Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:05:13 -0700 From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Cc: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Subject: Re: you're not going to believe this. Message-ID: <a9f4a3860906231405g602f39f0wb004b44f164873fb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090623205944.GA43982@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> References: <20090622230729.GA20167@thought.org> <a9f4a3860906231222r65faaf1cia6b68186c79f4791@mail.gmail.com> <20090623201041.GA23561@thought.org> <20090623205944.GA43982@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 13:59, David Kelly<dkelly@hiwaay.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote: >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 battery-backed ram sound great for the time being! >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if not now [this minute], then relatively soon, i'm= guessing >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 within a few years somebody will have a solid-state= device that emulates >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the current mechanical technology. =C2=A0it will wi= nd up being considerably >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 faster than the current drives and suck Much less j= uice. > > We are already there. SSDs are not slower than mechanical disk drives, > they are faster. The only detriments are 1) cost, 2) limited write life. Not completely there, AFAIK - FlashRAM write speeds are still significantly slower than standard RAM. Of course, standard RAM is significantly more expensive than FlashRAM, especially with the battery backup, but it doesn't have the limited write life. Kurt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a9f4a3860906231405g602f39f0wb004b44f164873fb>