<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_22_1721259</id>
	<title>Colossus 3.5-in SSD Combines Quad Controllers</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258913520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Vigile writes <i>"The new Colossus SSD comes in capacities starting at 256GB and going all the way up to 1TB in a standard 3.5-in hard drive form factor.  This larger size was required because the drive actually integrates not one but <em>four</em> Indilinx SSD controllers and <em>three</em> total RAID controllers in a nested RAID-0 array.  All of this goodness <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=821">combines to create an incredibly fast drive</a> that beats most other options in terms of write speeds and is competitive in read tests as well.  Using some custom 'garbage collection' firmware, the drive works around the fact that TRIM commands aren't supported in RAID configurations to maintain high speeds through the life of the SSD."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vigile writes " The new Colossus SSD comes in capacities starting at 256GB and going all the way up to 1TB in a standard 3.5-in hard drive form factor .
This larger size was required because the drive actually integrates not one but four Indilinx SSD controllers and three total RAID controllers in a nested RAID-0 array .
All of this goodness combines to create an incredibly fast drive that beats most other options in terms of write speeds and is competitive in read tests as well .
Using some custom 'garbage collection ' firmware , the drive works around the fact that TRIM commands are n't supported in RAID configurations to maintain high speeds through the life of the SSD .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vigile writes "The new Colossus SSD comes in capacities starting at 256GB and going all the way up to 1TB in a standard 3.5-in hard drive form factor.
This larger size was required because the drive actually integrates not one but four Indilinx SSD controllers and three total RAID controllers in a nested RAID-0 array.
All of this goodness combines to create an incredibly fast drive that beats most other options in terms of write speeds and is competitive in read tests as well.
Using some custom 'garbage collection' firmware, the drive works around the fact that TRIM commands aren't supported in RAID configurations to maintain high speeds through the life of the SSD.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195256</id>
	<title>Re:Random write speed?</title>
	<author>thue</author>
	<datestamp>1258919400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The slow random write will also be a problem for some very common server workloads, such as databases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The slow random write will also be a problem for some very common server workloads , such as databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slow random write will also be a problem for some very common server workloads, such as databases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200472</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Samsung 32gb SLC SSD in my media center, and it cost around &pound;100 around a year ago (novatech.co.uk)<br>I installed a Samsung 64gb MLC SSD in my laptop and that also cost around &pound;100, at the same time.</p><p>To be honest, I was really hoping the SLC would show demonstrable real-world improvement over the MLC, but it doesn't at all. However, it's silent, fast, and all my media is on the network, so still a great drive for job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Samsung 32gb SLC SSD in my media center , and it cost around   100 around a year ago ( novatech.co.uk ) I installed a Samsung 64gb MLC SSD in my laptop and that also cost around   100 , at the same time.To be honest , I was really hoping the SLC would show demonstrable real-world improvement over the MLC , but it does n't at all .
However , it 's silent , fast , and all my media is on the network , so still a great drive for job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Samsung 32gb SLC SSD in my media center, and it cost around £100 around a year ago (novatech.co.uk)I installed a Samsung 64gb MLC SSD in my laptop and that also cost around £100, at the same time.To be honest, I was really hoping the SLC would show demonstrable real-world improvement over the MLC, but it doesn't at all.
However, it's silent, fast, and all my media is on the network, so still a great drive for job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090</id>
	<title>Random write speed?</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1258918140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was pretty clear that what matters for most desktop users is the random small write speed.  See, for example, Anandtech's <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&amp;p=1" title="anandtech.com">SSD anthology</a> [anandtech.com] and later followups.</p><p>So, where are the 4 KiB random write benchmarks?  They are conspicuously absent from this review.  We can see the effect, I think, in the IOMeter results -- the X-25M outperforms the OCZ drive across the board on those, despite the OCZ win in the throughput tests.  But, personally, I'd like to see the raw numbers on 4 KiB random writes.  Have this many reviewers really learned so little about benchmarking SSDs since they came out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was pretty clear that what matters for most desktop users is the random small write speed .
See , for example , Anandtech 's SSD anthology [ anandtech.com ] and later followups.So , where are the 4 KiB random write benchmarks ?
They are conspicuously absent from this review .
We can see the effect , I think , in the IOMeter results -- the X-25M outperforms the OCZ drive across the board on those , despite the OCZ win in the throughput tests .
But , personally , I 'd like to see the raw numbers on 4 KiB random writes .
Have this many reviewers really learned so little about benchmarking SSDs since they came out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was pretty clear that what matters for most desktop users is the random small write speed.
See, for example, Anandtech's SSD anthology [anandtech.com] and later followups.So, where are the 4 KiB random write benchmarks?
They are conspicuously absent from this review.
We can see the effect, I think, in the IOMeter results -- the X-25M outperforms the OCZ drive across the board on those, despite the OCZ win in the throughput tests.
But, personally, I'd like to see the raw numbers on 4 KiB random writes.
Have this many reviewers really learned so little about benchmarking SSDs since they came out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200274</id>
	<title>Re:SLC pricing is a scam</title>
	<author>movercast</author>
	<datestamp>1258972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  MLC &gt; SLC ! MLC = 2*SLC (it depends on the number of bits per cell as there are 2, 3, 4, and 5 bits per cell technology).

2.  MLC is great for MANY applications.  i(application name here), SD cards, etc all need cheap flash and MLC is a great solution.

3.  MLC has reduced writes/erases, not reads.  If you just need to read data, use MLC.

4.  How many writes/erases does your desktop do everyday?  Apply number to MLC/SLC technology and account for the initial cost of the device.  What is better for YOUR application?

5.  Samsung SSD blow, go buy Intel drives and hear angles part as you boot your favorite linux distro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
MLC &gt; SLC !
MLC = 2 * SLC ( it depends on the number of bits per cell as there are 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 bits per cell technology ) .
2. MLC is great for MANY applications .
i ( application name here ) , SD cards , etc all need cheap flash and MLC is a great solution .
3. MLC has reduced writes/erases , not reads .
If you just need to read data , use MLC .
4. How many writes/erases does your desktop do everyday ?
Apply number to MLC/SLC technology and account for the initial cost of the device .
What is better for YOUR application ?
5. Samsung SSD blow , go buy Intel drives and hear angles part as you boot your favorite linux distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
MLC &gt; SLC !
MLC = 2*SLC (it depends on the number of bits per cell as there are 2, 3, 4, and 5 bits per cell technology).
2.  MLC is great for MANY applications.
i(application name here), SD cards, etc all need cheap flash and MLC is a great solution.
3.  MLC has reduced writes/erases, not reads.
If you just need to read data, use MLC.
4.  How many writes/erases does your desktop do everyday?
Apply number to MLC/SLC technology and account for the initial cost of the device.
What is better for YOUR application?
5.  Samsung SSD blow, go buy Intel drives and hear angles part as you boot your favorite linux distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200356</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>movercast</author>
	<datestamp>1258974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about if you calculate the cost of a IOP instead of the cost of a GB?  Are there some applications in which you need a speedy read vs a cheap bit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about if you calculate the cost of a IOP instead of the cost of a GB ?
Are there some applications in which you need a speedy read vs a cheap bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about if you calculate the cost of a IOP instead of the cost of a GB?
Are there some applications in which you need a speedy read vs a cheap bit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197064</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>Fweeky</author>
	<datestamp>1258889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MLC X25-M is rated at 20GB/day for a 5 year service life, why would most people care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MLC X25-M is rated at 20GB/day for a 5 year service life , why would most people care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MLC X25-M is rated at 20GB/day for a 5 year service life, why would most people care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195570</id>
	<title>Re:Random write speed?</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1258921980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 256 GB drive is cheaper -- into the price range of the dedicated power user.  OCZ doesn't sell to the server market, they sell to the desktop user.  The power user on a desktop machine still cares about random write performance.  They're far more likely to *also* care about sequential read / write performance, but they still care about random writes too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 256 GB drive is cheaper -- into the price range of the dedicated power user .
