came out, it was revolutionary, because you didn't need drivers for the stupid simple stuff, like monitors and hard drives. To use PnP required a PnP capable motherboard, hardware device, and OS. A lot of BIOSs still have the setting to disable PnP if the OS isn't capable of it - then you'll need drivers. And of course, even after PnP for many years it was dubbed "Plug 'n Pray" because you were never sure it would actually work right, if not you'd better have drivers on hand.

Hell, Windows XP still won't run a SCSI drive unless you have the driver for it, and SCSI has been around FOREVER.

You may not know this, but even today you need drivers for your ATA/SATA hard drive to work properly. Some companies even send you a disk still, just in case. You don't recognize it, because after 20+ years the technology has been pretty well nailed, and new drivers are rarely - if ever- necessary. 99.9% of mass storage drivers are built in to any OS later than XP, but under certain cirumstances it's good to be aware of them and which ones you need (it comes up when using Sysprep sometimes, specifying your drivers can really speed up a re-image). Most of the drivers are contained in one or two INF files, but without them your drive will not work.

In other words, STFU, it's new technology, and even at its worst it's better than what we have currently. Soon things will be pretty well standardized, and the only substantive difference between brands will be the number of channels, chips, and levels which determine speed, capacity, and price.

Kinda like hard drives now, where we look at RPMs, cache, and seek times to find the best drives.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29148513)

Pretty much the only reason to issue a firmware update for a hard drive is performance, longevity, or data retention.

And a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 5 years ago | (#29147973)

Agree entirely. Others (indeed, an AC already has) will go on about improved algorithms, but ATEOTD there's only ever so much improvement that can be made and IMO if there's that much headroom that can be fixed in firmware, it's an immature technology.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (5, Insightful)

Kayden (1406747) | about 5 years ago | (#29147991)

OCZ also has forums dedicated to tweaking ram. There are thousands of forums on the internet dedicated to tweaking every part of a computer. Working "right" isn't "as fast as possible". Most components are configured to run less than optimum so they last longer. Granted, early SSD drives had issues with the abysmal cache causing stuttering, but really, that's just a design fault, not something endemic to the hardware line.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

Kayden (1406747) | about 5 years ago | (#29148003)

I meant maximum instead of optimum. =\ Where's the damn edit button?

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#29149853)

I hear what you're saying, but there's been some essential features in the firmware upgrades for SSDs. For example my Vertex didn't come with the TRIM command out of the box, it was added in a BIOS.

Also there's a lot of tuning that isn't done today but will be done in new OS releases, for example Ubuntu has this one:
SSD blueprint for Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) [ubuntu.com]

Basicly there's a lot to gain by changing some of the defaults, and it's being done but if you wanted it right now you'll have to use the forums. In a year it'll be much less necessary.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

bfields (66644) | about 5 years ago | (#29148167)

I've got two SSD's (80GB Intel X25-M), one in a laptop, one in a desktop. Never did any tweaking--just plugged them in and they worked. Haven't done any benchmarking, but boot time, application start-up time, and time for things like "grep -r large-directory/" are all (very) noticeably faster.

Deathstar (1)

stangbat (690193) | about 5 years ago | (#29148319)

You obviously never had the pleasure of owning an IBM Deskstar 75GXP. Alas, updating firmware, incantations, and anything/everything else did not keep me from suffering a failed drive and RMA hell. Twice.

Re:SSD can be a pain because of extra work (1)

DAldredge (2353) | about 5 years ago | (#29149297)

The Intel drives works great without any extra tweaking at all.

I doubt it. (2, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 5 years ago | (#29147693)

Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.

Um ... why would they do that if their 12-page version gets slashdotted anyway? The whole point of the splitting it up is to get page views.

Pussy hurt much? (0, Flamebait)

Chas (5144) | about 5 years ago | (#29147799)

Okay, running my monitor at 1600x1200 right now.

Each of the pages loads in and requires roughly a half-page scroll.

That's a decent chunk of data per-page.

Moreover, the pages load quickly.

Stuffing it all into 1-6 pages would do nothing more than insure that when they got slashdotted, they'd drown their server faster.

Re:Pussy hurt much? (3, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 5 years ago | (#29147855)

Each page was was broken at logical point too. Sure, they could have done the same in 6 pages that didn't have logical breaks, but you know, some people think that everything should be on one long page. Yay for them.

