<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_16_2123228</id>
	<title>Fusion-io IoXtreme's Consumer-Class PCIe SSD &mdash; Impressive Throughput</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258364400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MojoKid writes <i>"When Fusion-io's first ioDrive product hit the market, it was claimed to be a 'disruptive technology' by some industry analysts, with the potential to set the storage industry on its ear.  Of course the first version of the ioDrive was an enterprise-class product that showed the significant potential of PCI Express direct-attached SSD storage, but its cost was such that the mainstream market couldn't possibly justify it, no matter what the upside performance looked like.  Then we heard of Fusion-io's more consumer-targeted play, the ioXtreme, that was announced this past summer.  Fusion-io has only very recently released these new, lower cost cards to market.  The <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/">first-ever full performance review</a> of the product  over at HotHardware shows the half-height PCI Express X4 cards are capable of a robust 800MB/sec read  bandwidth and about 300MB/sec of write bandwidth.  The cards particularly excel versus a standard SSD at random read/write requests and even perform relatively well with small block transfers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " When Fusion-io 's first ioDrive product hit the market , it was claimed to be a 'disruptive technology ' by some industry analysts , with the potential to set the storage industry on its ear .
Of course the first version of the ioDrive was an enterprise-class product that showed the significant potential of PCI Express direct-attached SSD storage , but its cost was such that the mainstream market could n't possibly justify it , no matter what the upside performance looked like .
Then we heard of Fusion-io 's more consumer-targeted play , the ioXtreme , that was announced this past summer .
Fusion-io has only very recently released these new , lower cost cards to market .
The first-ever full performance review of the product over at HotHardware shows the half-height PCI Express X4 cards are capable of a robust 800MB/sec read bandwidth and about 300MB/sec of write bandwidth .
The cards particularly excel versus a standard SSD at random read/write requests and even perform relatively well with small block transfers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "When Fusion-io's first ioDrive product hit the market, it was claimed to be a 'disruptive technology' by some industry analysts, with the potential to set the storage industry on its ear.
Of course the first version of the ioDrive was an enterprise-class product that showed the significant potential of PCI Express direct-attached SSD storage, but its cost was such that the mainstream market couldn't possibly justify it, no matter what the upside performance looked like.
Then we heard of Fusion-io's more consumer-targeted play, the ioXtreme, that was announced this past summer.
Fusion-io has only very recently released these new, lower cost cards to market.
The first-ever full performance review of the product  over at HotHardware shows the half-height PCI Express X4 cards are capable of a robust 800MB/sec read  bandwidth and about 300MB/sec of write bandwidth.
The cards particularly excel versus a standard SSD at random read/write requests and even perform relatively well with small block transfers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486</id>
	<title>One major issue with it</title>
	<author>InvisiBill</author>
	<datestamp>1258369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, a bit of a let-down for some might be, that the product still currently can't be utilized as a boot volume.</p></div><p>That means you still need some other drive (probably an "old" SATA SSD) to boot from.  You can then load all your apps (and probably even some parts of the OS with a little hacking) onto this beast, but you still can't use it as your primary drive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fusion-io assures us that this feature will be supported in future driver and/or firmware revisions but also didn't commit to a schedule for that roll-out just yet.</p></div><p>Hopefully it comes along soon and at no cost for the early adopters of this item.  I'd love to see these become the standard, but it doesn't really fit for me at the moment.  As stated above, the jump from HDD to SATA SSD is a much larger percentage increase than SATA SSD to PCIe SSD, and cheaper too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , a bit of a let-down for some might be , that the product still currently ca n't be utilized as a boot volume.That means you still need some other drive ( probably an " old " SATA SSD ) to boot from .
You can then load all your apps ( and probably even some parts of the OS with a little hacking ) onto this beast , but you still ca n't use it as your primary drive.Fusion-io assures us that this feature will be supported in future driver and/or firmware revisions but also did n't commit to a schedule for that roll-out just yet.Hopefully it comes along soon and at no cost for the early adopters of this item .
I 'd love to see these become the standard , but it does n't really fit for me at the moment .
As stated above , the jump from HDD to SATA SSD is a much larger percentage increase than SATA SSD to PCIe SSD , and cheaper too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, a bit of a let-down for some might be, that the product still currently can't be utilized as a boot volume.That means you still need some other drive (probably an "old" SATA SSD) to boot from.
You can then load all your apps (and probably even some parts of the OS with a little hacking) onto this beast, but you still can't use it as your primary drive.Fusion-io assures us that this feature will be supported in future driver and/or firmware revisions but also didn't commit to a schedule for that roll-out just yet.Hopefully it comes along soon and at no cost for the early adopters of this item.
I'd love to see these become the standard, but it doesn't really fit for me at the moment.
As stated above, the jump from HDD to SATA SSD is a much larger percentage increase than SATA SSD to PCIe SSD, and cheaper too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123802</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IOXtremes can handle alot more I/Os per second then the X-25 can, there is alot of value there for some applications.  You also need to consider that an X-25 is SATA which means it requires a controller as well.  If you really want to get the full potential out of X-25s you can't just use the on-board SATA controller.  A good hardware raid SATA controller that can push ~800mbps is going to run at least $800.  When it's all said and done, the IOXtremes really are not that much more expensive looking at the total solution then an X-25 based solution and can handle significantly more I/Os.  The other tradeoff is capacity (unless you have alot of PCI-E slots in your box, you will probably be able to build a larger array of x-25s in your chassis.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IOXtremes can handle alot more I/Os per second then the X-25 can , there is alot of value there for some applications .
You also need to consider that an X-25 is SATA which means it requires a controller as well .
If you really want to get the full potential out of X-25s you ca n't just use the on-board SATA controller .
A good hardware raid SATA controller that can push ~ 800mbps is going to run at least $ 800 .
When it 's all said and done , the IOXtremes really are not that much more expensive looking at the total solution then an X-25 based solution and can handle significantly more I/Os .
The other tradeoff is capacity ( unless you have alot of PCI-E slots in your box , you will probably be able to build a larger array of x-25s in your chassis .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IOXtremes can handle alot more I/Os per second then the X-25 can, there is alot of value there for some applications.
You also need to consider that an X-25 is SATA which means it requires a controller as well.
If you really want to get the full potential out of X-25s you can't just use the on-board SATA controller.
A good hardware raid SATA controller that can push ~800mbps is going to run at least $800.
When it's all said and done, the IOXtremes really are not that much more expensive looking at the total solution then an X-25 based solution and can handle significantly more I/Os.
The other tradeoff is capacity (unless you have alot of PCI-E slots in your box, you will probably be able to build a larger array of x-25s in your chassis.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122518</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Ivan Stepaniuk</author>
	<datestamp>1258369500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of people feel their fast mechanical disks "instant" too. I guess that there are a lot of things you -can- do four times faster with this SSD than with the one you have. Killing mosquitoes with a gunshot is also fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people feel their fast mechanical disks " instant " too .
