On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010, Thomas Burgess wrote: > >> >> It's a sandforce sf-1500 model but without a supercap....heres some info >> on it: >> >> Maximum Performance >> >> * Max Read: up to 270MB/s >> * Max Write: up to 250MB/s >> * Sustained Write: up to 235MB/s >> * Random Write 4k: 15,000 IOPS >> * Max 4k IOPS: 50,000 >> > > Isn't there a serious problem with these specifications? It seems that the > minimum assured performance values (and the median) are much more > interesting than some "maximum" performance value which might only be > reached during a brief instant of the device lifetime under extremely ideal > circumstances. It seems that toilet paper may of much more practical use > than these specifications. In fact, I reject them as being specifications > at all. > > The Apollo reentry vehicle was able to reach amazing speeds, but only for a > single use. > > Bob > What exactly do you mean? Every review i've read about this device has been great. Every review i've read about the sandforce controllers has been good to....are you saying they have shorter lifetimes? Everything i've read has made them sound like they should last longer than typical ssds because they write less actual data.... > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