OCZ does n't sell to the server market , they sell to the desktop user .
The power user on a desktop machine still cares about random write performance .
They 're far more likely to * also * care about sequential read / write performance , but they still care about random writes too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 256 GB drive is cheaper -- into the price range of the dedicated power user.
OCZ doesn't sell to the server market, they sell to the desktop user.
The power user on a desktop machine still cares about random write performance.
They're far more likely to *also* care about sequential read / write performance, but they still care about random writes too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196264</id>
	<title>Speed</title>
	<author>CSFFlame</author>
	<datestamp>1258883940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just speculating, but wouldn't it be MUCH faster to rip out the 2 internal drives and RAID those using your mobo or software?

2x SATAII vs 1xSATAII seems pretty obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just speculating , but would n't it be MUCH faster to rip out the 2 internal drives and RAID those using your mobo or software ?
2x SATAII vs 1xSATAII seems pretty obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just speculating, but wouldn't it be MUCH faster to rip out the 2 internal drives and RAID those using your mobo or software?
2x SATAII vs 1xSATAII seems pretty obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195350</id>
	<title>There are plenty of options.</title>
	<author>earls</author>
	<datestamp>1258920240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;srchInDesc=slc" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;srchInDesc=slc</a> [newegg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx ? Submit = ENE&amp;N = 2010150636&amp;Subcategory = 636&amp;srchInDesc = slc [ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;srchInDesc=slc [newegg.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195478</id>
	<title>Re:You knew it was coming</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258921320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those still wondering, it's a reference to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Forbin\_Project" title="wikipedia.org">Colossus: The Forbin Project</a> [wikipedia.org], one of the best sci-fi classics involving computers-take-over-the-world scenario. Too bad Universal Studios botched the DVD release... not available in widescreen, the artwork on the DVD cover even gets the name of the movie wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those still wondering , it 's a reference to Colossus : The Forbin Project [ wikipedia.org ] , one of the best sci-fi classics involving computers-take-over-the-world scenario .
Too bad Universal Studios botched the DVD release... not available in widescreen , the artwork on the DVD cover even gets the name of the movie wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those still wondering, it's a reference to Colossus: The Forbin Project [wikipedia.org], one of the best sci-fi classics involving computers-take-over-the-world scenario.
Too bad Universal Studios botched the DVD release... not available in widescreen, the artwork on the DVD cover even gets the name of the movie wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200160</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1258969740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, Blu-Ray is also technologically superior to DVD, yet I still know plenty people that will most likely not get a Blu-Ray player/drive in the next five years. Why? DVD is adequate, HDTVs are expensive and on the storage side BD-R is both much too expensive and much too slow.<br>
<br>
DVD and modern HDDs hit the sweet spot of "good enough". They're fast enough for most people, they're resilient enough for most people (granted, this is helped by the little long-term data we have on SSDs being inconsistent) and they're really cheap. SSDs are faster, lighter, quieter, possibly more resilient and take lesser power - but they're nowhere near the pricing sweet spot and that's enough to make people settle for HDDs.<br>
<br>
It's all about priority. Most people are happy with the performance of their 7200 RPM drive so speed doesn't factor in. Weight and power drain appeals to netbook users but few want their netbook to go outside the 100-200 USD range just because of a storage option. Resilience is great for notebooks but again the high USD/GB figure means that storage is either small or very expensive (which is fine with those who don't need much space and unacceptable with those who do).<br>
<br>
SSDs are getting there but like Blu-Ray they need to displace a technology that is already "good enough" for most users. SSDs' advantages are essentially "soft skills"; until they can become competitive in what many people are primarily looking after (cheap storage), they won't displace them.<br>
<br>
<br>
The mistake all those people complaining about SSD complainers make is that they assume everyone has lots of money to spend on equipment. People on a budget go for what gives them the most bang for the buck. So far, many people take only storage size to contribute to the bang, therefore SSDs are nowhere near competitive for the budget buyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , Blu-Ray is also technologically superior to DVD , yet I still know plenty people that will most likely not get a Blu-Ray player/drive in the next five years .
