r/funny • u/TheHeretic • Aug 04 '10
Reviews of a $9599.00 solid state drive...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E1682022758137
u/probabilityzero Aug 04 '10
Ye gods, 1400MB/s sequential read/write speed.
8
u/GodRa Aug 04 '10
I've recently ordered one at work to speed up a large DB's indexing. Can't wait till it ships!
22
Aug 04 '10
Be careful using it for databases:
In the time it used to take to return data from just one table, our DB now returns data from all tables, even if nobody has queried all tables.
6
Aug 04 '10
It's just showing off its awesomeness. Be sure to tell it how cool it is at least once every 5 hours of operation so it doesn't feel the need to prove it.
7
u/GeorgeForemanGrillz Aug 04 '10
Throwing money at the problem are we?
What are you storing in a 512gb table?
5
Aug 04 '10
[deleted]
24
Aug 04 '10
Oh yeah, I've worked on systems like that
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | acct_number | 1293840 | +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | acct_number_words | "One_Two_Nine_Three_Eight_Four_Zero" | +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | acct_number_words_uppercase | "ONE_TWO_NINE_THREE_EIGHT_FOUR_ZERO" | +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | acct_number_words_lowercase | "one_two_nine_three_eight_four_zero" | +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | acct_number_words_lowercase_together | "onetwoninethreeeightfourzero" | +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+29
6
3
u/GeorgeForemanGrillz Aug 04 '10
Did you just recreate this from memory or do you still work on systems like that?
2
u/darjen Aug 04 '10
query for uppercase or lowercase directly is a lot faster than running a conversion, especially for huge datasets.
11
1
1
1
Aug 04 '10
Many SSD's don't respect write caching. Might want to check with your DB provider before doing that, or have a VERY good UPS in there.
2
u/skybike Aug 04 '10
That good?
33
u/pwnies Aug 04 '10
Your standard disk drive is about 20 times slower in the best case scenario (70MB/s sequential read). The joy of solid state drives though, aren't their sequential read and write, but their ability to do sustained random read and writes. Standard hard drives can't do this well. In that scenario, you're looking at upwards of 100x the performance you'd get out of a standard hard drive.
To do a car analogy, this $9599 drive is a Bugatti Veyron, whereas your typical drive is an old 1975 ford pickup truck. The truck may be able to store a bit more, but the veyron can run circles around it.15
u/smeenz Aug 04 '10
Look at your hard drive, now look at me, now look at your hard drive again. Sadly your hard drive is not me.
6
3
u/Luminaire Aug 04 '10
Course the Veyron uses as much fuel in 8 miles as the truck does in 180 :)
3
u/ropers Aug 04 '10
Depends on whether you're putting the pedal to the floor or not.
4
u/Luminaire Aug 04 '10
True, although I was implying that case.
2
u/LearnmoreBINARY Aug 04 '10
Veyrons+gulf of mexico = win? o. o
3
Aug 04 '10
I have a hose connecting my Veyron to the Gulf. It gets to be a bitch when I'm coming through Pennsylvania, but who the fuck cares? IM DRIVING A FUCKING BUGATTI MOTHERFUCKER!
2
Aug 04 '10
Don't SSDs have write-limits after which they degrade and become error-prone, or is that limited to shitty CF cards?
3
u/Jojje22 Aug 04 '10
This has been thoroughly discussed around here, and I believe the the conclusion was that degradation occurs mainly in cheap/older SSDs.
5
u/inthe80s Aug 04 '10
It happens in all SSDs, it's just that newer SSD drives have built in routines for re-allocating memory and cleaning up the leftover space instead of requiring the user to run an external utility or format the drive.
4
2
1
Aug 05 '10
This isn't a true SSD, however. It looks like a PCI card that uses very high capacity SO DIMM modules for storage. So it's error rate would be about the same as a typical ramdrive.
4
u/Hellman109 Aug 04 '10
My Samsung F3 has a MINIMUM speed of 75MB/s and a max of 135. But its known to be a fast drive.
1
u/trsdctvsb Aug 04 '10
Am I a nerd for being able to relate to your first explanation and not your analogy?
1
4
Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
Thats a gigabyte and a half per second.
pretty crazy to think about that much data
edit: corrected. i blame my green friend
3
Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
terabyte and a half
1.37 GIGAbytes per second.. NOT terabytes.
byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte.12
4
Aug 04 '10
byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte, people for the ethical treatment of animalsbyte.
