F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Adjust your Windows file transfer options through the settings menu.

Adjust your Windows file transfer options through the settings menu.

Adjust your Windows file transfer options through the settings menu.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3
L
LeLapinou_
Junior Member
43
03-21-2016, 02:51 PM
#21
I think if you remove the extra layers—such as changing from one command queue to another—and account for human mistakes, the three would essentially have similar time allocations. From a drive perspective, they’re receiving many commands. The operating system and hardware might also be optimizing by loading the next task before the current one finishes, allowing the hard drive to start working right away.
L
LeLapinou_
03-21-2016, 02:51 PM #21

I think if you remove the extra layers—such as changing from one command queue to another—and account for human mistakes, the three would essentially have similar time allocations. From a drive perspective, they’re receiving many commands. The operating system and hardware might also be optimizing by loading the next task before the current one finishes, allowing the hard drive to start working right away.

Z
zeroxpalace
Member
116
04-12-2016, 10:13 AM
#22
32tb storage options available: Ten 4tb 850 evo drives in Z2 unit for $15,000. Twenty 2tb MX300 units in Z4 for $10,000. Six 8tb Reds drives in Z2 for $1,500. In fact, you get six SSDs per HDD in terms of capacity, making even 1tb SSDs quite space-efficient (assuming no gaps between layers for cooling and a highly efficient backplane).
Z
zeroxpalace
04-12-2016, 10:13 AM #22

32tb storage options available: Ten 4tb 850 evo drives in Z2 unit for $15,000. Twenty 2tb MX300 units in Z4 for $10,000. Six 8tb Reds drives in Z2 for $1,500. In fact, you get six SSDs per HDD in terms of capacity, making even 1tb SSDs quite space-efficient (assuming no gaps between layers for cooling and a highly efficient backplane).

X
xpersoncool
Member
204
04-12-2016, 11:27 AM
#23
It shows some clever handling of multiple tasks, but I believe a suitable algorithm could make it possible to match the performance seen in test 3. For the comparison between test 2 and test 3, I think test 3 will consistently outperform the others. Whether it surpasses or matches test 2 depends, but I don’t see test 3 ever lagging behind. With perfect execution, it should handle more jobs simultaneously and optimize better than manual handling in smaller batches. Assuming no mistakes, it would always win against the others. Hmm, that makes sense. Visualizing this is tricky—6.2" SSDs fitting inside a 3.5" HDD sounds impressive, especially if you consider how much more storage they could hold. But remember, cost remains the main issue... That’s what I mentioned earlier. Insane!
X
xpersoncool
04-12-2016, 11:27 AM #23

It shows some clever handling of multiple tasks, but I believe a suitable algorithm could make it possible to match the performance seen in test 3. For the comparison between test 2 and test 3, I think test 3 will consistently outperform the others. Whether it surpasses or matches test 2 depends, but I don’t see test 3 ever lagging behind. With perfect execution, it should handle more jobs simultaneously and optimize better than manual handling in smaller batches. Assuming no mistakes, it would always win against the others. Hmm, that makes sense. Visualizing this is tricky—6.2" SSDs fitting inside a 3.5" HDD sounds impressive, especially if you consider how much more storage they could hold. But remember, cost remains the main issue... That’s what I mentioned earlier. Insane!

X
Xytrixz
Senior Member
552
04-16-2016, 02:09 PM
#24
I checked the details, it matches a ratio of 8:1. Two SSDs next to each other fit the size of a 3.5" HDD (a bit shorter). The 4tb EVO is 6.8mm thick compared to a standard 3.5" HDD's 26mm, meaning about four SSDs per stack. That gives roughly seven point six-four SSDs per HDD. An 8tb Red measures 147x101.6x26.1mm. A 4tb 850 EVO is 70x100x6.80mm. In volume, eight SSDs actually take up less space: one 3.5" HDD = 389.8cm, two 2.5" SSDs = 379.984cm.
X
Xytrixz
04-16-2016, 02:09 PM #24

I checked the details, it matches a ratio of 8:1. Two SSDs next to each other fit the size of a 3.5" HDD (a bit shorter). The 4tb EVO is 6.8mm thick compared to a standard 3.5" HDD's 26mm, meaning about four SSDs per stack. That gives roughly seven point six-four SSDs per HDD. An 8tb Red measures 147x101.6x26.1mm. A 4tb 850 EVO is 70x100x6.80mm. In volume, eight SSDs actually take up less space: one 3.5" HDD = 389.8cm, two 2.5" SSDs = 379.984cm.

E
ElTorchoN
Member
161
04-17-2016, 06:38 PM
#25
Seagate's 3.5" drive with 60 terabytes of storage is becoming increasingly impressive yet somewhat overhyped.
E
ElTorchoN
04-17-2016, 06:38 PM #25

Seagate's 3.5" drive with 60 terabytes of storage is becoming increasingly impressive yet somewhat overhyped.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3