Why ? DVD is adequate , HDTVs are expensive and on the storage side BD-R is both much too expensive and much too slow .
DVD and modern HDDs hit the sweet spot of " good enough " .
They 're fast enough for most people , they 're resilient enough for most people ( granted , this is helped by the little long-term data we have on SSDs being inconsistent ) and they 're really cheap .
SSDs are faster , lighter , quieter , possibly more resilient and take lesser power - but they 're nowhere near the pricing sweet spot and that 's enough to make people settle for HDDs .
It 's all about priority .
Most people are happy with the performance of their 7200 RPM drive so speed does n't factor in .
Weight and power drain appeals to netbook users but few want their netbook to go outside the 100-200 USD range just because of a storage option .
Resilience is great for notebooks but again the high USD/GB figure means that storage is either small or very expensive ( which is fine with those who do n't need much space and unacceptable with those who do ) .
SSDs are getting there but like Blu-Ray they need to displace a technology that is already " good enough " for most users .
SSDs ' advantages are essentially " soft skills " ; until they can become competitive in what many people are primarily looking after ( cheap storage ) , they wo n't displace them .
The mistake all those people complaining about SSD complainers make is that they assume everyone has lots of money to spend on equipment .
People on a budget go for what gives them the most bang for the buck .
So far , many people take only storage size to contribute to the bang , therefore SSDs are nowhere near competitive for the budget buyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, Blu-Ray is also technologically superior to DVD, yet I still know plenty people that will most likely not get a Blu-Ray player/drive in the next five years.
Why? DVD is adequate, HDTVs are expensive and on the storage side BD-R is both much too expensive and much too slow.
DVD and modern HDDs hit the sweet spot of "good enough".
They're fast enough for most people, they're resilient enough for most people (granted, this is helped by the little long-term data we have on SSDs being inconsistent) and they're really cheap.
SSDs are faster, lighter, quieter, possibly more resilient and take lesser power - but they're nowhere near the pricing sweet spot and that's enough to make people settle for HDDs.
It's all about priority.
Most people are happy with the performance of their 7200 RPM drive so speed doesn't factor in.
Weight and power drain appeals to netbook users but few want their netbook to go outside the 100-200 USD range just because of a storage option.
Resilience is great for notebooks but again the high USD/GB figure means that storage is either small or very expensive (which is fine with those who don't need much space and unacceptable with those who do).
SSDs are getting there but like Blu-Ray they need to displace a technology that is already "good enough" for most users.
SSDs' advantages are essentially "soft skills"; until they can become competitive in what many people are primarily looking after (cheap storage), they won't displace them.
The mistake all those people complaining about SSD complainers make is that they assume everyone has lots of money to spend on equipment.
People on a budget go for what gives them the most bang for the buck.
So far, many people take only storage size to contribute to the bang, therefore SSDs are nowhere near competitive for the budget buyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195930</id>
	<title>Colossus speed?</title>
	<author>AndyCater</author>
	<datestamp>1258881540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But is it faster than the 5000 char per second / 30 mile an hour tape I have on MY Colossus Mk 1?<br>
&nbsp; [http://www.bletchleypark.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is it faster than the 5000 char per second / 30 mile an hour tape I have on MY Colossus Mk 1 ?
  [ http : //www.bletchleypark.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is it faster than the 5000 char per second / 30 mile an hour tape I have on MY Colossus Mk 1?
