Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sdr-radio-com] Re: Just when you thought...

Expand Messages
  • Calder Latham
    I had the same issue Simon with an OCZ SSD. The data was lost. Tech support lead me through putting the latest base code on the drive. I now use that as a
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
          I had the same issue Simon with an OCZ SSD. The data was lost. Tech support lead me through putting the latest base code on the drive. I now use that as a Download drive. Makes for fast installs of downloaded stuff.  I did put another OCZ SSD in as my C drive. FWIW...Cal.

      W1HHO from the woods of Maine.

    • drew231955
      Hi. I have been using SSDs since they came out. There have been some failures, OCZ went though a bad patch. One problem is operating system support for SSDs.
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi.

        I have been using SSDs since they came out. There have been some failures, OCZ went though a bad patch.

        One problem is operating system support for SSDs. Not going to the details, they need a "Trim" function and de-fragmentation turned off.

        XP doesn't support SSDs and trim must be performed manually.

        Windows 7 is supposed to recognize SSDs, but doesn't, leaving defragmentation on. It does trim when the user is logged off and the machine still running; not common.

        Windows 8 recognizes SSDs natively and has a scheduled trim function in disk tools. Some motherboards also treat SSDs differently; a new Asrock Haswell board I just bought being an example.

        Bottom line; SSDs are an emerging technology that is approaching maturity, as are the operating systems. Use a good quality SSD (price is a guide) and Windows 8.

        Regards Drew

        --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, "Calder Latham" <calder_b@...> wrote:
        >
        > I had the same issue Simon with an OCZ SSD. The data was lost. Tech support lead me through putting the latest base code on the drive. I now use that as a Download drive. Makes for fast installs of downloaded stuff. I did put another OCZ SSD in as my C drive. FWIW...Cal.
        >
        > W1HHO from the woods of Maine.
        >
      • josephrot
        Simon... the incoming setup sounds nice and nicely done as well. My reply didn t intend to nay say ALL SSD -- just be careful betting the whole farm, or
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 22, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Simon... the incoming setup sounds nice and nicely done as well. My reply didn't intend to nay say ALL SSD -- just be careful betting the whole farm, or SD-Radio project, on SSD only.

          Brand is important, as are the other recommendations from Group users...back-ups are still very important...data-protection.

          I too look to the day when we won't have to bother with "wind up" HDD's any more, and that day is fast approaching, yes.

          RE: TenTec support (Boog ?) TenTec is HQ about 25 miles from me, and I can almost say after talking to the V.P. Marketing there that SDR IS on their mind, yet they want to be more "in control" of their product. Hence, third-party SDR control or adaptation of TenTec will be taking place at their pace.

          That's one way of saying that the interface data third-party SDR software needs to "do TenTec" is up to TenTec to divulge -- in their current frame of mind -- or to intrepid TenTec users to discover.

          Joe

          --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, Boog Moore <boogn4ctfmoore@...> wrote:
          >
          > A curious question - why no support for Ten-Tec receiver's? 73 all
          > ________________________________
          > From: simonbrown42 <simon@...>
          > To: sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:16 AM
          > Subject: [sdr-radio-com] Re: Just when you thought...
          > Joe,
          >
          > Assuming it is the SSD then in fact it's an old OCZ Revo drive but anyway it's time to retire this crate. The new one has a Samsung 840 pro SSD and I have full backups taken every day and distributed around the world, so I'm not worried.
          >
          > Today I've tidied up the computer area, the new box will slip in nicely tomorrow.
          >
          > Simon
        • Chuck
          MTBF s of SSD s are around 10 times better than the more or less industry average of 50,000 hours for hard drives. On what basis are you saying we should
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 22, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            MTBF's of SSD's are around 10 times better than the more or less industry average of 50,000 hours for hard drives.

            On what basis are you saying we should ignore all the MTBF data? Can you point us to test results from an authoritative source?


            Chuck


            --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, "josephrot" <joerotello@...> wrote:
            >
            > Simon...
            >
            > You will likely not want to place trust in any SSD as the main boot drive, as they are not as reliable nor proven as of today, nowhere near as users have been led to believe. They will eventually, and soon, take over from rotating platter and moving head HDD's, but not until the R/W reliability equals or exceeds HDD's.
            >
            > On any platform that a quality deep user and programmer depend on for day-to-day work, rotating HDD's would be the best boot-drive bet, and then using a SSD as a secondary high speed I/O storage device.
            >
            > Joe
            >




          • josephrot
            I did not say ignore all the MTBF data . SSD s R/W before failure is NOT near 50,000 hours -- yet -- which roughly equates to 5 to 6 years active use. That
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 23, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I did not say "ignore all the MTBF data".

