Kingston Launches Reasonably Priced HyperX 3K Solid State Drives

5

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

kixofmyg0t

And I bet these are asynchronous drives too. Which means they will get destroyed by the Crucial M4.

avatar

big_montana

But $700 for a laptop still would not get you a high capacity SSD, if it got you one at all.

avatar

Captain_Steve

I'm slightly curious; but wouldn't it make more sense for the average person to get two 240GB hard-drives and raid them over getting the one 480GB? If you have that kind of money to drop on a drive, I'm guessing you have more than one drive bay you can use.

I guess I could drop the 480GB in my Compaq C700...or I could use the $700 and upgrade the entire laptop.

avatar

andrewc513

If it were me and I had money to blow, I might; but I don't think the average person should. You're doubling your odds of OS failure using RAID-0, so you'd have to be damn sure you keep a backup of anything important on that volume and be ready to RMA a drive and reinstall the OS(or restore an image backup) at any moment. Maybe I'm cynical from working in IT for so long, but I don't think your "average" person fully understands the benefits/risks of RAID-0, much less how to set one up.

Long story short, if I was rich and had money to blow, I'd just as soon buy a PCIe OCZ drive. Throughput measured in the GB's and IOPS that leave SATA-based SSD's in the dust.

avatar

kiaghi7

The only problem I have with such assertions is the erroneous assumption that the potential of failure is inherently higher in RAID-0 than with a singular drive...

The possibility of a failure of any of the individual identical drives is equivalent, however there is often an erroneous assumption that having RAID, and thus multiple drives, increases these odds of a failure.

The typical assumption is that twice the drives means twice the potential, which is not so at all... Each drive has its own potential, like a lottery ticket... Buying 100 tickets doesn't give you 100 times the chance to win, you simply have 100 individual chances at an astronomically small outcome.

Or like flipping a coin doesn't inherently give you any greater or lesser potential for an outcome just because you may have some preconceived notion of what the ensuing result should be. Getting heads on one flip in no way influences the next flip, the chances are again what they were previously and will continue to be. Flipping two coins simultaneously also doesn't give any more potential for a predetermined outcome, you're simply doing the same action simultaneously that would have otherwise taken two separate flips of a single coin, but it still in no way changes the potential for an outcome on either coin.

The coins do not take the result of the other into account when their result is arrived at. The drives do not either...

More over, with good quality SSD's (not some knock-off brand) having profoundly high reliability anyway, often in the order of MILLIONS of hours mean between failures, they practically scream out to be used in a RAID configuration precisely because of how reliable they are, and to take full advantage of their speed.

I would be many many times more concerned with mechanical drive failing than a quality SSD, even if the mechanical drive is a fine example by a well received manufacturer. It's not to knock the HDD at all, it's just that no moving parts is a tremendous advantage and benefit for reliability and longevity.

As usual, I highly recommend SSDs in a RAID-0 -AS A BOOT DRIVE- so long as they are quality drives, precisely because of their speed. If you need bulk storage then SSDs are still woefully impractical, and you're often better just getting relatively cheap and far larger HDDs.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.