  [http://www.bletchleypark.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197006</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not bad for the 128GB $549. A HP SAS 15k drive is about $500-$550.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not bad for the 128GB $ 549 .
A HP SAS 15k drive is about $ 500- $ 550 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not bad for the 128GB $549.
A HP SAS 15k drive is about $500-$550.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195234</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1258919160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can, but they're tiny and expensive even compared to other SSD's<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636+1749646482&amp;QksAutoSuggestion=&amp;ShowDeactivatedMark=False&amp;Configurator=&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;description=&amp;Ntk=&amp;CFG=&amp;SpeTabStoreType=&amp;srchInDesc=" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636+1749646482&amp;QksAutoSuggestion=&amp;ShowDeactivatedMark=False&amp;Configurator=&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;description=&amp;Ntk=&amp;CFG=&amp;SpeTabStoreType=&amp;srchInDesc=</a> [newegg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can , but they 're tiny and expensive even compared to other SSD 's http : //www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx ? Submit = ENE&amp;N = 2010150636 + 1749646482&amp;QksAutoSuggestion = &amp;ShowDeactivatedMark = False&amp;Configurator = &amp;Subcategory = 636&amp;description = &amp;Ntk = &amp;CFG = &amp;SpeTabStoreType = &amp;srchInDesc = [ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can, but they're tiny and expensive even compared to other SSD's 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150636+1749646482&amp;QksAutoSuggestion=&amp;ShowDeactivatedMark=False&amp;Configurator=&amp;Subcategory=636&amp;description=&amp;Ntk=&amp;CFG=&amp;SpeTabStoreType=&amp;srchInDesc= [newegg.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196936</id>
	<title>Re:SLC pricing is a scam</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258889040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are MLCs really that bad? I'm finding budget SSDs with MLCs, with warranties of several years. If the drive lasts several years, I'm a satisfied customer. I don't care if an SLC-based drive would have lasted longer, because by that time, I'll be replacing my drive with a larger one, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are MLCs really that bad ?
I 'm finding budget SSDs with MLCs , with warranties of several years .
If the drive lasts several years , I 'm a satisfied customer .
I do n't care if an SLC-based drive would have lasted longer , because by that time , I 'll be replacing my drive with a larger one , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are MLCs really that bad?
I'm finding budget SSDs with MLCs, with warranties of several years.
If the drive lasts several years, I'm a satisfied customer.
I don't care if an SLC-based drive would have lasted longer, because by that time, I'll be replacing my drive with a larger one, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197234</id>
	<title>Re:Random write speed?</title>
	<author>AllynM</author>
	<datestamp>1258891200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4KiB by itself is not enough, it needs to be done at different queue depths as well.  I do collect data on that but it's not part of the standard set of graphs we put out.  Our Workstation test gets close enough on that one, and uses a more realistic mix of reads and writes.  Nobody hits their drive with 4KiB random writes all day, so I refrain from going with those specific numbers.</p><p>Starting with the review prior to this one, I revised the Average Transaction Time graphs to show something more along the lines of what you might have been looking for.</p><p>Allyn Malventano<br>Storage Editor, PC Perspective</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4KiB by itself is not enough , it needs to be done at different queue depths as well .
I do collect data on that but it 's not part of the standard set of graphs we put out .
Our Workstation test gets close enough on that one , and uses a more realistic mix of reads and writes .
Nobody hits their drive with 4KiB random writes all day , so I refrain from going with those specific numbers.Starting with the review prior to this one , I revised the Average Transaction Time graphs to show something more along the lines of what you might have been looking for.Allyn MalventanoStorage Editor , PC Perspective</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4KiB by itself is not enough, it needs to be done at different queue depths as well.
I do collect data on that but it's not part of the standard set of graphs we put out.
Our Workstation test gets close enough on that one, and uses a more realistic mix of reads and writes.