I guess that there are a lot of things you -can- do four times faster with this SSD than with the one you have .
Killing mosquitoes with a gunshot is also fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people feel their fast mechanical disks "instant" too.
I guess that there are a lot of things you -can- do four times faster with this SSD than with the one you have.
Killing mosquitoes with a gunshot is also fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</id>
	<title>sweet</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1258368540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought a SATA SSD which can read and write at around 200MB/s. It was the greatest upgrade I've ever done, and for just $200 (less than my CPU or GPU). Now, I can't stand waiting for things to load when I have to work using mechanical hard drives.</p><p>If 200MB/s is that big a difference, 800MB/s is going to be... actually probably not that much better. My computer already feels "instant."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a SATA SSD which can read and write at around 200MB/s .
It was the greatest upgrade I 've ever done , and for just $ 200 ( less than my CPU or GPU ) .
Now , I ca n't stand waiting for things to load when I have to work using mechanical hard drives.If 200MB/s is that big a difference , 800MB/s is going to be... actually probably not that much better .
My computer already feels " instant .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a SATA SSD which can read and write at around 200MB/s.
It was the greatest upgrade I've ever done, and for just $200 (less than my CPU or GPU).
Now, I can't stand waiting for things to load when I have to work using mechanical hard drives.If 200MB/s is that big a difference, 800MB/s is going to be... actually probably not that much better.
My computer already feels "instant.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722</id>
	<title>The speed has limited usefulness</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1258392300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to ask yourself, what do you need that kind of speed for vs a more portable, hot-swappable, and likely longer-lived SATA/E-SATA standard?  Maybe a transactional store for a database, but that is pretty much it.  A PCI-e style interface would be relegated only to those situations where extreme performance is required.  Such devices will always be priced at a premium over their SATA counterparts simply by virtue of their lower volume production.</p><p>I do have an interest in how well a SSD could be used to expand the effective physical memory for a machine under load.  Say, for an applet server.  Another possible use would as a disk cache fronting slower multi-terrabyte HD storage.  A PCI-e based device might be an improvement over SATA for that sort of thing though probably not enough of an improvement to justify the difference in cost.  The real limitation to using a flash device as another caching layer is not performance but instead wear on the flash chips.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to ask yourself , what do you need that kind of speed for vs a more portable , hot-swappable , and likely longer-lived SATA/E-SATA standard ?
Maybe a transactional store for a database , but that is pretty much it .
A PCI-e style interface would be relegated only to those situations where extreme performance is required .
Such devices will always be priced at a premium over their SATA counterparts simply by virtue of their lower volume production.I do have an interest in how well a SSD could be used to expand the effective physical memory for a machine under load .
Say , for an applet server .
Another possible use would as a disk cache fronting slower multi-terrabyte HD storage .
A PCI-e based device might be an improvement over SATA for that sort of thing though probably not enough of an improvement to justify the difference in cost .
The real limitation to using a flash device as another caching layer is not performance but instead wear on the flash chips.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to ask yourself, what do you need that kind of speed for vs a more portable, hot-swappable, and likely longer-lived SATA/E-SATA standard?
Maybe a transactional store for a database, but that is pretty much it.
A PCI-e style interface would be relegated only to those situations where extreme performance is required.
Such devices will always be priced at a premium over their SATA counterparts simply by virtue of their lower volume production.I do have an interest in how well a SSD could be used to expand the effective physical memory for a machine under load.
Say, for an applet server.
Another possible use would as a disk cache fronting slower multi-terrabyte HD storage.
A PCI-e based device might be an improvement over SATA for that sort of thing though probably not enough of an improvement to justify the difference in cost.
The real limitation to using a flash device as another caching layer is not performance but instead wear on the flash chips.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122184</id>
	<title>First post?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the greatest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the greatest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the greatest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122684</id>
	<title>Re:In the right place</title>
	<author>quitte</author>
	<datestamp>1258370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's in the right place, but will it behave the right way?</p><p>When those mainboards with extra flash for vista were announced I hoped for it being accessible directly via linux mtd.<br>Without reading the article I still assume that it will again be just another hdd simulator that doesn't allow the os to do the wear levelling or map the storage directly into the accessible memory.</p><p>Too bad. Since Debians live-helper made building live systems easy I'm running my desktop and laptop from squashfs anyways so I'd love to see them do execute in place,too. <a href="http://elinux.org/Application\_XIP" title="elinux.org" rel="nofollow">http://elinux.org/Application\_XIP</a> [elinux.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's in the right place , but will it behave the right way ? When those mainboards with extra flash for vista were announced I hoped for it being accessible directly via linux mtd.Without reading the article I still assume that it will again be just another hdd simulator that does n't allow the os to do the wear levelling or map the storage directly into the accessible memory.Too bad .
Since Debians live-helper made building live systems easy I 'm running my desktop and laptop from squashfs anyways so I 'd love to see them do execute in place,too .
http : //elinux.org/Application \ _XIP [ elinux.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's in the right place, but will it behave the right way?When those mainboards with extra flash for vista were announced I hoped for it being accessible directly via linux mtd.Without reading the article I still assume that it will again be just another hdd simulator that doesn't allow the os to do the wear levelling or map the storage directly into the accessible memory.Too bad.
Since Debians live-helper made building live systems easy I'm running my desktop and laptop from squashfs anyways so I'd love to see them do execute in place,too.
http://elinux.org/Application\_XIP [elinux.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30137546</id>
	<title>Anyone else remember the SemiDisk?</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1258463280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a RAM drive that went in the old Epson QX-10 and QX-16 computers.  I remember when we dropped one of those in the old QX-10 and TP/M and ValDocs launched almost instantly.  And two freakin' megabytes of storage.  It was HUGE!!!  And the battery backup could keep your data safe for a good 6 hours without power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a RAM drive that went in the old Epson QX-10 and QX-16 computers .
I remember when we dropped one of those in the old QX-10 and TP/M and ValDocs launched almost instantly .
And two freakin ' megabytes of storage .
It was HUGE ! ! !
And the battery backup could keep your data safe for a good 6 hours without power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a RAM drive that went in the old Epson QX-10 and QX-16 computers.
I remember when we dropped one of those in the old QX-10 and TP/M and ValDocs launched almost instantly.
And two freakin' megabytes of storage.
It was HUGE!!!
And the battery backup could keep your data safe for a good 6 hours without power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124586</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a Bootloader is all that has to be on a HDD (or CD, USB Stick, DVD) that is bootable, to actually boot.  The OS(including windows) and the rest can be wherever you wish them to be (bootable drive or not).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a Bootloader is all that has to be on a HDD ( or CD , USB Stick , DVD ) that is bootable , to actually boot .
The OS ( including windows ) and the rest can be wherever you wish them to be ( bootable drive or not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Bootloader is all that has to be on a HDD (or CD, USB Stick, DVD) that is bootable, to actually boot.
The OS(including windows) and the rest can be wherever you wish them to be (bootable drive or not).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124294</id>
	<title>Two years from now, these will cost $25</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And five years from now, they'll be dusty leftovers found in plastic bins at the local electronics surplus shop.  If you can even find them.</p><p>Ten years from now, people will hold them up and squint at them and wonder what they were originally built to do.  Computer cards all look the same.  The only notable thing about these ones is that they don't have any ports on the back.  After a couple seconds of interest, they'll get tossed back into the bin.</p><p>No real point to this post, other than the "gosh" factor.  It just still amazes me how quickly consumer tech ripens and rots.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And five years from now , they 'll be dusty leftovers found in plastic bins at the local electronics surplus shop .
If you can even find them.Ten years from now , people will hold them up and squint at them and wonder what they were originally built to do .
Computer cards all look the same .
The only notable thing about these ones is that they do n't have any ports on the back .
After a couple seconds of interest , they 'll get tossed back into the bin.No real point to this post , other than the " gosh " factor .
It just still amazes me how quickly consumer tech ripens and rots.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And five years from now, they'll be dusty leftovers found in plastic bins at the local electronics surplus shop.
If you can even find them.Ten years from now, people will hold them up and squint at them and wonder what they were originally built to do.
Computer cards all look the same.
The only notable thing about these ones is that they don't have any ports on the back.
After a couple seconds of interest, they'll get tossed back into the bin.No real point to this post, other than the "gosh" factor.
It just still amazes me how quickly consumer tech ripens and rots.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125338</id>
	<title>Christmas gift.shoes,handbags,ugg boot,Tshirts,</title>
	<author>coolforsale107</author>
	<datestamp>1258387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God. Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God .
Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.
Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122858</id>
	<title>Latency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No difference in rated read latency over SATA SSDs.  Bummer.  That's the primary improvement SSD's have made over mechanical drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No difference in rated read latency over SATA SSDs .
Bummer. That 's the primary improvement SSD 's have made over mechanical drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No difference in rated read latency over SATA SSDs.
Bummer.  That's the primary improvement SSD's have made over mechanical drives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125856</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1258393500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>FWIW, SATA 3.0 is next year, ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx (ocz) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting.</i> <br>
<br>
I'm waiting until they hit my price point of under $1/GB for the better units.  MLC based SSDs are still up around $2.25 to $2.45 per gigabyte for the low-end stuff, with the better MLC in the $2.50 to $3.25 per gigabyte range.  I think the best spot price I've seen yet is around $1.90 for MLC.<br>
<br>
At $1/GB, I'd quickly replace the 2.5" SATA magnetic drive in my laptop with an SSD.  And maybe the boot drive on my game PC.  Once it gets below $0.65/GB, I'd definitely use it on the game PC for the boot drive.  For servers, the SLC stuff needs to get below $5/GB (not the $10-$15/GB that it is now).<br>
<br>
(Sigh) Probably another year to break $1/GB and another year after that to get below $0.50/GB for the MLC stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , SATA 3.0 is next year , ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx ( ocz ) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting .
I 'm waiting until they hit my price point of under $ 1/GB for the better units .
MLC based SSDs are still up around $ 2.25 to $ 2.45 per gigabyte for the low-end stuff , with the better MLC in the $ 2.50 to $ 3.25 per gigabyte range .
I think the best spot price I 've seen yet is around $ 1.90 for MLC .
At $ 1/GB , I 'd quickly replace the 2.5 " SATA magnetic drive in my laptop with an SSD .
And maybe the boot drive on my game PC .
Once it gets below $ 0.65/GB , I 'd definitely use it on the game PC for the boot drive .
For servers , the SLC stuff needs to get below $ 5/GB ( not the $ 10- $ 15/GB that it is now ) .
( Sigh ) Probably another year to break $ 1/GB and another year after that to get below $ 0.50/GB for the MLC stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, SATA 3.0 is next year, ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx (ocz) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting.
I'm waiting until they hit my price point of under $1/GB for the better units.
MLC based SSDs are still up around $2.25 to $2.45 per gigabyte for the low-end stuff, with the better MLC in the $2.50 to $3.25 per gigabyte range.
I think the best spot price I've seen yet is around $1.90 for MLC.
At $1/GB, I'd quickly replace the 2.5" SATA magnetic drive in my laptop with an SSD.
And maybe the boot drive on my game PC.
Once it gets below $0.65/GB, I'd definitely use it on the game PC for the boot drive.
For servers, the SLC stuff needs to get below $5/GB (not the $10-$15/GB that it is now).
(Sigh) Probably another year to break $1/GB and another year after that to get below $0.50/GB for the MLC stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123930</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1258376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what'd be cool is multi-channel SATA - if the host can see that one device is on the other side of multiple channels, it can just bond them together and send/receive data on whatever I/F is free at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 'd be cool is multi-channel SATA - if the host can see that one device is on the other side of multiple channels , it can just bond them together and send/receive data on whatever I/F is free at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what'd be cool is multi-channel SATA - if the host can see that one device is on the other side of multiple channels, it can just bond them together and send/receive data on whatever I/F is free at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, late in the article they show that game level load times are faster with these PCIx SSDs.  Left For Dead loads about twice as quick with the Fusion IOXtreme.  So the end user would notice a difference (especially as time goes on and apps become more and more bloated)</p><p>One thing this product does effectively illustrate is that SATA 6 is already obsolete.  All this card really is is the same grade of memory chips that goes in a lesser SSD like an Intel X-25M.  The difference is that the controller gangs together 25 channels instead of just 10 like the Intel product.  The controller isn't even that high performance a part - it's using an FPGA.  An ASIC version of the chip could be cheaply fabbed using technology several generations back.  So, in the long run, the cost to design and manufacture a PCIx SSD is virtually identical to the cost of a SATA SSD.  And SATA 6 is already too slow for SSDs to use (and too fast of an interface for a mechanical hard drive)</p><p>All in all, I predict that in a few more years, basically all SSDs sold will use a PCIx interface to connect to the host PC.  Laptop manufacturers will have to change their internal mounting scheme slightly.  And, prices should fall drastically from the $900 this IoXtreme is MSRPing at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , late in the article they show that game level load times are faster with these PCIx SSDs .
Left For Dead loads about twice as quick with the Fusion IOXtreme .
So the end user would notice a difference ( especially as time goes on and apps become more and more bloated ) One thing this product does effectively illustrate is that SATA 6 is already obsolete .
All this card really is is the same grade of memory chips that goes in a lesser SSD like an Intel X-25M .
The difference is that the controller gangs together 25 channels instead of just 10 like the Intel product .
The controller is n't even that high performance a part - it 's using an FPGA .