              SSD's R/W before failure is NOT near 50,000 hours -- yet -- which roughly equates to 5 to 6 years active use.

              That is, the number of R/W's before data capture failure is lower than that for quality HDD's. In fact, up until recently, that was the deciding factor against "trusting" SSD's over HDD's.

              True, SSD's WILL win out, in fact are already starting to, as the prospects of high-speed access, high-speed OS booting, no moving parts, low-to-moderate heat and dissipation problems, simple construction, etc. "overwhelm" rotating HDD's.

              Having worked with WD, Seagate and Intel RE: SSD's, be vary careful betting the farm on SSD's basing ones judgments ONLY on MTBF claims. MTBF is not an illusion, yet there are other factors.

              Joe

              --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, Chuck <charlesh3@...> wrote:
              >
              > MTBF's of SSD's are around 10 times better than the more or less
              > industry average of 50,000 hours for hard drives.
              >
              > On what basis are you saying we should ignore all the MTBF data? Can you
              > point us to test results from an authoritative source?
              >
              >
              > Chuck
              >
              > >>
              > >> --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com
              > >> <mailto:sdr-radio-com%40yahoogroups.com>, "josephrot"
              > >> <joerotello@> wrote:
              > >> >
              > >> > Simon...
              > >> >
              > >> > You will likely not want to place trust in any SSD as the main boot
              > >> drive, as they are not as reliable nor proven as of today, nowhere
              > >> near as users have been led to believe. They will eventually, and
              > >> soon, take over from rotating platter and moving head HDD's, but not
              > >> until the R/W reliability equals or exceeds HDD's.
              > >> >
              > >> > On any platform that a quality deep user and programmer depend on
              > >> for day-to-day work, rotating HDD's would be the best boot-drive bet,
              > >> and then using a SSD as a secondary high speed I/O storage device.
              > >> >
              > >> > Joe
              > >> >
              > >>
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Norman - M0JEC
              The place where SSD s are most useful right now is for those who require a gaming PC, they want speed (a few ms of latency can be the difference between
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 23, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                The place where SSD's are most useful right now is for those who require a "gaming" PC, they want speed (a few ms of latency can be the difference between winning and losing in some of the modern games), so fast hdd's and internet connections are required by serious gamers, and they really don't care about long life as it's likely they replace the PC every year or so to keep up with the latest games anyway.
                 
                It is this market (a bit like F1 for cars?) that is the development ground for these new technologies, and they WILL become better and in time we'll all be using SSD's as they will be able to produce them in quantity and with sufficient reliability, I'd say give it 2-5 years for the issues to be ironed out, maybe sooner.
                 
                Norman
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: josephrot
                Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:37 AM
                Subject: [sdr-radio-com] Re: Just when you thought...

                 

                I did not say "ignore all the MTBF data".

                SSD's R/W before failure is NOT near 50,000 hours -- yet -- which roughly equates to 5 to 6 years active use.

                That is, the number of R/W's before data capture failure is lower than that for quality HDD's. In fact, up until recently, that was the deciding factor against "trusting" SSD's over HDD's.

                True, SSD's WILL win out, in fact are already starting to, as the prospects of high-speed access, high-speed OS booting, no moving parts, low-to-moderate heat and dissipation problems, simple construction, etc. "overwhelm" rotating HDD's.

                Having worked with WD, Seagate and Intel RE: SSD's, be vary careful betting the farm on SSD's basing ones judgments ONLY on MTBF claims. MTBF is not an illusion, yet there are other factors.

                Joe

                --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, Chuck <charlesh3@...> wrote:
                >
                > MTBF's of SSD's are around 10 times better than the more or less
                > industry average of 50,000 hours for hard drives.
                >
                > On what basis are you saying we should ignore all the MTBF data? Can you
                > point us to test results from an authoritative source?
                >
                >
                > Chuck
                >
                > >>
                > >> --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com
                > >> <mailto:sdr-radio-com%40yahoogroups.com>, "josephrot"
                > >> <joerotello@> wrote:
                > >> >
                > >> > Simon...
                > >> >
                > >> > You will likely not want to place trust in any SSD as the main boot
                > >> drive, as they are not as reliable nor proven as of today, nowhere
                > >> near as users have been led to believe. They will eventually, and
                > >> soon, take over from rotating platter and moving head HDD's, but not
                > >> until the R/W reliability equals or exceeds HDD's.
                > >> >
                > >> > On any platform that a quality deep user and programmer depend on
                > >> for day-to-day work, rotating HDD's would be the best boot-drive bet,
                > >> and then using a SSD as a secondary high speed I/O storage device.
                > >> >
                > >> > Joe
                > >> >
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >

              • magooslum
                For those who are interested in this stuff, there is some promising technology on the way that should make Flash memory even more powerful. It is really
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 23, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  For those who are interested in this stuff, there is some promising technology on the way that should make Flash memory even more powerful. It is really encouraging stuff (link to "crossbar" RRam):

                  http://wp.me/p1re2-3jaQ

                  In the late 1980s I was designing "servo writers" for shops that needed to replace platters in order to repair hard drives (remember when we used to repair stuff instead of throwing it in the landfill?). The idea of putting down information as magnetic blips at RF rates onto an aluminum platter that was coated with a thin film of rust, essentially, has always been a troubling thing for me. And how far we have taken it. Wow... terabytes. Time to move on.

                  73, Paul NT7U


                  --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, "Norman - M0JEC" <m0jec@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The place where SSD's are most useful right now is for those who require a "gaming" PC, they want speed (a few ms of latency can be the difference between winning and losing in some of the modern games), so fast hdd's and internet connections are required by serious gamers, and they really don't care about long life as it's likely they replace the PC every year or so to keep up with the latest games anyway.
                  >
                  > It is this market (a bit like F1 for cars?) that is the development ground for these new technologies, and they WILL become better and in time we'll all be using SSD's as they will be able to produce them in quantity and with sufficient reliability, I'd say give it 2-5 years for the issues to be ironed out, maybe sooner.
                  >
                  > Norman
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: josephrot
                  > To: sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:37 AM
                  > Subject: [sdr-radio-com] Re: Just when you thought...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I did not say "ignore all the MTBF data".
                  >
                  > SSD's R/W before failure is NOT near 50,000 hours -- yet -- which roughly equates to 5 to 6 years active use.
                  >
                  > That is, the number of R/W's before data capture failure is lower than that for quality HDD's. In fact, up until recently, that was the deciding factor against "trusting" SSD's over HDD's.
                  >
                  > True, SSD's WILL win out, in fact are already starting to, as the prospects of high-speed access, high-speed OS booting, no moving parts, low-to-moderate heat and dissipation problems, simple construction, etc. "overwhelm" rotating HDD's.
                  >
                  > Having worked with WD, Seagate and Intel RE: SSD's, be vary careful betting the farm on SSD's basing ones judgments ONLY on MTBF claims. MTBF is not an illusion, yet there are other factors.
                  >
                  > Joe
                  >
                  > --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, Chuck <charlesh3@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > MTBF's of SSD's are around 10 times better than the more or less
                  > > industry average of 50,000 hours for hard drives.
                  > >
                  > > On what basis are you saying we should ignore all the MTBF data? Can you
                  > > point us to test results from an authoritative source?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Chuck
                  > >
                  > > >>
                  > > >> --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com
                  > > >> <mailto:sdr-radio-com%40yahoogroups.com>, "josephrot"
                  > > >> <joerotello@> wrote:
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > Simon...
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > You will likely not want to place trust in any SSD as the main boot
                  > > >> drive, as they are not as reliable nor proven as of today, nowhere
                  > > >> near as users have been led to believe. They will eventually, and
                  > > >> soon, take over from rotating platter and moving head HDD's, but not
                  > > >> until the R/W reliability equals or exceeds HDD's.
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > On any platform that a quality deep user and programmer depend on
                  > > >> for day-to-day work, rotating HDD's would be the best boot-drive bet,
                  > > >> and then using a SSD as a secondary high speed I/O storage device.
                  > > >> >
                  > > >> > Joe
                  > > >> >
                  > > >>
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • josephrot
                  Resistive RAM (RRAM) has been simmering for the last few years, but with the development of a working, and initially tested, chip...it would seem to have a
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 23, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Resistive RAM (RRAM) has been "simmering" for the last few years, but with the development of a working, and initially tested, chip...it would seem to have a very positive future...as would the technologies users.

                    Something seems to be telling us that SDR and other hardware/software will be one of the beneficiaries of RRAM, perhaps in ways we have not thought.

                    Thank you for bringing the information and the link, Paul.

                    Joe

                    --- In sdr-radio-com@yahoogroups.com, "magooslum" <magooslum@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > For those who are interested in this stuff, there is some promising technology on the way that should make Flash memory even more powerful. It is really encouraging stuff (link to "crossbar" RRam):
                    >
                    > http://wp.me/p1re2-3jaQ
                    >
                    > In the late 1980s I was designing "servo writers" for shops that needed to replace platters in order to repair hard drives (remember when we used to repair stuff instead of throwing it in the landfill?). The idea of putting down information as magnetic blips at RF rates onto an aluminum platter that was coated with a thin film of rust, essentially, has always been a troubling thing for me. And how far we have taken it. Wow... terabytes. Time to move on.
                    >
                    > 73, Paul NT7U
                    >
                    ( snipped for brevity )
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.