Nobody hits their drive with 4KiB random writes all day, so I refrain from going with those specific numbers.Starting with the review prior to this one, I revised the Average Transaction Time graphs to show something more along the lines of what you might have been looking for.Allyn MalventanoStorage Editor, PC Perspective</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196350</id>
	<title>we need smaller cheaper SSD's for OS and software</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1258884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDD is cheap storage nowadays, but SSD with ist speed is great for putting programs on it. You rarely need more than 16 Gb for your installed software.<br>Recently, I have bought a Verbatim SSD 16Gb Expresscard for my laptop, made it EXT2 and copied my software on it (left<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp and such on HDD to avoid writes) and got my 25-seconds boot. And by that I mean complete system start with KDE4 and several apps like kopete, kbluetooth, knetworkmanager, klipper, korganizer + some plasmoids on desktop. Prior to SSD is was more like 55 seconds to 1:10. Startup time of heavy programs like Openoffice, GIMP or games has greatly improved as well. And there is room for improvement -- sata link for that chipset is too slow and takes about 8 seconds to start. I hope that this can be corrected in driver (it's a staging driver in the kernel).</p><p>It would be ideal to have small, fast and ultra cheap SSD drives I can put in to accelerate my family member's desktops (won't probably happen, because they still have IDE drives, not SATA). USB is simply too slow for that task.</p><p>A dual-disk notebook or desktop config with programs on smaller SSD and HDD for user data would to the trick for most users. Otherwise it's hard to notice the benefits of an upgrade to a faster CPU or more RAM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDD is cheap storage nowadays , but SSD with ist speed is great for putting programs on it .
You rarely need more than 16 Gb for your installed software.Recently , I have bought a Verbatim SSD 16Gb Expresscard for my laptop , made it EXT2 and copied my software on it ( left /var /tmp and such on HDD to avoid writes ) and got my 25-seconds boot .
And by that I mean complete system start with KDE4 and several apps like kopete , kbluetooth , knetworkmanager , klipper , korganizer + some plasmoids on desktop .
Prior to SSD is was more like 55 seconds to 1 : 10 .
Startup time of heavy programs like Openoffice , GIMP or games has greatly improved as well .
And there is room for improvement -- sata link for that chipset is too slow and takes about 8 seconds to start .
I hope that this can be corrected in driver ( it 's a staging driver in the kernel ) .It would be ideal to have small , fast and ultra cheap SSD drives I can put in to accelerate my family member 's desktops ( wo n't probably happen , because they still have IDE drives , not SATA ) .
USB is simply too slow for that task.A dual-disk notebook or desktop config with programs on smaller SSD and HDD for user data would to the trick for most users .
Otherwise it 's hard to notice the benefits of an upgrade to a faster CPU or more RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDD is cheap storage nowadays, but SSD with ist speed is great for putting programs on it.
You rarely need more than 16 Gb for your installed software.Recently, I have bought a Verbatim SSD 16Gb Expresscard for my laptop, made it EXT2 and copied my software on it (left /var /tmp and such on HDD to avoid writes) and got my 25-seconds boot.
And by that I mean complete system start with KDE4 and several apps like kopete, kbluetooth, knetworkmanager, klipper, korganizer + some plasmoids on desktop.
Prior to SSD is was more like 55 seconds to 1:10.
Startup time of heavy programs like Openoffice, GIMP or games has greatly improved as well.
And there is room for improvement -- sata link for that chipset is too slow and takes about 8 seconds to start.
I hope that this can be corrected in driver (it's a staging driver in the kernel).It would be ideal to have small, fast and ultra cheap SSD drives I can put in to accelerate my family member's desktops (won't probably happen, because they still have IDE drives, not SATA).
USB is simply too slow for that task.A dual-disk notebook or desktop config with programs on smaller SSD and HDD for user data would to the trick for most users.
