Little_Devil wrote:Kaelan002 wrote:By that argument, buy a proper SSD and set that as cache. No point replacing a perfectly good HDD to gain a meager 8GB of flash.
Clearly you are mistaking the principles behind the SSHD memory and cache memory, which all drives have including SSD and SSHD.
Hmm, so you have a cached SSD acting as cache to a HDD without any software algorithms to make sure it all works efficiently. That would certainly be a sight to see.
Kaelan002 wrote:Little_Devil wrote:Kaelan002 wrote:
"set that as a cache drive"* The 32/64MB of on drive "Cache memory", aka a drive buffer, is nothing to do with it.
It's called the Intel Rapid Storage driver. Or if you want a software solution, there's Nvelo's dataplex.
Little_Devil wrote:Data is only valuable when comparing like for like
Security wrote:The fact that HDD's with higher data density outperform the SSHD's is a bad omen in most cases, the fact that SSD's outperform it in every case is a given.
Looking at the conclusion where they found that a HDD and SSD combination was only 10 pounds more expensive then the SSHD solution is a important one I would say as in the end the HDD and SSD combination gives you more bang for buck overall.
Pairing separate solid-state and mechanical drives is more expensive than getting an SSHD, but not by as much as you might expect. Seagate's Barracuda 2TB hard drive is priced at $100 right now, and you can add a 32GB SSD for less than $50 more. You'll want caching software or an SRT-compatible platform to manage that relationship, but the drives ring in at only $10 more than the $140 asking price attached to the Desktop SSHD.
Seagate's desktop hybrid has some appeal for instances where a dual-drive setup isn't possible or affordable. It's a solid entry-level desktop offering best suited to basic systems that want to add a little pep to a lot of storage with minimal hassle.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests