I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
SSD's are so much faster?

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

yosemite sam <felix@goaway.com> wrote

> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
> SSD's are so much faster?

It isn't just about the transfer rate and most don't do much
that is limited by the transfer rate anyway. Media playing is
determined by the media play rate, not the drive transfer
rate. The only thing most do much of that is determined
by the transfer rate is copying large files between drives
and with a properly setup system, that isnt done much.

The other is backups but most do that now while using
the system or when not using it so that time doesnt matter.

The main thing with an SSD is noticeably better is the
zero seek time. No spinning media can ever be that fast.

The main situation where you do see a much better result
with an SSD is the much quicker full boot time but anyone
with a clue doesn't do a full boot very often at all.

Am 19.12.2022 um 13:42:49 Uhr schrieb yosemite sam:

> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
> SSD's are so much faster?

SSDs have no latency when changing the cylinder (moving the head to
another track). Some new HDDs have a very high reading data rate too if
the data is on one track, but high performance SSDs are faster IIRC,
especially when the data is distributed around the disk.

yosemite sam wrote:
>
> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
> SSD's are so much faster?
>

540 Mbs implies bits per second. SATA SSD does 540 MBps, a lot faster.
I use WD purple 10 TB that do sustained 210 MBps. Maybe can do bursts at
500 MBps. I think "enterprise" hard drives at 15000 RPM topped out
around 300 MBps sustained.
You notice the difference if you install Windows or Linux on a hard
drive, the clone it to an SSD, see how much quicker booting is.

On 21/12/2022 6:33 am, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 19.12.2022 um 13:42:49 Uhr schrieb yosemite sam:
>
>> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
>> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
>> SSD's are so much faster?
>
> SSDs have no latency when changing the cylinder (moving the head to
> another track). Some new HDDs have a very high reading data rate too if
> the data is on one track, but high performance SSDs are faster IIRC,
> especially when the data is distributed around the disk.
>
To be pedantic, the time taken to move the heads on a HDD is seek time,
latency is the average time for the disk to rotate to the block that you
are after (half the rotational period). Obviously with a SSD, both of
these are essentially zero. The transfer rate using discrete SSDs is
usually limited by the interface usually SATA. The fastest SSDs are the
M2 type using NVMe PCIe 4.0 if your computer has sockets for it.

keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 6:33 am, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 19.12.2022 um 13:42:49 Uhr schrieb yosemite sam:
>>
>>> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
>>> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
>>> SSD's are so much faster?
>>
>> SSDs have no latency when changing the cylinder (moving the head to
>> another track). Some new HDDs have a very high reading data rate too if
>> the data is on one track, but high performance SSDs are faster IIRC,
>> especially when the data is distributed around the disk.
>>
> To be pedantic, the time taken to move the heads on a HDD is seek time,
> latency is the average time for the disk to rotate to the block that you
> are after (half the rotational period). Obviously with a SSD, both of
> these are essentially zero. The transfer rate using discrete SSDs is
> usually limited by the interface usually SATA. The fastest SSDs are the
> M2 type using NVMe PCIe 4.0 if your computer has sockets for it.

there are also PCIe cards to provide NVMe sockets

On 3/1/2023 7:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 6:33 am, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 19.12.2022 um 13:42:49 Uhr schrieb yosemite sam:
>>
>>> I see that the transfer rate of 2.5" form factor SSD's is around the
>>> same as conventional 3.5" hard drives (540Mbs) so why is it said that
>>> SSD's are so much faster?
>>
>> SSDs have no latency when changing the cylinder (moving the head to
>> another track). Some new HDDs have a very high reading data rate too if
>> the data is on one track, but high performance SSDs are faster IIRC,
>> especially when the data is distributed around the disk.
>>
> To be pedantic, the time taken to move the heads on a HDD is seek time,
> latency is the average time for the disk to rotate to the block that you
> are after (half the rotational period).

Back in the CP/M and early PC days, we used to *tweak* the latency by
adjusting/optimising the interleave during a format. Most standard disk
formats, HDD and Floppy, had a fair tolerance built into them. If you
optimised it too finely, the read would just miss the next sector in
sequence and require another full 360 degrees of rotation in order to
read it. Man, did that ever slow down the data throughput.

> Obviously with a SSD, both of
> these are essentially zero. The transfer rate using discrete SSDs is
> usually limited by the interface usually SATA. The fastest SSDs are the
> M2 type using NVMe PCIe 4.0 if your computer has sockets for it.

I have one, an OWC branded unit, but it only has a standard SATA III
interface on it. I'm using it with a SATA II 128 GB SSD as a boot device
on my Mac Pro. Fast! The NVME types could double, triple, even quadruple
the transfer rate of SATA III

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)