Is it too hard to click "next" ???? REALLY???

Re:Pussy hurt much? (5, Funny)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#29147993)

That's why I boycott books. I mean the scroll format was obviously much better. Turning pages wastes time and saliva, plus there is the mortal danger of paper cuts. Until books and magazines come in a sensible scroll format I won't be buying either.

Re:Pussy hurt much? (1)

cparker15 (779546) | about 5 years ago | (#29148169)

Saliva???

Do you chew on your books?

Re:Pussy hurt much? (1)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#29148293)

Is your biggest problem with my post really the fact that some people lick their thumb to help them turn pages.

Re:Pussy hurt much? (3, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 5 years ago | (#29148639)

Back when I was a kid, books used to come in a nice, easily scrollable format. Of course, that was before Gutenburg came along and messed things up with his new-fangled page-at-a-time printing... now get off my lawn!

Re:Pussy hurt much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29148159)

Is it too hard to click "next" ???? REALLY???

Yes.

If I want to learn something, I want to concentrate on what I'm reading.

Clicking "next" 12 times means I have to perform 12 unnecessary context switches. Stop reading. Move mouse. Click "next". Wait for page to load/render. Skim over banner ads (or blank spaces :), find next paragraph. Context-switch back into "read" mode.

We turn pages in books, because books are printed on dead trees, and because scrolls made of dead trees are fragile and don't offer random access.

The web is not print. There's no need (beyond artifically inflating ad impression counts) to apply the "page" model to the web.

So yes, it is that hard to stop what I'm doing 12 times, and hit "next".

Different people have different reading styles. If you're the type of reader who subvocalizes/reads every word, and for whom it takes 1-2 minutes to read the page, maybe the extra 2 seconds per click isn't a big deal. For those of us who read by skimming the text, it takes us 10 seconds to read the page, and the extra 2 seconds per page is 20% of our reading time, plus it interrupts our ability to scan the text. It's incredibly annoying.

Re:Pussy hurt much? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 5 years ago | (#29148697)

Yes it is when each spam filled page takes at least 5 seconds to load (at least in some cases).

Re:Pussy hurt much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147903)

Okay, running my monitor at 1600x1200 right now.

Each of the pages loads in and requires roughly a half-page scroll.

That's a decent chunk of data per-page.

Moreover, the pages load quickly.

Stuffing it all into 1-6 pages would do nothing more than insure that when they got slashdotted, they'd drown their server faster.

Mr. Pussy,

What do you base these claims on? (bigger pages will take down their service)??

It all depends on their infrastructure. For all you know, it could help keep them up.

Think before you speak, think harder if you plan on calling someone a pussy along the way. Perhaps your resolution is set so high you cant read clearly?

Signed,
Me.

fewer pages = better server performance (5, Informative)

SethJohnson (112166) | about 5 years ago | (#29147941)

Stuffing it all into 1-6 pages would do nothing more than insure that when they got slashdotted, they'd drown their server faster.

Actually, fewer pages with more text content delivered per http request would reduce the load on the server. The bigger impact on the server is repeated visits to the hard drive and trips to the database. When one article requires 12 separate page requests, that cranks up the number of http requests coming in that have to be responded to with hard drive file reads and database queries.

Not knowing their specific server architecture, the above is a generalization. Caching, virtual memory mapped file systems, etc. can alleviate these bottlenecks.

Seth

The pages are decidedly graphic-heavy (1)

Chas (5144) | about 5 years ago | (#29148143)

I know what you're talking about. However, for a report formatted the way this one is, likely not a good idea.

Re:fewer pages = better server performance (1)

closetpsycho (1175221) | about 5 years ago | (#29148421)

I think the best way to do it would be to split it up over two. Have the first page be short, mostly just the introduction, with everything else being on the second. That way, they still get a bit of click-through, their servers don't get hammered as badly by people who only read the first page, we get an article that doesn't span a dozen pages, and everybody gets a free unicorn... I think that sentence got away from me there at the end. You get the point.

signoff tag? (1)

cliffiecee (136220) | about 5 years ago | (#29147901)

What's with the 'signoff' tag?

(Off topic, I know... if only slashdot had a 'General Discussion' thread.)

