SSD capacity continues to increase ...
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3132_7-57578656-98/crucial-m500-brings-ssd-pricing-to-a-new-low
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-3132_7-57578656-98/crucial-m500-brings-ssd-pricing-to-a-new-low
A chicken in every pot and a SSD in every computer
- Thread starter lilmsmaggie
- Start date
- Status
Regardless of what they tell you, this will NOT speed up your chickens.
There's an inherent bus issue with most chickens.
There's an inherent bus issue with most chickens.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I just put a Samsung 512gb 840 Pro in my Sony Vaio laptop. The included software cloned my drive and set the parameters for a SSD. Everything transferred over without any problem (OS, applications, files). Now my laptop screams and cold boots in less than 30 seconds. Before it was taking ~ 5 minutes. I then put the HDD I took out of the laptop and put it in a ThermalTake USB 3.0 external drive enclosure. Happy, happy, joy, joy. 
Upvote
0
Did somebody say stupendously fast? This isn't even the most recent model...RLPhoto said:3kramd5 said:
I Didn't even know this existed. Must be stupendously fast.
http://ocz.com/enterprise/z-drive-r4-pcie-ssd/rs-specifications
Upvote
0
I just received my Samsung 512 GB SSD 240 PRO Its faster than the Crucial. They were $399. I have it teamed with my 256GB Samsung 830 as a boot disk and the 512 for data. If I needed 1TB, I'd put two of the 840 pros in a raid setup for $800.
Upvote
0
I just returned my Samsung SSD. I built up a system with that as my system drive and a pair of 2 terabyte drives RAID'd for data. After the 2nd time the drive deformatted itself spontaneously, I lost faith. But it was fast when I had it.
Upvote
0
I have nine of them without ever having had a problem. I suppose that a tiny few will fail, but Samsung are the most reliable, dependinng on which model. The 830's and 840 pros are good. The 840's have a different technology, so they are a unknown until there are more users.tbadowski said:
Upvote
0
In the last year, I have had over two dozen SSDs fail between me and many of my client's boxes. However, the only SSDs that work without a problem (and never had one) are:
Intel SSDs
Samsung 840s
Plextor M3Pro & M5Pro
Everything else, especially the junk-ass Corsair, Crucial, and OCZ drives are just that - junk. Primarily the Corsair drives - I had 3 die in the first 3 weeks of installing it, and of course, they sent me a refurb even though I bought the drive new. So, they send me another, it dies.
Actually, it's not the manufacturer's fault - it's just that SandForce controllers are weak and horrible, reliability-wise. They are fast, but they also die fast.
My data cluster on my big box is RAID 6ADG 15K SCSI 300GB disks, and the controllers are mirrored also. That's reliability - never powered off and so far, one cluster is approaching 5 years constant uptime.
My Visual Studio/Lightroom portable? Fujitsu T731, Core i7, 16GB DDR3, Plextor 512GB SSD - fast, smooth, reliable and holds about 13 hours battery life.
Next drive for the desktop environment: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20130408232555_WD_s_HGST_Unveils_World_s_First_Solid_State_Drives_with_SAS_12Gb_s_Interface.html
Intel SSDs
Samsung 840s
Plextor M3Pro & M5Pro
Everything else, especially the junk-ass Corsair, Crucial, and OCZ drives are just that - junk. Primarily the Corsair drives - I had 3 die in the first 3 weeks of installing it, and of course, they sent me a refurb even though I bought the drive new. So, they send me another, it dies.
Actually, it's not the manufacturer's fault - it's just that SandForce controllers are weak and horrible, reliability-wise. They are fast, but they also die fast.
My data cluster on my big box is RAID 6ADG 15K SCSI 300GB disks, and the controllers are mirrored also. That's reliability - never powered off and so far, one cluster is approaching 5 years constant uptime.
My Visual Studio/Lightroom portable? Fujitsu T731, Core i7, 16GB DDR3, Plextor 512GB SSD - fast, smooth, reliable and holds about 13 hours battery life.
Next drive for the desktop environment: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20130408232555_WD_s_HGST_Unveils_World_s_First_Solid_State_Drives_with_SAS_12Gb_s_Interface.html
Upvote
0
I am aware that SSD will significantly increase the start up times and read/write times but I have a specific question regarding the the performance of Adobe CS6, Lightroom 4.4, Final Cut Pro etc, with an SSD:
I currently have a Mac Book Pro Mid 2010 (OSX 10.8.3) with 16 GB DDR 3 RAM, 750GB HDD, 2.9 GHz intel Core i7 processor, and all of the above programs work perfectly, I have no issue at all, but what I want to know is will upgrading to an SSD will have a significant performance improvement after those programs have been launched?
I currently have a Mac Book Pro Mid 2010 (OSX 10.8.3) with 16 GB DDR 3 RAM, 750GB HDD, 2.9 GHz intel Core i7 processor, and all of the above programs work perfectly, I have no issue at all, but what I want to know is will upgrading to an SSD will have a significant performance improvement after those programs have been launched?
Upvote
0
This is good news indeed. I have 500GB in my laptop and the two are nearly always full, and I still carry an external with me to events. In fact I actually back up through three different externals so the one I carry with me is always nearly empty (ish).
Having 2 TB inside the machine would be very welcome indeed.
Having 2 TB inside the machine would be very welcome indeed.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
That depends on whether those programs are continually reading and writing to that drive (i.e. you don't have an external data drive).
In my system, I have two SSDs. One is for the OS and applications. The other is where I import photo (and the odd video) sessions to, and for application scratch space (e.g. LR, Photoshop, Edius). Lightroom catalogs get created on that second SSD on a per-shoot basis (e.g. I have SSD\LIGHTROOM\2013-04-10\2013-04-10.lrcat and SSD\DATA\2013-04-10\<DNG files>), and they remain there until my workflow is complete after which I push them to my archival library on a large spinning drive.
It's noticeably faster, particularly for large sessions where my memory (16GB) is quickly consumed and I have to rely on swap (but to be fair, my previous methodology had me working from a 5400RPM drive, so the jump to SATA3 SSD may not be representative of your gains). This is all subjective. I've done no testing.
Upvote
0
This article may help answer your question:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/will-an-ssd-improve-adobe-lightroom-performance
Rienzphotoz said:
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
It is a little like a DSLR, there are many components that make it better.
I am no fan of anything "Apple" and I recommend the high end Lenovo or Dell machines for heavy image, engineering apps and HD video etc.
That aside, it will give you a boost upgrading to an SSD if all the components are correctly in place and aligned. The CPU plays a major part, the video card again is extremely important, your RAM and the type of RAM etc. Plus a lot of people forget the bus, if you connect an SSD to a SATA 2 bus then performance will be limited. I think 3 (GB/s) is the latest (not sure though), so no matter what the SSD claims is the read/write speed if your laptop cannot handle those speeds you just won't get them
My laptop currently has two SSDs in it and could have four, but for me the main advantage with SSD (apart from the speed) is how quiet they are. Really makes a difference to your day if you work somewhere very quiet.
So would I recommend an SSD, definitely. Do I recommend upgrading a current laptop from a 750GB spin drive with all the headaches that that entails? That is the major question imho. Personally, I probably would wait until you want to upgrade your entire laptop. But if you are comfortable technically moving from a 750GB spin to a SSD then why not.
Upvote
0
- Status
