- Adaptec's Series 5 Unified Serial Controllers
- iSCSI SANs Compared
- Can Heterogeneous RAID Arrays Work?
- Storage Accessories: Move, Cool, Multiply
- Portable Storage: Convenience is the Key
- AMCC, Areca & LSI Serial RAID Controllers
- RAID Scaling Charts, Part 3: 4-128 kB Stripes Compared
- Take Your Storage Online
- Is Zettabits Next Generation Storage?
- Unified Serial RAID Controllers for PCIe
Test Controller: Adaptec RAID 5805
Source: Tom's Hardware – Keywords: ssd, memoright
Syndication:
Test Controller: Adaptec RAID 5805
Although DV Nation asked us to test the Memoright drives with an Areca controller because of their excellent throughput, we used Adaptec’s new 5805 Unified Serial RAID controller, as it turned out to be the better product at this point in time. While the management software is more advanced, we found this product to deliver both excellent throughput and I/O performance (which hasn’t always been the case with Adaptec’s devices in the past).
Adaptec’s RAID 5805 is one of the fastest and most powerful Unified Serial RAID controllers (for SAS and SATA) available today.
Test HDDs: 2.5” Seagate Savvio 10K.2 and 3.5” WD Raptor WD1500
Seagate Savvio 10K.2: 10,000 RPM, 2.5” and a SAS interface. These are excellent server drives for high-density storage applications.
We decided to not only compare the Memoright flash SDD to the entire range of mechanical and flash-based competitors, but to also go one more step. We used four 2.5” Seagate Savvio 10K.2 enterprise SAS drives and four 3.5” Western Digital WD1500 Raptor drives, both of which can be considered as best in their class. The Raptor still is an excellent system drive for enthusiast systems (although its successor, the VelociRaptor, is considerably better) and Seagate’s Savvio 10K.2 is a backbone for high-density storage servers. We compared four of each in a RAID 0 setup against four Memoright Flash SSDs in a RAID 0 setup to show the maximum performance potential.
Although beaten by its predecessor, the good-old 3.5” Raptor by Western Digital still is a de-facto standard for enthusiasts and entry-level servers.
- Previous page Memoright SSD MR25.2-032S
- Next page Test Setup
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
The key here is that SSDs are optimum for big retailers & enthusiasts, because of the lower failure rate compared to mechanical drives means less hardware failure and RMA and tech support calls. For us, its performance based. Dell and others will flock to these when the pricepoint hits home, and as soon as they jump on, drives will sell in such volume that new plants will have to be made and we'll need SATA-1000 before long.
Anyone whose been in the industry professionally and watched tech roll out over the years can see the writing on the wall, SSDs will dominate at least the "bootdrive" sector within two years. It might take longer to ramp up capacity for the "data" drives for home users, but its coming, and every process shrink to a smaller fab makes capacity go up exponentially.
The ONLY, and I mean only, area where ssd drives will get consumer exposure will be in the laptop sector, simply because of the size/power requirements. For that to happen, ssd prices will need to fall "tenfold" and conventional hard drives will need to die out, which won't happen any time soon.
Desktops will will continue to use conventional hard disks for at least the next 5-10 years as they will go down in price and increase in capacities. Sata III 6gbps and newer pmr technologies will keep the traditional hard drive alive for a long time yet.
Servers may transition into a hybrid environment with both ssd and conventional drives, but with the cost of raid now so affordable (controllers incorporated into chipsets) and the fact that traditional fast (velociraptor) and beefy (terabyte) drives will ALWAYS be cheaper than the ssd variants - it's going to be a hard sell.
I'm not saying ssd is bad, but for those who don't have 5-digit monthly income, it is merely a toy for the rich. Sure, prices will eventually fall, but until you can sell the technology for 25 cents/gig or better, it will remain insignificant.
| geralt : SSDs have weakness in random writes and reads. Unfortunately this was not tested here. |
A mix of SSDs and HDDs will probably be the best solution for a long time. They each have their strengths depending on usage patterns. As soon as SSDs become more economical, mixed setups will quickly become the norm. I would have a couple of SSDs in a RAID 0 config to boot on and load applications off of, but I would have a some HDDs in a RAID setup for mass storage.
I really can't wait to build my next system. Gone is the day where I reuse a harddrive on a new build, and the new computer seems only as fast as the old one due to the HDD bottleneck.
As someone else commented on I am HORRIBLY disappointed that Tom's didn't test random writes and reads. If they actually didn't that is, I haven't finished the article but wanted to respond to the "clown" guy. I've noticed a lot of stuff like that with tech sites and it makes me wonder what kind of enticements these guys have to talk up a given product. Please do a follow up with random read&write tests.
as fas as the size goes. there is only a small amount of XP/Vista that needs benefits from super fast access. Your application and it's data are usually the best canidates for super fast storage.
/And yes show us the random access tests since you do talk about OS storage.
Give me a break. Maybe years from now but that's not exactly news. Anyway, when it finally happens this specific model will not be the one to do it. It may end up being an entirely different technology that ends the HDD if SSD's don't drop in price fast enough.
Drop the sensationalism, start labeling both the X and Y axis of your graphs like professionals, and try to regain some journalistic integrity.
Toms is going downhill fast.
In fact, even if the 32gb ssd drive was $300, I would still have a hard time justifying the cost for such little space. 128GB at $300-$500 and I MAY think about buying one or more of these.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-




This has about the same marketing hype as ddr3 compared to ddr2.
I could care less about access times.
I am not paying their prices for a 32gig "SSD".
It is just not worth the money.