Size always matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29147905)

Enough said.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29148151)

Of course, two 64GB SSDs in a raid 0 are going to be as fast as a 128GB one, so no need to worry, really.

Re:But... (1, Informative)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29148315)

You also have twice as many points of failure. Three times as many, if you count the RAID controller. Four, if you count the firmware in the RAID controller. Five, if you consider the increased load on your PSU, having to power the additional drive and RAID controller.

That's ignoring the additional traffic on the bus. That RAID controller doesn't work on FM[1], you know. Then again, it probably doesn't matter; it's not like you'd want faster disk access in a machine being used for video or audio capture, where bus congestion may be an issue.

Oh... That's precisely where you'd want it. Well, there, and servers; again, bus-congestion could be a bitch.

[1] F*cking Magic

Re:But... (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | about 5 years ago | (#29148871)

What "additional traffic on the bus"? Between that outlandish claim and the claim that you have FIVE TIMES AS MANY POINTS OF FAILURE you sound like a FI[1].

[1] I bet even you can guess this one.

Re:But... (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 years ago | (#29149429)

Additional hardware on a bus leads to... oh fuck it, here's a car analogy.

I have one road. On that road, I have one car; this car can do whetever it pleases, whenever it pleases. When I add another car, both cars now have to watch out for each other, or they'll eventually crash.

This is traffic.

Also, yes, the more parts, the more points of failure.

I hope you enjoyed your meal; now, please, go troll elsewhere. I hear 4chan is nice this time of year.

News? (1, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 years ago | (#29148191)

How is this news?

The number of channels increases the theoretical and actual read and write speeds.

Did anyone NOT know this?

No one needs to look at capacity to guess the number of channels, and no one needs to dig around for a review site that cracked the bitch open / contacted the Chinese manufacturers to get the number of channels used.

All you need to look at is the specs, and in case they're lying, benchmarks. No guess work. No hunting for obscure information that might not apply to your particular hardware revision of the same SKU. No bullshit.

Filesystem vs drive size (4, Interesting)

mtemmerm (1604279) | about 5 years ago | (#29148321)

Slightly off topic, but it's often forgotten that the filesystem also plays an important role in drive performance. Newer filesystems like NILFS (http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7345/1.html) are created to suit SSD's instead of the legacy rotating media. It claims to hold the same performance, no matter how large the filesystem is.

Back on topic: We're seeing the same evolution with SSD's now like we saw it with spinning media several years back, when they started to increase the drive size ever more. Eventually these performance differences between larger and smaller drives will disappear: they will simply not be an issue anymore at all when you won't be able to get SSD's smaller than 200GB, like the similar trend with spinning media.

Oh yeah, I'm the man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29148487)

Why Size Matters

1.8 inches and it's solid state baby!

Greedy (1)

Smooth and Shiny (1097089) | about 5 years ago | (#29148945)

"Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages." Guru3D is also guilty of this. They review at least 500 GTX 295 cards by different makers over the course of a month and the shortest review is always in the neighborhood of 14 pages. Usually they span 16-18 pages, though. I wouldn't mind that if it was mostly new information, but they always throw in the same filler over and over like how to calibrate your monitor. Seriously... if you need to throw that into every review just take up 18 pages for something that is no different from BFG than it is from XFX, then you need to rethink how you compose your reviews.

Super Star Destroyer (5, Funny)

egamma (572162) | about 5 years ago | (#29148965)

I think that in order to be classified as a Super Star Destroyer, it has to be at least 15km long. Although the salesman will tell you it's worth at least 20 regular Star Destroyers, the price you pay should be no more than the cost of 15 Imperial-class SD's. Also, be on the lookout for used SSDs. They may be infested with Conduit worms, affecting the ability of the SSD to fire its cannons.

Common Cents (1)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | about 5 years ago | (#29149753)

So two 64GB drives in RAID0, or even on just on different SATA channels are faster than one 128GB drive.

Spread the word! This will change database disk design for decades to come.

---

I've got several OCZ 32GB SSD with the partitions aligned. Wildly faster for running my VM's off of. Windows boots in about 10 seconds onto a LAN. Don't really see a notable difference with my *small* database servers. That's likely because they load huge pages of the database into RAM and serve it from there. I have yet to try this on a large database server.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>