An ASIC version of the chip could be cheaply fabbed using technology several generations back .
So , in the long run , the cost to design and manufacture a PCIx SSD is virtually identical to the cost of a SATA SSD .
And SATA 6 is already too slow for SSDs to use ( and too fast of an interface for a mechanical hard drive ) All in all , I predict that in a few more years , basically all SSDs sold will use a PCIx interface to connect to the host PC .
Laptop manufacturers will have to change their internal mounting scheme slightly .
And , prices should fall drastically from the $ 900 this IoXtreme is MSRPing at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, late in the article they show that game level load times are faster with these PCIx SSDs.
Left For Dead loads about twice as quick with the Fusion IOXtreme.
So the end user would notice a difference (especially as time goes on and apps become more and more bloated)One thing this product does effectively illustrate is that SATA 6 is already obsolete.
All this card really is is the same grade of memory chips that goes in a lesser SSD like an Intel X-25M.
The difference is that the controller gangs together 25 channels instead of just 10 like the Intel product.
The controller isn't even that high performance a part - it's using an FPGA.
An ASIC version of the chip could be cheaply fabbed using technology several generations back.
So, in the long run, the cost to design and manufacture a PCIx SSD is virtually identical to the cost of a SATA SSD.
And SATA 6 is already too slow for SSDs to use (and too fast of an interface for a mechanical hard drive)All in all, I predict that in a few more years, basically all SSDs sold will use a PCIx interface to connect to the host PC.
Laptop manufacturers will have to change their internal mounting scheme slightly.
And, prices should fall drastically from the $900 this IoXtreme is MSRPing at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30138104</id>
	<title>you still need a good old fashioned spinning drive</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1258466820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok assuming home use you're still going to need to have a spinning disk for two reasons:

1. you still need a place to put the bootloader, might as well have it on the disk because your going to have the disk anyway because of:

2. You still the large capacity drive to hold all of you pron/movies/music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok assuming home use you 're still going to need to have a spinning disk for two reasons : 1. you still need a place to put the bootloader , might as well have it on the disk because your going to have the disk anyway because of : 2 .
You still the large capacity drive to hold all of you pron/movies/music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok assuming home use you're still going to need to have a spinning disk for two reasons:

1. you still need a place to put the bootloader, might as well have it on the disk because your going to have the disk anyway because of:

2.
You still the large capacity drive to hold all of you pron/movies/music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30133424</id>
	<title>Re:The speed has limited usefulness</title>
	<author>mochan\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1258490820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That kind of speed is needed to run things faster. It's like saying, who needs 16 cores, all they do is run things faster!</p><p>Less stuff will have to be loaded into RAM as the cost of a disk read isn't catastrophic, IO can substitute for computation - store precomputed textures instead of computing transformations to textures with imprecise fast routines, get away from the mad sequentiality that's everywhere in high performance computing.</p><p>RAIDing and striping hard disk requires huge enclosures, heat dissipation problems, vibration problems. Similaring things for flash memory like ganging is very simple and can all fit inside a tiny enclosure without heat or mechanical problems. If 16 cores is the way to go, then why not 16 independent flash disks running inside a 2.5" enclosure running like a lustre disk array? But, unlike a lustre array, you don't have to ask for gobs of sequential data - any random access is fast as sequential access.</p><p>Hard disks are really good for storing enormous amounts of data and reading enormous amounts of data sequentially. The only time this fits general consumer demand is for media servers. A fast SSD that stores OS, app data and user data and a secondary hard disk that stores large amounts of data that is rarely accessed but needs to be hand is the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That kind of speed is needed to run things faster .
It 's like saying , who needs 16 cores , all they do is run things faster ! Less stuff will have to be loaded into RAM as the cost of a disk read is n't catastrophic , IO can substitute for computation - store precomputed textures instead of computing transformations to textures with imprecise fast routines , get away from the mad sequentiality that 's everywhere in high performance computing.RAIDing and striping hard disk requires huge enclosures , heat dissipation problems , vibration problems .
Similaring things for flash memory like ganging is very simple and can all fit inside a tiny enclosure without heat or mechanical problems .
If 16 cores is the way to go , then why not 16 independent flash disks running inside a 2.5 " enclosure running like a lustre disk array ?
But , unlike a lustre array , you do n't have to ask for gobs of sequential data - any random access is fast as sequential access.Hard disks are really good for storing enormous amounts of data and reading enormous amounts of data sequentially .
The only time this fits general consumer demand is for media servers .
A fast SSD that stores OS , app data and user data and a secondary hard disk that stores large amounts of data that is rarely accessed but needs to be hand is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That kind of speed is needed to run things faster.
It's like saying, who needs 16 cores, all they do is run things faster!Less stuff will have to be loaded into RAM as the cost of a disk read isn't catastrophic, IO can substitute for computation - store precomputed textures instead of computing transformations to textures with imprecise fast routines, get away from the mad sequentiality that's everywhere in high performance computing.RAIDing and striping hard disk requires huge enclosures, heat dissipation problems, vibration problems.
Similaring things for flash memory like ganging is very simple and can all fit inside a tiny enclosure without heat or mechanical problems.
If 16 cores is the way to go, then why not 16 independent flash disks running inside a 2.5" enclosure running like a lustre disk array?
But, unlike a lustre array, you don't have to ask for gobs of sequential data - any random access is fast as sequential access.Hard disks are really good for storing enormous amounts of data and reading enormous amounts of data sequentially.
The only time this fits general consumer demand is for media servers.
A fast SSD that stores OS, app data and user data and a secondary hard disk that stores large amounts of data that is rarely accessed but needs to be hand is the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122832</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have: It's pricey at $11/GB (although not astronomical like the original products), and you still can't boot off of it.</i> </p><p>I've never understood why they wouldn't make these bootable.  People use bootable PCI-E RAID cards (or just SATA controllers, for that matter) all the time.  What's so tricky about making a bootable PCI-E SSD?  Is it really that hard to write the code for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have : It 's pricey at $ 11/GB ( although not astronomical like the original products ) , and you still ca n't boot off of it .
I 've never understood why they would n't make these bootable .
People use bootable PCI-E RAID cards ( or just SATA controllers , for that matter ) all the time .
What 's so tricky about making a bootable PCI-E SSD ?
Is it really that hard to write the code for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have: It's pricey at $11/GB (although not astronomical like the original products), and you still can't boot off of it.
I've never understood why they wouldn't make these bootable.
People use bootable PCI-E RAID cards (or just SATA controllers, for that matter) all the time.
What's so tricky about making a bootable PCI-E SSD?
Is it really that hard to write the code for it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128906</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258473420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On paper, I don't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference.</p></div><p>This is the perfect caching layer for ZFS. One command to insert it as a read cache between the OS and a big array <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/test" title="sun.com">can make a huge difference</a> [sun.com] in IOPS. I can't easily convince my boss to buy a machine with 80GB of RAM that will be used for nothing but filesystem caching, but I wouldn't hesitate to ask him for a PCIe card to drop into the servers we already have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On paper , I do n't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference.This is the perfect caching layer for ZFS .
