you're not going to believe this.

David Kelly dkelly at hiwaay.net
Tue Jun 23 22:05:28 UTC 2009


On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:59:44 -0500, David Kelly <dkelly at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> > We are already there. SSDs are not slower than mechanical disk
> > drives, they are faster. The only detriments are 1) cost, 2) limited
> > write life.
> 
> What about power consumption? Because they seem to be primarily
> intended for portable devices, it should be better than "tradidional
> hard disks", but as I read, it's worse (less efficient, because higher
> current drain).

Don't think generic generalizations can be made this early in the life
of the technology. Shop for SSDs while looking at the properties that
interest you.

In general, reading is much faster than for mechanical HD. Also seek
time is nil. And read power consumption is low. A serious contender for
use in servers where lots of unchanging data is needed quickly. Probably
not as good of an idea for use in a mail server, but ideal for a web
server.

-- 
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly at HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list