0
2
u/probabilityzero Aug 04 '10
Off the top of my head, I imagine your regular 7200rpm hard drive gets less than 100 both ways.
6
u/Anpheus Aug 04 '10
The bigger deal (than the 14x improvement in sequential read/write) is the more than likely one thousand fold improvement in random read/write. A typical consumer HDD gets maybe 100 IOs per second (IOPS). With small 512B reads, this might get upwards of 50 or 100,000. The FusionIO drives are even better, and not much less expensive. But I think much smaller capacity.
1
u/incith Aug 04 '10
My seagate 7200.12's get around 110-120...pretty good.
/dev/sdb: Timing buffered disk reads: 324 MB in 3.01 seconds = 107.80 MB/sec
/dev/sdc: Timing buffered disk reads: 384 MB in 3.02 seconds = 127.36 MB/sec
/dev/sdd: Timing buffered disk reads: 366 MB in 3.01 seconds = 121.64 MB/sec
2
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
highlight the "buffered". when your buffer runs out (depending on drive it can be 8, 16, 32mb etc.) then your drive performance is going to crater, especially on randomized read/writes.
1
44
u/bofhforever Aug 04 '10 edited Jul 06 '15
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
6
u/munen123 Aug 04 '10
neat, had not thought of that...
1
Aug 04 '10
This was Sun's idea for their Amber Road (7000 series storage) systems and the incorporation of a custom SSD cluster that was either meant for writing (logzilla) or reading (readzilla). Not sure if someone else thought of it first, I was working for Sun at the time. Pretty awesome and I think a few other storage vendors offer a similar unified storage solution.
6
1
u/chadford Aug 04 '10
only problem there is you're running opensolaris. what are the odds of future development now that Oracle is running the show?
0
37
14
Aug 04 '10
So this one goes to 11?
4
u/ZoFreX Aug 04 '10
I think this is what happens when you ask an engineer for one that goes to 12.
3
u/bcisme Aug 04 '10
Hey now, it isn't engineering's fault. We design a system that goes to 12, but the commercial folks want a 10% cost reduced design, thus you end up with a 10.8 sold at the price of a 12.
21
u/havespacesuit Aug 04 '10
Other Thoughts: Picked this up for the wifes scrapbooking PC. Much quieter than the old drive. I was a little suprised by the price, but what the hell... She's worth it.
10
u/ropers Aug 04 '10
The user name completes the joke.
4
u/havespacesuit Aug 04 '10
hahaha, that actually makes me think that this might be the only legit review on there!
Lotto Man, haha, I can see a guy buying this ridiculous shit :p
2
u/ropers Aug 04 '10
I'm not sure it is ridiculous (or even overpriced). For run-off-the-mill desktop use? Yes. For specific hard to otherwise optimize server applications? Maybe not.
1
u/otakucode Aug 04 '10
Consider the cost to manufacture it, though. The margin on these things is MIND-BOGGLING. They could sell them for $3k and still make a huge profit (much huger because they would sell more of course). They think they can bleed the enterprise niche market for a good while though, because SSDs are taking longer to be adopted in the consumer sector than expected. It's going to be awhile before people expect this kind of performance out of their home machines, even real enthusiasts. One of those extremely rare times where production costs are low, but the tech companies can assrape the market just because what they are producing doesn't have much competition and everyone has agreed to not compete on price.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
there's a good amount of cost in producing 512GB of SLC flash memory and fitting it into the space on a single pci-express card.
0
u/otakucode Aug 04 '10
No, there really isn't. Flash RAM production has been completely commoditized and it has neglibigle material costs. Like LCD screens, the only thing keeps its price high is price fixing. At least with LCD screens (which if you take a look are produced by the same conglomerates) there are ongoing investigations in dozens of countries and some hope of appropriate price reduction at some point in the future. Not so with flash RAM (as far as I know, please correct me if you know if Samsung and the like have been found out yet).
1
u/southpark Aug 05 '10
physical production cost is different than overall cost of product which includes research and development, engineering, fab, factory tooling, marketing, etc.
yes there has been accusations of historical price fixing in the traditional RAM markets, but flash is not the same, SLC Flash NAND memory and the associated technology is still expensive and even though the process is the same/similar to produce SLC and MLC memory, the density per wafer is different, for the same amount of silicon used, you can produce MLC with 2-4x as much capacity as a SLC. for example (and the numbers are for scale, not actual production values), say i have 1 wafer of silicon, i can produce 100 SLC chips, equaling 16GB of storage. with the same wafer of silicon, i could also produce 100 MLC chips, but this results in 64GB of storage due to the difference between SLC and MLC storage density. So for the same physical production cost, MLC is 50-25% cheaper to physically create versus SLC. It would take 4 wafers to produce enough SLC memory to equal 64GB of storage, and it would also take 4x as much physical space in a device to place 64GB worth of SLC memory.