One command to insert it as a read cache between the OS and a big array can make a huge difference [ sun.com ] in IOPS .
I ca n't easily convince my boss to buy a machine with 80GB of RAM that will be used for nothing but filesystem caching , but I would n't hesitate to ask him for a PCIe card to drop into the servers we already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On paper, I don't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference.This is the perfect caching layer for ZFS.
One command to insert it as a read cache between the OS and a big array can make a huge difference [sun.com] in IOPS.
I can't easily convince my boss to buy a machine with 80GB of RAM that will be used for nothing but filesystem caching, but I wouldn't hesitate to ask him for a PCIe card to drop into the servers we already have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123060</id>
	<title>Still workable</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1258372020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't <i>really</i> still need the spinning media. There's a cheap, incredibly easy, fast and inexpensive media that's <b>perfect</b> for booting your computer, and your computer is loaded with ports for it. It's called a USB thumbdrive.<br> <br>
It's pretty simple actually: they're cheap and easily available in all kinds of different sizes ranging from "I just need to boot Linux" (256MB) to "I want all of my apps on it too" (32GB+), they're writable so you can update the OS, and you've likely got a multitude of ports inside of your computer that go completely wasted because they're not connected to anything (and a pigtail for one of these is a nickel at a computer store, if your motherboard didn't come with a few in the box). Just plug it in, plug in the USB drive, install your OS on it, and be done. You can choose to swap to it or the faster media at your own discretion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really still need the spinning media .
There 's a cheap , incredibly easy , fast and inexpensive media that 's perfect for booting your computer , and your computer is loaded with ports for it .
It 's called a USB thumbdrive .
It 's pretty simple actually : they 're cheap and easily available in all kinds of different sizes ranging from " I just need to boot Linux " ( 256MB ) to " I want all of my apps on it too " ( 32GB + ) , they 're writable so you can update the OS , and you 've likely got a multitude of ports inside of your computer that go completely wasted because they 're not connected to anything ( and a pigtail for one of these is a nickel at a computer store , if your motherboard did n't come with a few in the box ) .
Just plug it in , plug in the USB drive , install your OS on it , and be done .
You can choose to swap to it or the faster media at your own discretion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really still need the spinning media.
There's a cheap, incredibly easy, fast and inexpensive media that's perfect for booting your computer, and your computer is loaded with ports for it.
It's called a USB thumbdrive.
It's pretty simple actually: they're cheap and easily available in all kinds of different sizes ranging from "I just need to boot Linux" (256MB) to "I want all of my apps on it too" (32GB+), they're writable so you can update the OS, and you've likely got a multitude of ports inside of your computer that go completely wasted because they're not connected to anything (and a pigtail for one of these is a nickel at a computer store, if your motherboard didn't come with a few in the box).
Just plug it in, plug in the USB drive, install your OS on it, and be done.
You can choose to swap to it or the faster media at your own discretion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30126194</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>DRMShill</author>
	<datestamp>1258397640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think these observations only serve to reinforce Professor John Frink's predictions that in 10 years time SSDs will be twice as fast, 10,000 times the physical size and will be so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can afford it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think these observations only serve to reinforce Professor John Frink 's predictions that in 10 years time SSDs will be twice as fast , 10,000 times the physical size and will be so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think these observations only serve to reinforce Professor John Frink's predictions that in 10 years time SSDs will be twice as fast, 10,000 times the physical size and will be so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can afford it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122512</id>
	<title>Re:In the right place</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1258369500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SATA does have its advantages, though: laptop support, bootability, hot-swap, cross-platform (no drivers needed), etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SATA does have its advantages , though : laptop support , bootability , hot-swap , cross-platform ( no drivers needed ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SATA does have its advantages, though: laptop support, bootability, hot-swap, cross-platform (no drivers needed), etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122410</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258369200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instant, or is there a "<a href="http://www.xkcd.com/660/" title="xkcd.com">speed of light</a> [xkcd.com]" delay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instant , or is there a " speed of light [ xkcd.com ] " delay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instant, or is there a "speed of light [xkcd.com]" delay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128734</id>
	<title>Re:The speed has limited usefulness</title>
	<author>MistrBlank</author>
	<datestamp>1258472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish people would stop jumping on the "wear on the flash chips" issue.  It's not that big of a deal anymore, drop it people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish people would stop jumping on the " wear on the flash chips " issue .
It 's not that big of a deal anymore , drop it people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish people would stop jumping on the "wear on the flash chips" issue.
It's not that big of a deal anymore, drop it people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122388</id>
	<title>Which?</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1258369140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got the Kingston v-series 64M for around $120--I think it's only rated around 100MB.  Still feels a lot faster, especially after boot-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the Kingston v-series 64M for around $ 120--I think it 's only rated around 100MB .
Still feels a lot faster , especially after boot-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the Kingston v-series 64M for around $120--I think it's only rated around 100MB.
Still feels a lot faster, especially after boot-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122414</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Xiph1980</author>
	<datestamp>1258369200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's not the throughput that makes your computer feel that much responsive. It's the latency (or lack thereof). Access times of harddrives are easily a factor or 100 higher than of SSD's</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not the throughput that makes your computer feel that much responsive .
It 's the latency ( or lack thereof ) .
Access times of harddrives are easily a factor or 100 higher than of SSD 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not the throughput that makes your computer feel that much responsive.
It's the latency (or lack thereof).
Access times of harddrives are easily a factor or 100 higher than of SSD's</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122948</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1258371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the throughput you're noticing.  It's the seek latency, at which SSDs are many times faster (comparing Intel's X-25M to WD's 10K RPM Velociraptor, you're looking at about 65x faster.  Comparing to a 7200rpm drive, you're looking at about 100x difference.) than mechanical drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the throughput you 're noticing .
It 's the seek latency , at which SSDs are many times faster ( comparing Intel 's X-25M to WD 's 10K RPM Velociraptor , you 're looking at about 65x faster .
Comparing to a 7200rpm drive , you 're looking at about 100x difference .
) than mechanical drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the throughput you're noticing.
It's the seek latency, at which SSDs are many times faster (comparing Intel's X-25M to WD's 10K RPM Velociraptor, you're looking at about 65x faster.
Comparing to a 7200rpm drive, you're looking at about 100x difference.
) than mechanical drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122452</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The random access speed is what makes it seem faster, not the throughput.  That's only about twice as fast as a good HDD in terms of throughput, but the access times are orders of magnitude lower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The random access speed is what makes it seem faster , not the throughput .
That 's only about twice as fast as a good HDD in terms of throughput , but the access times are orders of magnitude lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The random access speed is what makes it seem faster, not the throughput.