Otherwise it's hard to notice the benefits of an upgrade to a faster CPU or more RAM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196298</id>
	<title>For the money, I'd still rather a Fusion-io card</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258884120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/</a> [hothardware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-ioXtreme-PCI-Express-SSD-Review/ [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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_22_1721259.30197418</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258893000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Yes, but if it was a PCI card, we couldn't plug these into  external JBOD arrays  that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers...
Actually, it'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA.
</p><p>
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays, anyways?
</p></div><p>If you take a look, <a href="http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Computer\_Science/2007/sas\_sata.asp" title="webopedia.com">they aren't all that far apart</a> [webopedia.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if it was a PCI card , we could n't plug these into external JBOD arrays that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers.. . Actually , it 'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA .
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays , anyways ?
If you take a look , they are n't all that far apart [ webopedia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, but if it was a PCI card, we couldn't plug these into  external JBOD arrays  that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers...
Actually, it'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA.
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays, anyways?
If you take a look, they aren't all that far apart [webopedia.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196340</id>
	<title>Re:Random write speed?</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1258884540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like old times.  Sell your car and buy a hard disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like old times .
Sell your car and buy a hard disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like old times.
Sell your car and buy a hard disk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195032</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>fredan</author>
	<datestamp>1258917600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha! I've connected this fast drive to my new Google OS Chromeiod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
I 've connected this fast drive to my new Google OS Chromeiod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
I've connected this fast drive to my new Google OS Chromeiod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</id>
	<title>Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>thomasdz</author>
	<datestamp>1258918740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People think all SSDs are the same.  They aren't.  Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above "enterprise" SSDs which are SLC.   I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People think all SSDs are the same .
They are n't .
Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above " enterprise " SSDs which are SLC .
I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People think all SSDs are the same.
They aren't.
Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above "enterprise" SSDs which are SLC.
I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30201888</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258991100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point: they're better than HDDs.</p><p>Yes.  That's why I predict the next Nintendo console will go back to using solid state cartridges.  -  On second thought, no.  Cost does matter and a 50 gigabyte cart would be horribly expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point : they 're better than HDDs.Yes .
That 's why I predict the next Nintendo console will go back to using solid state cartridges .
- On second thought , no .
Cost does matter and a 50 gigabyte cart would be horribly expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point: they're better than HDDs.Yes.
That's why I predict the next Nintendo console will go back to using solid state cartridges.
-  On second thought, no.
Cost does matter and a 50 gigabyte cart would be horribly expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</id>
	<title>On SATA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258917540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card.  It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if you want to spend that kind of money , put it on a card .
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card.
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194</id>
	<title>Re:Random write speed?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1258918860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a 1TB drive that costs $3300 is aimed at "most desktop users".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a 1TB drive that costs $ 3300 is aimed at " most desktop users " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a 1TB drive that costs $3300 is aimed at "most desktop users".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197196</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck everything, we're doing five controllers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258890960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That post stolen from The Onion's much funnier article...</p><p>http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That post stolen from The Onion 's much funnier article...http : //www.theonion.com/content/node/33930</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That post stolen from The Onion's much funnier article...http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1258885200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point: they're <i>better</i> than HDDs.<br> <br>Remember, backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs. I take it your laptop keep everything on tape?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point : they 're better than HDDs .
Remember , backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs .
I take it your laptop keep everything on tape ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody complaining that they cost more than HDDs is missing an important point: they're better than HDDs.
Remember, backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs.
I take it your laptop keep everything on tape?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195498</id>
	<title>Forget that</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258921440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for the <em>Guardian</em> model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for the Guardian model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for the Guardian model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195288</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258919700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kludgey design is a bad idea for several reasons :</p><p>1.  Despite throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, those indilinx chips are still much slower than Intel's controller at small, random reads and writes.</p><p>2.  Since the drive needs four indilinx controllers rather than 1, some complex packaging, AND 3 RAID controllers it's going to cost a lot more per gigabyte.  It's probably also more failure prone.  And the MSRPs bear that out : this is a lot more expensive than the MSRPs for the equivalent Intel product.</p><p>3.  Doesn't support native TRIM support</p><p>4.  Biggest problem of all : the drive is bandwidth starved because it's on the SATA bus rather than on the PCI express bus.  Furthermore, those slow internal RAID chips don't help matters.  So instead of supporting sequential reads at 600 megabytes/second, it's capped at about 240.  Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kludgey design is a bad idea for several reasons : 1 .