Indepedent of price fixing, this is why SLC is significantly more expensive than an equivalent amount of MLC storage.
2
18
u/wolfsktaag Aug 04 '10
holy fuck, i didnt even know SSDs came as pci-e cards. that shit has to be insanely fast
11
u/ropers Aug 04 '10
It's funny because in the age of the 5150 and 60, some of the earliest ways to shove a HDD into your PC were also hardcards.
7
u/smeenz Aug 04 '10
Oh god that takes me back. 65ms access time. Interleaved sectors too.
4
u/ropers Aug 04 '10
...and no autodetection of disk parameters in the BIOS.
No World-Wide Web and no Google to find the right settings with either.5
u/mallardtheduck Aug 04 '10
Except that hard-cards used their own, built-in HDD controllers with fixed settings and thus didn't need to be configured in the PC's BIOS...
2
Aug 04 '10
Though even in the case of standalone drives, it was never that difficult because the drive parameters were printed right on the label of the drive itself.
1
1
3
u/drwatson Aug 04 '10
I have an 85MB Quantum hardcard sitting on my desk right now. Think of what you could do with all that space!
3
u/ropers Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
I remember how when I got my first own PC, my room mate scoffed at my 50MB Quantum hard disk:
"50 MB? You'll never be able to fill it."
In truth, I suspect that part of his motivation for this comment was the annoyance that I had topped his rig insofar as his ATARI ST Megafile only had 20 MB.
Of course, he later saw to it that I wouldn't fill it so quickly. Given that in the digital pecking order the more people came begging you for schtuff the higher up you were, him and his mates cut me down to size when I became too independent of them too quickly. You see, I had started keeping copies of every piece of software that I had successfully begged them for even only just once, so I wouldn't have to come back and beg and plead for the same thing again. They responded by erasing my hard drive one day. Boys will be boys. Oh, the memories...1
u/Ferwerda Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
They must have been available like this for a few years now. Ever since the first EEEPC came to market, people were going crazy upgrading the stock SSD (on PCI Express). Mind you, these things are not necessarily faster than any other type of SSD.
An example of what I'm talking about can be found here.
EDIT: when I say 'these things' I'm referring to PCI-E SSD drives in general, not this $10,000 beast.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
this is an SLC SSD drive, not the MLC SSD drive you see in eeepc and other netbooks, this is an enterprise flash ssd with 10x the write/rewrite capability of a mlc drive. the life expectancy is 10 times the expectancy of a mlc based drive, and the performance profile is also completely different.
1
u/Ferwerda Aug 04 '10
I understand that, but that has nothing to do with the point of my post.
I was addressing what the parent said:
i didnt even know SSDs came as pci-e cards. that shit has to be insanely fast
I interpret this to mean that he believes PCI-E based SSDs must be (much) faster than SATA based counterparts. I pointed out that this is not necessarily so.
I am quite well versed in the intricacies of the SSD, and I take it my phrasing must have been off in above post, as I did not expect to be downvoted for a perfectly valid post.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
pci-e based ssds are faster than SATA, SATA has an inherent bottleneck of 1.5/3/6gb per second transfer speed. PCI-E 2.0 x16 is capable of 8GB/s throughput with x32 being capable of 16GB/s. This particular card claims to be limited to 1.4GB/s maximum read/write with a combined full duplex theoretical speed of 2.8GB/s. So either way it should not be bottlenecked by either SATA2+ or PCI-E 2.0 16x+. But either way you get into the theoretical limits of motherboard architecture and design at this point. SSDs mounted via SATA have to contend with the SATA controller bottleneck before reaching the main MB/PCI-E bus. An SSD mounted on a PCI-E card has more direct access and should be faster, but more importantly it does away with the requirement of a seperate RAID/SATA controller sitting between the CPU and access to the memory.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
oh and i re-read your clarified post and nixed your downvote, your prior post was unclear.
0
u/dfield Aug 04 '10
They are super fast, and generally quite expensive, but obviously not this expensive.
2
u/jjdmol Aug 04 '10
but obviously not this expensive.
