Apple iTunes: Streaming
|Overall Statistics||Apple iTunes: Streaming|
|Data Read||1.45 MB|
|Data Written||6.08 MB|
|Disk Busy Time||0.11029 s|
|Average Data Rate||68.28 MB/s|
Several of us in the lab enjoy listening to music while we work, and we expect that many of you do as well. However, given that we generally run multiple systems in the lab and at home, it's often easier to stream music over the network rather than maintain multiple local copies of our music library. That's why our trace involves 21 minutes of streaming playback using iTunes.
Even though the audio files we're playing add up to over 30 MB, none of it is written to the local drive. Instead, iTunes buffers the data in RAM, and once it's played, the program ejects information from memory. Hence, the little storage activity that does occur is due to iTunes accessing application data and the operating system writing to log files.
- 88% of all operations occur at a queue depth of one
- 90% of all operations are random
- 64% of all operations are 4 KB in transfer size
I suppose I can see some inexpensive reliable SSDs in office machines in the near future, mostly to reduce the failures connected with mechanical drives and speed up boot times and installation times.
SSD not really appropriate.
Unless by office computer you mean where you have the only computer in the office, or files do not need to be shared around the office.
Given the amount of work people do who open large files (where an ssd may be appropriate), they are too small/too expensive to be justified.
Example, large 3d CaD drawings, spend extra money on them loading faster, lose funds for better overall computer (graphics especially).
I find it ironic that the only place your tiny ssd drives are good enough are in computers where speed isn't important in the first place. Until 320GB ssd's can compete with regular magnetic drives, it isn't an option to upgrade.
Imagine the added cost of upgrading the 2442 registered clients to ssd drives! About half could make do with a 120GB drive, and the rest would need at least 160GB and possibly bigger.
That's an expense you can't possibly gain in productivity.
Replacing sas drives with ssd's might make sense for your database or vmware/hyper-v systems, but it isn't going to make much sense on the majority of workstations.