That's only about twice as fast as a good HDD in terms of throughput, but the access times are orders of magnitude lower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122938</id>
	<title>80GB is small</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1258371420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>80GB is small</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>80GB is small</tokentext>
<sentencetext>80GB is small</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122728</id>
	<title>Re:One major issue with it</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258370400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The unfortunate part is that there is no technical reason for a PCIe device not to appear to be an additional drive controller, and thus be bootable. Back in the day my first HD was a 32MB "Hard Card" that simply slotted into a 16-bit ISA slot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The unfortunate part is that there is no technical reason for a PCIe device not to appear to be an additional drive controller , and thus be bootable .
Back in the day my first HD was a 32MB " Hard Card " that simply slotted into a 16-bit ISA slot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unfortunate part is that there is no technical reason for a PCIe device not to appear to be an additional drive controller, and thus be bootable.
Back in the day my first HD was a 32MB "Hard Card" that simply slotted into a 16-bit ISA slot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124268</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1258378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and my rebuttle to your post (copied and pasted from my reply to someone on another forum)</p><p>I recently installed 2 of the 120gb Agility OCZ drives in RAID0 - apparently SSD's scale better with raid than a regular hard disk.<br>I can read at 390mb/s write at 220mb/s and the random 4k reads and writes are about 23mb/s (regular disks can do about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.7mb/s in such tests)</p><p>According to benchmarks, a single OCZ disk is pretty darn close to the intel in the real world performance tests and one can only guess that 2 of them would come close to matching the performance of a single intel.</p><p>I was using Windows 7 with readyboost on a USB stick before I got the SSD's and I have an absoloute monster PC. I also know how to configure the thing, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/temp/ directory was on one disk, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/swap/ was on another disk, the C: was on a 7200rpm drive and it was defragged and kept pretty clean.</p><p>The problem is that while some benchmarks show my machine vastly superior with the 2 SSD's, and I'm pretty goddamn impatient,... I errr.. kinda can't really notice the difference much.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(<br>Sure Crysis loads a level now as quick as 24 seconds instead of 34 seconds and HL2 opens as quick as 20 seconds instead of 30 but......... not as snappy as I was hoping.<br>Yeah ok if I open 12 applications in a single click, yep it'll destroy a HDD but for general use I honestly don't notice - torchlight loads were still slow by my opinion, Steam doesn't magically open in a second (has to connect to the net) anyhow, I had the money and I wanted to fiddle around with some new hardware.</p><p>FWIW, SATA 3.0 is next year, ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx (ocz) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting.<br>Finally, yes if you have a shit PC with a slow disk, it'll totally make Windows usable - but Windows 7 is so well optomised (I'm genuinely surprised) and a meaty PC is so quick, it really is hard to notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and my rebuttle to your post ( copied and pasted from my reply to someone on another forum ) I recently installed 2 of the 120gb Agility OCZ drives in RAID0 - apparently SSD 's scale better with raid than a regular hard disk.I can read at 390mb/s write at 220mb/s and the random 4k reads and writes are about 23mb/s ( regular disks can do about .7mb/s in such tests ) According to benchmarks , a single OCZ disk is pretty darn close to the intel in the real world performance tests and one can only guess that 2 of them would come close to matching the performance of a single intel.I was using Windows 7 with readyboost on a USB stick before I got the SSD 's and I have an absoloute monster PC .
I also know how to configure the thing , the /temp/ directory was on one disk , the /swap/ was on another disk , the C : was on a 7200rpm drive and it was defragged and kept pretty clean.The problem is that while some benchmarks show my machine vastly superior with the 2 SSD 's , and I 'm pretty goddamn impatient,... I errr.. kinda ca n't really notice the difference much .
: ( Sure Crysis loads a level now as quick as 24 seconds instead of 34 seconds and HL2 opens as quick as 20 seconds instead of 30 but......... not as snappy as I was hoping.Yeah ok if I open 12 applications in a single click , yep it 'll destroy a HDD but for general use I honestly do n't notice - torchlight loads were still slow by my opinion , Steam does n't magically open in a second ( has to connect to the net ) anyhow , I had the money and I wanted to fiddle around with some new hardware.FWIW , SATA 3.0 is next year , ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx ( ocz ) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting.Finally , yes if you have a shit PC with a slow disk , it 'll totally make Windows usable - but Windows 7 is so well optomised ( I 'm genuinely surprised ) and a meaty PC is so quick , it really is hard to notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and my rebuttle to your post (copied and pasted from my reply to someone on another forum)I recently installed 2 of the 120gb Agility OCZ drives in RAID0 - apparently SSD's scale better with raid than a regular hard disk.I can read at 390mb/s write at 220mb/s and the random 4k reads and writes are about 23mb/s (regular disks can do about .7mb/s in such tests)According to benchmarks, a single OCZ disk is pretty darn close to the intel in the real world performance tests and one can only guess that 2 of them would come close to matching the performance of a single intel.I was using Windows 7 with readyboost on a USB stick before I got the SSD's and I have an absoloute monster PC.
I also know how to configure the thing, the /temp/ directory was on one disk, the /swap/ was on another disk, the C: was on a 7200rpm drive and it was defragged and kept pretty clean.The problem is that while some benchmarks show my machine vastly superior with the 2 SSD's, and I'm pretty goddamn impatient,... I errr.. kinda can't really notice the difference much.
:(Sure Crysis loads a level now as quick as 24 seconds instead of 34 seconds and HL2 opens as quick as 20 seconds instead of 30 but......... not as snappy as I was hoping.Yeah ok if I open 12 applications in a single click, yep it'll destroy a HDD but for general use I honestly don't notice - torchlight loads were still slow by my opinion, Steam doesn't magically open in a second (has to connect to the net) anyhow, I had the money and I wanted to fiddle around with some new hardware.FWIW, SATA 3.0 is next year, ONFI 2.0 is next year and Intel and Indilinx (ocz) revision 3 is next year,... I am almost tempted to change my stance and suggest waiting.Finally, yes if you have a shit PC with a slow disk, it'll totally make Windows usable - but Windows 7 is so well optomised (I'm genuinely surprised) and a meaty PC is so quick, it really is hard to notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122982</id>
	<title>Direct link to first page of the article is here:</title>
	<author>MojoKid</author>
	<datestamp>1258371660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The link in the slashdot is only to page 4 and one datapoint.  Here's the main page:
<a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/" title="hothardware.com">http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/</a> [hothardware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The link in the slashdot is only to page 4 and one datapoint .
Here 's the main page : http : //hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/ [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link in the slashdot is only to page 4 and one datapoint.
Here's the main page:
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/ [hothardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123182</id>
	<title>Re:sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My whole computer isn't worth more than $200. Fortunately I don't use any heavy apps (or desktop environments), so my computer still feels "instant".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My whole computer is n't worth more than $ 200 .