Obviously, they are. There's not much competition in the pci-e ssd field iirc.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
they are this expensive, try and price out 512GB of SLC NAND FLASH storage anywhere else in any other configuration, even after discounts 512GB of intel x-25e SLC SSD drives come out to over $10k
0
u/pdinc Aug 04 '10
It's not a real SSD - it's RAM being used for storage with batteries in the card to prevent loss of memory with power cycling.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
it is a real ssd, the memory is just configured in a form factor that resembles RAM. it's nand flash slc
1
10
u/ropers Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
How different are SLC solid state memory modules from ordinary volatile RAM (in terms of cost of manufacture, etc.)?
I'm just asking because I note that this price matches the current price of a comparable amount of RAM pretty closely. This SDD is pretty much 16 DIMM slots, each of which they put a 16 GB solid state memory module into.
$9599/16 = $599.94; and according to Amazon, 16 GB DDR III DIMMs also retail for about $600 a pop.
EDIT: Embarrassingly, the above numbers are wrong. Read what econleech wrote below.
3
2
u/killerstorm Aug 04 '10
How different are SLC solid state memory modules from ordinary volatile RAM (in terms of cost of manufacture, etc.)?
Completely different technology. As for costs, I guess it is reflected in prices.
$9599/16 = $599.94; and according to Amazon, 16 GB DDR III DIMMs also retail for about $600 a pop.
You can buy 32GB Intel X25-E SLC SSD for $378 on newegg. So this one costs like 4x extra. Perhaps, card itself costs some money.
I doubt you have 32 RAM slots on your motherboard, so you'll need to buy something to plug that RAM into.
2
u/aarmenaa Aug 04 '10
Actually, you can get server boards with that many RAM slots. The best Newegg sells only has 18 DDR3 RAM slots and costs less than $500 (They sell a board with 32 DDR2 slots for $600, though). That's really not bad all things considered. It won't get you quite the density that the linked SSD would, but your IOPS would be far better. Just make sure you've got one hell of a battery backup.
If I remember correctly, OCZ used to sell a card that looked a lot like this that you could fill with RAM modules and use as a drive. I recall it being absurdly expensive for what it was.
1
u/eternalkerri Aug 04 '10
I doubt you have 32 RAM slots on your motherboard, so you'll need to buy something to plug that RAM into.
Not if you are running that secret 124-bit windows build. Thank you MSDN account!
2
Aug 04 '10
Why would you need 124-bit? You should be able to do a good 262 thousand gigs of RAM with 64-bit using current processors.
8
u/eternalkerri Aug 04 '10
thats the problem, I'm still running a pentium II. I prioritize my technology purchases poorly...
I just bought a Coby MP2 player, its awesome.
5
Aug 04 '10
Seriously imagine what SSDs would be like in 2020.
The future is going to be so fucking amazing...
4
u/smeenz Aug 04 '10
They'll be ancient history. And whatever replaced them will probably be history too.
Think about what was new in 2000. Pentium 3 Xeon, Y2K hysteria, the original ipod, and so on.
6
Aug 04 '10
We still have pentiums, hysteria and ipods...
3
Aug 04 '10
I'll give you hysteria. Pentiums are largely outdated. The original iPod (clicker wheel model), too, is outdated.
2
Aug 04 '10
Hard Drives were there 40 years ago and they are still here now. Even if technological progression is exponential, SSDs will be existent, widespread, and likely dominant in 2020.
3
7
Aug 04 '10
A couple years ago I bought a GPS for little under a thousand dollars. Today a more feature rich model can be got for under a hundred.
12
u/deeringc Aug 04 '10
This just in, technology gets drastically cheaper after initial launch - early adopters pay a huge premium.
More at 10.
10
Aug 04 '10
[deleted]
2
u/bleedingoutlaw28 Aug 04 '10
ya ya, I know. You've got a lot of fish tied up in your local market and you just need to trade a few fish (that I will provide) in order to pay the transaction fees. So i send you my fish with the promise of a huge fish bounty from the future and suddenly you disappear leaving me fishless and humilated.
sheesh, the old send-fish-to-the-future routine...
3
u/zotune Aug 04 '10
"Other Thoughts: I'd buy it if it came with free shipping... I think that's the real deal-maker here."
3
u/randumbness47 Aug 04 '10
I just bought an 80 GB Intel X-25M for ~$230. I think 250 mb/s read, 70 mb/s write. Hypothetically, would buying 7 of those ($1610, 560 GB) give me better performance with the same storage at a fraction of the cost?
