Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Want a small and fast SSD

Last response: in Storage
June 9, 2009 2:56:55 AM

Hello everybody!

SSD may be quick (at least a few among them...) but are quite expensive (especially the few ones that are faster than an HDD). On the other hand, they have capacities I don't need (32GB, 80GB, 160GB). Such capacity may be interesting for a laptop with a single disk bay, but isn't necessary for my desktop: I would have an additional HDD even if the SSD had 160GB, and then, what I really need to put on the SSD is Windows, without the paging file, and maybe a few tiny applications - everything fits into 4GB easily, and 8GB would hold nearly every application I use.

I haven't found such an SSD - tell me if you know one with the speed I'm looking for! The nearest equivalent would be a quick CF card on a Pata adapter, but they aren't that fast: about 45MB/s. A Raid of them would achieve just 90MB/s at the expense of 8s added boot time for the Bios of the controller: bad bargain. No, I really want to have something like 200MB/s with no added boot time.

Would more people be interested in such a disk, or am I the only one on Earth? About 200MB/s, really quick on small files as well, capacity 4GB or 8GB, size 2.5" or 3.5", for maybe 50€ (us$70)? What do you think?

If enough people want to have such an SSD, it may encourage manufacturers to offer one.

More about : small fast ssd

June 9, 2009 3:07:22 AM

you would want 32GB for the windows drive (so you can install the apps to it)
also, don't use indexing and don't put the page file onto the ssd, both of those can reduce the how long the drive will last (writes too much andd fequently)

you won't find a good one for 70USD though

OCZ Vertex Series - best bang for the buck (~150USD)

Intel X25-E - pure speed (~400USD)

im just using newegg as a reference on price and a place where you can see the specs
June 9, 2009 3:32:40 AM

I don't need 32GB.
My W2k takes less than 1GB. Add some Internet Temp Files, some DotNet, a few stupid applications that only go to C:\ProgramFiles, but not the paging file, and this fits into 2GB - I know it experimentally from CF cards.
That's why I tell 4GB would allow me to put some applications on the SSD as well, and 8GB would be comfortable.
And I won't put 400usd in it.
Related resources
June 9, 2009 3:14:33 PM

You're no the only one looking man...I'de also like a 4GB max size one for my old laptops that I use as terminals. Windows Foundations, A/V, and a few utilities are the only thing to ever run on them...the rest is RDP'ed in. 2GB would probablly be plenty, but 4GB would allow for a whole lot of wear leveling. Like you, I don't plan on throwing to much money at these things. CF cards are the only thing I've found as well, and I agree, I'de like more performance too.
a b G Storage
June 9, 2009 5:54:54 PM

would windows 2000 work good with a SSD? i would think something like windows 7 would make better use of the drive.. with built in optimizations for ssd drives.
June 9, 2009 7:34:18 PM

rand_79 said:
would windows 2000 work good with a SSD? i would think something like windows 7 would make better use of the drive.. with built in optimizations for ssd drives.

It's my understanding that most of the "optimizations" for SSD's in Win7, are just disabling automatic features such as defrag, which were turned on by default in Vista. The main benefit in Win7 not found previously is the Trim command. Upgrading to Win7 from 2000 may not even be possible. I know for my instance, running windows foundations ( XP embedded as an installable ) on a PII 266Mhz, it wouldn't even be possible. I'm guessing that the OP has similar hardware limitations, but probablly not as extreme as mine.
June 13, 2009 12:52:05 PM

I can't say whether W7 makes better use of an Ssd than W2k does, but I can say experimentally that W2k benefits from an installation on a Cf card as compared to an Hdd. Provided that the Cf card is good, which is uncommon, as they're typically optimized for 1MB pictures instead of the small files of an OS - something HdTach can't tell, leading to huge disappointments, but Atto can.


Found another scenario where customers may not need 32GB of Ssd: in a client-server network where the workstation only has the minimum OS locally and picks all the applications it needs over Ethernet from an Scsi server. Such a workstation has no Hdd at all and needs again 4GB or 8GB Ssd. Nice for the silence as well.
a c 127 G Storage
June 13, 2009 1:10:57 PM

pointertovoid: in that case you do not need a fast SSD also.

The problem is that, in order for the SSD to be fast, it has to use multiple flash channels, much like RAID0 works. That results in more chips and thus higher capacity (starting from 30GB). SSDs with less capacity than this, do not use advanced controllers that make an SSD fast, and low capacity MLC based flash will be horrible when writing, stalling your user interface as the write latencies go skyroof. Ofcourse, if you only read and then work totally off the network, this is no concern. But then you wouldn't need a fast SSD in the first place.
June 13, 2009 4:51:22 PM

The iX25M for instance has 20 flash chips for 10 channels so 40GB should already be as fast as 80GB, and there are certainly smaller and quick flash chips.

I should like to say it again: I'm not comparing existing Ssd, but checking whether different ones would interest more people.
a c 127 G Storage
June 13, 2009 5:02:32 PM

Alright but why do you look for a fast SSD then? Once loaded, you would run everything on the network, you say, so no further local disk access. That means that you should not need a fast SSD at all. A USB pendrive might do it, since they don't have wear leveling they would not be the best pick for an operating system, but if you are only reading and writing over the network instead, this is no issue.

So all you want is a cheap flash disk to boot from, after that you do everything from the network right? You know you can also use netboot/PXE to run a disk-less system? Then you would run entirely off the network.
June 19, 2009 8:33:12 PM

I still want a fast Ssd first to launch quickly the OS locally, and because disk accesses go on well after OS booting.
June 26, 2009 11:54:41 AM

I just did this. Wanting to check out Win7RC and wanting to get my feet wet with an SSD. So I did both. After reading about a gazillion reviews on ssd's I figured "go cheap, small", knowing that in the next couple of years they'll get cheaper, bigger, and probably have the controllers figured out. AND probably have some king of "living organic, quantum, 4D" StarTrek technology replace it anyway. Said all this to say that if you've got a couple of bucks to play guinea pig, don't worry about much, just jump in and enjoy. My Win7-64 on a Warp 32gig SSD as a boot, data on disk drives, is opening my eyes. Course, if I live long enough I'll expect neural implants at some point.