Fortunately I do n't use any heavy apps ( or desktop environments ) , so my computer still feels " instant " .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My whole computer isn't worth more than $200.
Fortunately I don't use any heavy apps (or desktop environments), so my computer still feels "instant".
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</id>
	<title>Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have:  It's pricey at $11/GB (although not astronomical like the original products), and you still can't boot off of it.  This means you'll need at least one old fashioned drive with the OS on it to get your machine going, which is a shame because the system files can often make good use of SSD performance.<br>
<br>
On paper, I don't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference.  When people went from their laptop HDD to the Intel drive, they often saw startup times and whatnot go from multiple (tens!) of seconds to less than a second.  This card is likely to push them from less than a second to a smaller less than a second, it's just not worth it to most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have : It 's pricey at $ 11/GB ( although not astronomical like the original products ) , and you still ca n't boot off of it .
This means you 'll need at least one old fashioned drive with the OS on it to get your machine going , which is a shame because the system files can often make good use of SSD performance .
On paper , I do n't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference .
When people went from their laptop HDD to the Intel drive , they often saw startup times and whatnot go from multiple ( tens !
) of seconds to less than a second .
This card is likely to push them from less than a second to a smaller less than a second , it 's just not worth it to most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still has many of the limitations that the original FusionIO cards have:  It's pricey at $11/GB (although not astronomical like the original products), and you still can't boot off of it.
This means you'll need at least one old fashioned drive with the OS on it to get your machine going, which is a shame because the system files can often make good use of SSD performance.
On paper, I don't think the performance difference between this and something like an Intel X-25m is going to justify the 4 fold price difference.
When people went from their laptop HDD to the Intel drive, they often saw startup times and whatnot go from multiple (tens!
) of seconds to less than a second.
This card is likely to push them from less than a second to a smaller less than a second, it's just not worth it to most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122726</id>
	<title>For about $900</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1258370400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For about $900, or the cost of the Fusion ioXtreme 80GB card, I bought two Intel 160GB SSD drives that I have in a RAID 0 configuration.  It's very fast and 4X the capacity for the same price.  Oh, and it's bootable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For about $ 900 , or the cost of the Fusion ioXtreme 80GB card , I bought two Intel 160GB SSD drives that I have in a RAID 0 configuration .
It 's very fast and 4X the capacity for the same price .
Oh , and it 's bootable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For about $900, or the cost of the Fusion ioXtreme 80GB card, I bought two Intel 160GB SSD drives that I have in a RAID 0 configuration.
It's very fast and 4X the capacity for the same price.
Oh, and it's bootable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30127312</id>
	<title>Re:Still can't boot off of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258457220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is incredible that they can charge so much and still can't write a stupid BIOS extension to make the card bootable.  Makes me wonder how good their Windows driver is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is incredible that they can charge so much and still ca n't write a stupid BIOS extension to make the card bootable .
Makes me wonder how good their Windows driver is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is incredible that they can charge so much and still can't write a stupid BIOS extension to make the card bootable.
Makes me wonder how good their Windows driver is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124398</id>
	<title>Pointless!  for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258379340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The price tag vs capacity and limitations makes this a worthless purchase for ANY Serious minded individual.</p><p>Hotswap isn't really a viable option for failed devices.<br>RAID if possible would not be conventional or standardized.<br>Price tag is completely stupid, especially when you can have an Intel x25 80 gig for much less in cost.</p><p>Most people are awe inspired and fooled by the grand total throughput of this thing at 800MB/s.  Let me tell you, that is not really all that impressive.  Just 8 HDD's could turn that number in a pure linear read test.  Yes, I know some of you are going to say that well... thats 8 drive this is just 1!  let me include you on a little secret!  SSD's are exactly RAID-0 devices when you consider internal devices.  That is how they get really fast when it comes to reading large amounts of data.  However... the truth comes out when you put an SSD to a 1kb read &amp; write test.  You can bring even a good SSD down to 5MB/s of throughput.  Now to put that in perspective, the very same test on a HDD can easily bring it down to 0.5MB/s of throughput.</p><p>Even if a single HDD could turn out 1 terabyte per second it still would not be able to touch an SSD in real performance or in perceived performance.  And here is why.  Go to your OS system folders and look at how big the files are.  Over 50\% of the system files are under 100Kb in size.  Now how fast can an SSD get that file to you vs an SSD.  Keeping it simple a good raptor HDD will take about 3ms and the SSD would take about 0.1ms.  That is more that just an order of magnitude faster.  It is easily 30 times faster than the HDD.  Now lets pretend there are over 5,000 of those files to read!</p><p>HDD read<br>5,000 x 3ms = 15,000 MS equal to 15 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened!<br>If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of data over 15 seconds which is roughly 33MB/s.  Even though drives like this could do 120 Megs a second, it only gave you 33\% of its peak limit.</p><p>SSD read<br>5,000 x 0.1ms = 500 MS equal to about 0.5 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened!<br>If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of Data over less than a second which is roughly 500MB/s.  Of course a SATA bus can take about 260+/- Megs a second so it would take more like 2~3 seconds to get that data opened to you, but it is still much faster than the HDD's latency and you literally get much closer to your drives peak limit.</p><p>In the end result, in real world applications just a single SSD can out perform even 16 RAID HDD's if the transactions are small and numerous!  Which coincidentally, actually happens A LOT on every system whether it be a desktop or a database.</p><p>Now considering that for $800 you can easily get about 4 60 gigs SSD's with 200MB/s read and 130MB/s write speeds each you will not only have a very nasty fast drive that is 800MB/s Read and 520MB/s write in RAID-0 you will also have 240 gigs of space which is about 3 times the capacity for the same price!  You could even get some hotswap and a RAID 5 for some redundancy and 180 gigs of space!</p><p>Face it, this sort of technology is just not 'ready' yet.  Keep to the SATA bus.  It still has plenty of bandwidth for LAS applications and is in no need of going anywhere!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The price tag vs capacity and limitations makes this a worthless purchase for ANY Serious minded individual.Hotswap is n't really a viable option for failed devices.RAID if possible would not be conventional or standardized.Price tag is completely stupid , especially when you can have an Intel x25 80 gig for much less in cost.Most people are awe inspired and fooled by the grand total throughput of this thing at 800MB/s .
Let me tell you , that is not really all that impressive .
Just 8 HDD 's could turn that number in a pure linear read test .
Yes , I know some of you are going to say that well... thats 8 drive this is just 1 !
let me include you on a little secret !
SSD 's are exactly RAID-0 devices when you consider internal devices .
That is how they get really fast when it comes to reading large amounts of data .
However... the truth comes out when you put an SSD to a 1kb read &amp; write test .
You can bring even a good SSD down to 5MB/s of throughput .