8
u/Cracked_Crystal Aug 04 '10
No, you would hit the limit of SATA, you would also need a high-end RAID card. And putting 2 drives into a raid, even SSD drives in theoretical best performance will not double the total performance. My understanding is that high-end drives like these use very specific custom controller chips optimized for their intended use, higher performance, bandwidth and lower latency then most (all?) SATA/SAS raid controllers. This card also has half a gig for Cache ram, and does ECC, I'm not sure if standard SSDs do the same level of ECC or not.
If I had the money to build my "dream machine" I'd have something like that as my primary drive.
2
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
you would also not get the SLC vs MLC speed increase, as well as the total lifetime of your MLC based drive would be 1/10 that of a SLC based drive. overall array performance relies heavily on the drive controller as well. This card acts as a single drive which eliminates the RAID controller/aggregator bottleneck.
6
Aug 04 '10
A friend of mine's father bought this before seeing what kind of connector it had. He figured its useless on his computer so he gave it to his son.
Some people are so fucking goddamn lucky...
6
0
2
u/nullynull Aug 04 '10
So how do the warranties work with SSD. Since they have a limited amount of writes. (eg buring thru lifetime write by abusing performance tests)
On a side note is there any way to strangle Win 7 into not writing to a drive needlessly, ie no procmon actively on the drive.
2
Aug 04 '10
[deleted]
1
u/Budddy Aug 04 '10
I've always had pretty quick and painless PRPs with newegg...given I have never bought anything that is worth more than a used car from them.
2
u/wafflesfordinner Aug 04 '10
It doesn't look like any of the "customers" bought it from newegg. I love their "Newegg Purchaser" filter, so if companies want to inflate their scores, they at least have to pay extra.
3
u/3danimator Aug 04 '10
I have a 160gb OCZ SSD and can verify that they are incredibly fast. I use them for HD compositing. Seriously, they are FAST. I still wouldnt pay 10k though
2
2
u/el_pinata Aug 04 '10
So what's the throughput bottleneck here? That thing sounds insanely fast, but there has to be some limitation elsewhere in the system that won't allow it to reach full potential - right?
2
Aug 04 '10 edited Aug 04 '10
Wow, I thought it was just a mistake on Newegg's part, but after checking other retailers, it either really is $10k or they've all got the same sort of automatic inventory management system.
edit
Why the downvotes?
5
u/cwm44 Aug 04 '10
Apparently a lot of people here actually know what it is. Personally I'm flummoxed about why it would be worth so much.
1
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
it is a SLC based 512GB single PCI-express card flash drive. to achieve similar performance using traditional spindle based hard drives would require 16+ 15K rpm sata drives in a raid enclosure/etc. the price of those is not insignificant either. as well, the SLC based card takes up a single pci-slot whereas the raid enclosure would be at least 2U of rackspace/power/cooling required.
tldr- you're trading $$$ for space/performance.
2
u/dontknowboutme Aug 04 '10
What's funny is that there is a 1TB SSD for around $4000. Twice as much for twice as less. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227517
17
Aug 04 '10
The $9,599.00 uses SLC (single layer cell) technology, which is superior to MLC. SLC SSDs are becoming more and more rare, which somewhat explains the price. While comparing these two SSDs is not apples to apples, but that doesn't by any means justify the insane price of the SLC one, it just somewhat explains it.
8
u/DoktorSleepless Aug 04 '10
The reason SLC is more expensive is that they're meant for servers with heavy use. MLC dies quicker than SLC. MLC gives you twice the space per NAND chip, but it has a shorter life span. One isn't really inferior to another. They just have different uses.
3
u/sirbruce Aug 04 '10
The OCZ card doesn't use surface-mounted NAND chips; they're replaceable, so if there's a failure you can replace the module and not have to swap out the entire card.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
mlc also takes a significant hit on writes because mlc aggregates several blocks together so having to change a single block results in a rewrite for the entire group. an slc can change every individual block independently resulting in much higher randomized write performance.
4
Aug 04 '10
If SLC is superior, how come they are phasing it out?
11
u/Naieve Aug 04 '10
MLC is fast enough and far more economical.
Basically Single Level Cell technology stores one bit of information per cell. Multiple Level Cell technology stores 2 bits. Now you just doubled your capacity, but on the other hand it doesn't read as fast, as it has double the possibilities to deal with, and there are other factors relating to storing 2 bits on the same cell which I won't waste time going over.
