2.5" HD vs 3.5" HD

[chanders]

Shows how little I know about SSDs. I'll take Raj's recommendation then.

[Rajahal]

True, it looks pretty bad compared to most SSDs, but then again, for an HTPC it wouldn't really matter.  The seek times and random writes are far more important, so it might be just fine.

 

The ones I recommended will work well as boot drives in desktops/laptops as well, though, so they give you more options if you ever decide to repurpose it.

[BRiT]

I use an OCZ Vertex 1 120GB on my main PC. I picked it up for $300 when they were brand new, back in March 2009. It's incredibly fast and continues to work well. They were really OCZ's first consumer friendly SSD that I could recommend to friends and family. If you're a WinOS user, the Vertex 1 120GB has a Windows Experience Index rating of 7.3, where I believe the top performance SSDs score 7.9 the max score reported.

 

Both of those SSDs are an amazing value.

 

General OCZ's SSDs of note skipping the limited or turbo editions and in general performance increase order: Agility 1, Vertex 1, Agility 2, Vertex 2

 

In terms of performance within the same series, generally the larger drives perform better because internally they're composed of banks of smaller drives (raid-0 like). This is typically why the 60GB is faster than the 30GB and the 120GB is faster than the 60GBs.

 

The Agility and Vertex series are their best performing series out of all their lineups. The Onyx series is their budget product line, but I question it's value considering how cheap their Performance series is. The Solid series should be avoided at all costs, it was a Gen 1 product with stuttering issues.

[poofyhairguy]

I think now that the Vertex 2's are saturated in the market, the Vertex 1's provide a really good value.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227393

 

Cheaper than the Agilities.

[Rajahal]

In terms of performance within the same series, generally the larger drives perform better because internally they're composed of banks of smaller drives (raid-0 like). This is typically why the 60GB is faster than the 30GB and the 120GB is faster than the 60GBs.

 

Interesting, didn't know that.

 

I think now that the Vertex 2's are saturated in the market, the Vertex 1's provide a really good value.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227393

 

Cheaper than the Agilities.

 

Agreed, that drive is ideal for an HTPC.  However, I'll never use a 30 GB drive as a boot drive again, it is just too small.  After installing Win7 I wasn't able to fit Starcaft II on there!  Deal breaker.

[lionelhutz]

My main reason for using 3.5" is that the largest size 2.5" drive has typically been about the same cost as a 3.5" drive that is double in size. Or, in other words, you pay about 2x for the same storage capacity. It then costs again for more SATA ports too.

 

I'm sure with a cheaper power supply and swap trays this could balance out somewhat but the ports cost money and the drives are a large part of the server costs.

 

Peter

 

[chanders]

Agreed but my thoughts were more of a prototype project. The smallest server with good capacity 

[bubbaQ]

Interesting, didn't know that.

 

No surprise.... it is wrong.

 

The RIAD-ified SSDs are uber-priced (i.e. Fusion)... the first one under $1000 is the Ocz Revodrive.  The fact the 60GB has a bit better performance comes from other efficiencies --- not RAID.

[Chris Pollard]

RevoDrives are pretty cheap now.  120gb is about £300 here.

[bubbaQ]

RevoDrives are pretty cheap now.  120gb is about £300 here.

 

Yup... I've had one for a while in my main desktop and it smokes.

[bcbgboy13]

Interesting, didn't know that.

 

No surprise.... it is wrong.

 

Not exactly Raid but it is true as the SSD controller uses parallel channel architecture and the smaller capacities use only a part of these channels. For example the Intel one uses 10 channels -  http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/apac/eng/products/nand/feature/index.htm

If you populate the PCB with only 5 pcs of 8 MByte flash memories on one side you will end up with the value series 40MB model which uses only 5 channels hence 35MB/sec writing speed.

Populate all ten pcs on the same side, then you are going to use all 10 channels and this doubles the speed to 70MB/s.

 

Picture of the drive PCB here:

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_x25v_ssd_review_40gb

 

[unraided]

As time goes by, SSD's will no doubt (like all technologies) will mature, improve in all factors and increase in size to the point where it will hold a good position in mainstream storage (like in a unraid server). Some companies (Like your HP, Dell, etc...) are only starting to introduce SSD's as an option, but again, it is ultra expensive and isn't viable, on a cost wise basis.

You can build a 20 disk unraid server and it would take the space of a Mid-High height PC case/4 RU server chassis, using your run-of-the-mill desktop hardware and this was the original idea of unraid, to be cost affective and flexible. Even if the price and reliability wasn't the factor for both SSD's or other 2.5" disks alike (dependent on personal opinions), their would be a small market who would build such a server.

For sure it would be cool to have a 40TB+ storage unit (using traditional 2.5" HD's and I guess a PC case would have to be modded to occupy these drives or requiring a heap of 2.5" disk enclosures as well) that would fit all into a small Midi tower, but I don't see the benefit, unless you live in a one bed room apartment and space and acoustics is a important factor for you .

 

Each to their own I guess, but a good topic never the less.

[BRiT]

Not exactly Raid but it is true as the SSD controller uses parallel channel architecture and the smaller capacities use only a part of these channels. For example the Intel one uses 10 channels -  http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/apac/eng/products/nand/feature/index.htm

If you populate the PCB with only 5 pcs of 8 MByte flash memories on one side you will end up with the value series 40MB model which uses only 5 channels hence 35MB/sec writing speed.

Populate all ten pcs on the same side, then you are going to use all 10 channels and this doubles the speed to 70MB/s.

 

Picture of the drive PCB here:

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_x25v_ssd_review_40gb

 

Thanks for providing this level of detail. This is what I meant when I said banks of smaller drives.

[Melandir]

I'm sorry to resurrect this old topic but I need your advice on this topic

 

I'm planning to build a new Unraid server in a tower case: Xigmatek Elysium

 

now I need to decide what HDD use in it: 2.5" or 3.5" or to mix with both sizes?

 

My priority is silence, I don't have a dedicated server room to place the server and will sit in my office room, I like to reduce the noise as much as possible and forget about it, from my experience 2.5" are quieter than 3.5" (SSDs will be perfect)

 

plan is to buy one or more of this enclosure 12x2.5" HDD in 3x5.25"

https://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=602&area=en

 

or to buy one or more of this 5x3.5" in 3x5.25"

https://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=605&area=en

 

4Tb HDD are now around 100EUR in both 2.5" and 3.5" sizes

main use of the array will be storage for house media (film, video, photo etc...)

 

thanks for your time