Now to put that in perspective , the very same test on a HDD can easily bring it down to 0.5MB/s of throughput.Even if a single HDD could turn out 1 terabyte per second it still would not be able to touch an SSD in real performance or in perceived performance .
And here is why .
Go to your OS system folders and look at how big the files are .
Over 50 \ % of the system files are under 100Kb in size .
Now how fast can an SSD get that file to you vs an SSD .
Keeping it simple a good raptor HDD will take about 3ms and the SSD would take about 0.1ms .
That is more that just an order of magnitude faster .
It is easily 30 times faster than the HDD .
Now lets pretend there are over 5,000 of those files to read ! HDD read5,000 x 3ms = 15,000 MS equal to 15 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened ! If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of data over 15 seconds which is roughly 33MB/s .
Even though drives like this could do 120 Megs a second , it only gave you 33 \ % of its peak limit.SSD read5,000 x 0.1ms = 500 MS equal to about 0.5 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened ! If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of Data over less than a second which is roughly 500MB/s .
Of course a SATA bus can take about 260 + /- Megs a second so it would take more like 2 ~ 3 seconds to get that data opened to you , but it is still much faster than the HDD 's latency and you literally get much closer to your drives peak limit.In the end result , in real world applications just a single SSD can out perform even 16 RAID HDD 's if the transactions are small and numerous !
Which coincidentally , actually happens A LOT on every system whether it be a desktop or a database.Now considering that for $ 800 you can easily get about 4 60 gigs SSD 's with 200MB/s read and 130MB/s write speeds each you will not only have a very nasty fast drive that is 800MB/s Read and 520MB/s write in RAID-0 you will also have 240 gigs of space which is about 3 times the capacity for the same price !
You could even get some hotswap and a RAID 5 for some redundancy and 180 gigs of space ! Face it , this sort of technology is just not 'ready ' yet .
Keep to the SATA bus .
It still has plenty of bandwidth for LAS applications and is in no need of going anywhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price tag vs capacity and limitations makes this a worthless purchase for ANY Serious minded individual.Hotswap isn't really a viable option for failed devices.RAID if possible would not be conventional or standardized.Price tag is completely stupid, especially when you can have an Intel x25 80 gig for much less in cost.Most people are awe inspired and fooled by the grand total throughput of this thing at 800MB/s.
Let me tell you, that is not really all that impressive.
Just 8 HDD's could turn that number in a pure linear read test.
Yes, I know some of you are going to say that well... thats 8 drive this is just 1!
let me include you on a little secret!
SSD's are exactly RAID-0 devices when you consider internal devices.
That is how they get really fast when it comes to reading large amounts of data.
However... the truth comes out when you put an SSD to a 1kb read &amp; write test.
You can bring even a good SSD down to 5MB/s of throughput.
Now to put that in perspective, the very same test on a HDD can easily bring it down to 0.5MB/s of throughput.Even if a single HDD could turn out 1 terabyte per second it still would not be able to touch an SSD in real performance or in perceived performance.
And here is why.
Go to your OS system folders and look at how big the files are.
Over 50\% of the system files are under 100Kb in size.
Now how fast can an SSD get that file to you vs an SSD.
Keeping it simple a good raptor HDD will take about 3ms and the SSD would take about 0.1ms.
That is more that just an order of magnitude faster.
It is easily 30 times faster than the HDD.
Now lets pretend there are over 5,000 of those files to read!HDD read5,000 x 3ms = 15,000 MS equal to 15 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened!If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of data over 15 seconds which is roughly 33MB/s.
Even though drives like this could do 120 Megs a second, it only gave you 33\% of its peak limit.SSD read5,000 x 0.1ms = 500 MS equal to about 0.5 seconds of time you have to wait to get all those files opened!If each file is 100Kb then you will have read 500 Megs of Data over less than a second which is roughly 500MB/s.
Of course a SATA bus can take about 260+/- Megs a second so it would take more like 2~3 seconds to get that data opened to you, but it is still much faster than the HDD's latency and you literally get much closer to your drives peak limit.In the end result, in real world applications just a single SSD can out perform even 16 RAID HDD's if the transactions are small and numerous!
Which coincidentally, actually happens A LOT on every system whether it be a desktop or a database.Now considering that for $800 you can easily get about 4 60 gigs SSD's with 200MB/s read and 130MB/s write speeds each you will not only have a very nasty fast drive that is 800MB/s Read and 520MB/s write in RAID-0 you will also have 240 gigs of space which is about 3 times the capacity for the same price!
You could even get some hotswap and a RAID 5 for some redundancy and 180 gigs of space!Face it, this sort of technology is just not 'ready' yet.
Keep to the SATA bus.
It still has plenty of bandwidth for LAS applications and is in no need of going anywhere!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122896</id>
	<title>Re:One major issue with it</title>
	<author>Predius</author>
	<datestamp>1258371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got to try this again, but back in the day you could install on a drive that Windows had a driver for, but the BIOS couldn't boot as long as you had a small NTFS/FAT partition on a drive the BIOS COULD boot to hold the bootloader and driver...  So you primary drive/OS would live on the SSD, and that legacy pile of junk hanging off your ATA port could be a tired piece of CF for all Windows could care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to try this again , but back in the day you could install on a drive that Windows had a driver for , but the BIOS could n't boot as long as you had a small NTFS/FAT partition on a drive the BIOS COULD boot to hold the bootloader and driver... So you primary drive/OS would live on the SSD , and that legacy pile of junk hanging off your ATA port could be a tired piece of CF for all Windows could care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to try this again, but back in the day you could install on a drive that Windows had a driver for, but the BIOS couldn't boot as long as you had a small NTFS/FAT partition on a drive the BIOS COULD boot to hold the bootloader and driver...  So you primary drive/OS would live on the SSD, and that legacy pile of junk hanging off your ATA port could be a tired piece of CF for all Windows could care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122528</id>
	<title>Price ?</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1258369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In looking at similar items pricing, sorry, don't care if it displays information before I think to ask for it..</htmltext>
<tokenext>In looking at similar items pricing , sorry , do n't care if it displays information before I think to ask for it. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In looking at similar items pricing, sorry, don't care if it displays information before I think to ask for it..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216</id>
	<title>In the right place</title>
	<author>Froze</author>
	<datestamp>1258368480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the proper place for memory, on the system bus.</p><p>Putting memory behind a drive controller is just like making your gas pedal respond to a buggy whip (OK, car analogies aren't my strong point).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the proper place for memory , on the system bus.Putting memory behind a drive controller is just like making your gas pedal respond to a buggy whip ( OK , car analogies are n't my strong point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the proper place for memory, on the system bus.Putting memory behind a drive controller is just like making your gas pedal respond to a buggy whip (OK, car analogies aren't my strong point).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30127312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30133424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30126194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2123228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30126194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30127312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30123182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30124268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30122948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2123228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30125722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30133424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2123228.30128734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