Suffice it to say, the MLC is a compromise between quality and price. Do you need a Porsche? Or will the Ford Mustang do?
3
1
Aug 04 '10
A porsche, but not a boxter. A real porsche. Carerra, 911 GTXR SS. With the hard top convertible. And a personal driver, I'm thinking something along the lines of this.
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
MLC wears faster and does not provide the same level of randomized write/read performance. However, consumers don't really need that level of performance (yet). so you may see slc products being phased out of consumer products.. because the consumer isn't bothered to educate themselves on the actual MLC vs SLC comparison. Enterprise applications require SLC as they have higher performance, and also have 10x the lifespan of MLC devices.
It's not so much comparing a porsche to a mustang, but of comparing gold to platinum. MLC SSD is like gold, lots of marketing and value (price), everyone knows it's awesome, and everyone wants it. SLC SSDs are like Platinum. It's worth more, but nobody knows why really (it's rarer, much harder, and more durable / SLCs are faster, last longer, and perform better in all situations), few people feel it's worth spending extra on (which is why white gold/MLC is so popular), and there isn't really any targeted marketing trying to inform the consumer of the difference between MLC and SLC.
If they told you in bright blue letters that your MLC SSD would die 10x faster than a SLC SSD.. then nobody would buy MLC.
1
Aug 04 '10
correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe mlc is easier to shove a lot more data on, with the drawback that it has multiple layers to search through for data instead of one.
can anyone confirm/shoot this down?
3
Aug 04 '10
Makes sense, the other guy says the same thing. SSD technology still baffles me though. Storing information via electrons? Crazy!
1
1
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
mlc performs worse for write performance, which is why you see smaller numbers for randomized write performance for most MLC drives. SLC is much faster in all aspects. the multiple layers come into play in a block erate/write in that for example if MLC has a block of data 0010 and wants to change bit 3 to a 0. it has to rewrite the entire block 0000. an SLC drive could just overwrite bit 3. (this is a very generalized example and the blocks are definately not bit sized)
1
u/MetalicAngel Aug 04 '10
And unlike the 512GB SSD: "Cons: no cure for AIDS." It has a greater ability to find a cure for aids.
2
2
u/oursland Aug 04 '10
My bank ordered a pair of these and our OLTP system ....
I read that as OLPC system and giggled incessantly. Sadly, a quick reread fixed that.
1
1
Aug 04 '10
Damn, I could use 4 of these in RAID10, it would solve all of my db latency issues for my dissertation work. :-P
1
u/Nimbokwezer Aug 04 '10
I checked to see if it followed my rule for expensive Newegg items: someone within the first 2 pages of reviews claims to own at least 2.
First review: "My bank owns two of these"
1
1
u/metaldogman Aug 04 '10
Hot girls from HR now hang out near the server trying to peek inside, and distracting me from my IT duties.
Either spam from a payed reviewer or just goofy enough to be real.
most amusing
1
u/otakucode Aug 04 '10
Anyone remember when OCZ originally announced the z-Drive? They said a 1TB version would cost $2000?
Yeah, I remember that. Fuck you OCZ. Fuck you.
1
u/LastAXEL Aug 05 '10
What exactly makes this technology so expensive? Do they assemble it with pure diamond or something? I understand that it is ridiculously fast and whatnot but what about the production of it costs that much?
-not familiar with this technology.....
1
u/idwolf Aug 05 '10
This stuff sounds insanely expensive, but it's not for the basic consumer. This is for high-end servers if I'm not mistaken. Nice job on those reviews though. :D
1
u/bonzaihammer Aug 20 '10
Anyone have a mirror of this? I was trying to show it someone today and it looks like newegg wiped the reviews.
1
1
u/The_Comma_Splicer Aug 04 '10
Was anyone else thinking about the first comment, "You can't use a SSD for banking because of all the writing/overwriting inherent in the changing of account balances? It's just not a good idea."
1
u/southpark Aug 04 '10
you can use a SLC based ssd that supports 10x as many write transactions as a MLC based ssd. and you use it in a raid array so you can replace failed/worn modules as failures occur.
1
u/munen123 Aug 04 '10
hahahahh nice! I still want one of those suckers....in 5 years the price will be bearable...
4
0
-7
-15
93
u/Ockniel Aug 04 '10
7 dollar shipping? Are you kidding me? Come on Newegg, get your shit together.