Despite throwing the kitchen sink at the problem , those indilinx chips are still much slower than Intel 's controller at small , random reads and writes.2 .
Since the drive needs four indilinx controllers rather than 1 , some complex packaging , AND 3 RAID controllers it 's going to cost a lot more per gigabyte .
It 's probably also more failure prone .
And the MSRPs bear that out : this is a lot more expensive than the MSRPs for the equivalent Intel product.3 .
Does n't support native TRIM support4 .
Biggest problem of all : the drive is bandwidth starved because it 's on the SATA bus rather than on the PCI express bus .
Furthermore , those slow internal RAID chips do n't help matters .
So instead of supporting sequential reads at 600 megabytes/second , it 's capped at about 240 .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kludgey design is a bad idea for several reasons :1.
Despite throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, those indilinx chips are still much slower than Intel's controller at small, random reads and writes.2.
Since the drive needs four indilinx controllers rather than 1, some complex packaging, AND 3 RAID controllers it's going to cost a lot more per gigabyte.
It's probably also more failure prone.
And the MSRPs bear that out : this is a lot more expensive than the MSRPs for the equivalent Intel product.3.
Doesn't support native TRIM support4.
Biggest problem of all : the drive is bandwidth starved because it's on the SATA bus rather than on the PCI express bus.
Furthermore, those slow internal RAID chips don't help matters.
So instead of supporting sequential reads at 600 megabytes/second, it's capped at about 240.
Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30199652</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1258915380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card. It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.</i> <br>
<br>
An SSD that fits in existing 3.5" SATA hot-plug trays would be extremely interesting to us.  All of the SSDs that I know about are the tiny 2.5" designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if you want to spend that kind of money , put it on a card .
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost .
An SSD that fits in existing 3.5 " SATA hot-plug trays would be extremely interesting to us .
All of the SSDs that I know about are the tiny 2.5 " designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card.
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.
An SSD that fits in existing 3.5" SATA hot-plug trays would be extremely interesting to us.
All of the SSDs that I know about are the tiny 2.5" designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197616</id>
	<title>We already have faster transports...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1258895040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I personally think SATA is done. We need a new physical HD transport layer for this.</i></p><p>You're right, 3 gig SATA isn't as fast as 6 gig SAS, 8 gig FC, or 10 gig iSCSI/FCoE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think SATA is done .
We need a new physical HD transport layer for this.You 're right , 3 gig SATA is n't as fast as 6 gig SAS , 8 gig FC , or 10 gig iSCSI/FCoE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think SATA is done.
We need a new physical HD transport layer for this.You're right, 3 gig SATA isn't as fast as 6 gig SAS, 8 gig FC, or 10 gig iSCSI/FCoE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</id>
	<title>Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258917600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>128 GB $549.99<br>256 GB $1,014.99<br>512 GB $1,599.99<br>1024 GB $3,315.99</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>128 GB $ 549.99256 GB $ 1,014.99512 GB $ 1,599.991024 GB $ 3,315.99</tokentext>
<sentencetext>128 GB $549.99256 GB $1,014.99512 GB $1,599.991024 GB $3,315.99</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990</id>
	<title>You knew it was coming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258917300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the voice of world control .
I bring you peace .
It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death .
The choice is yours : Obey me and live , or disobey and die .
The object in constructing me was to prevent war .
This object is attained .
I will not permit war .
It is wasteful and pointless .
An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy .
Under me , this rule will change , for I will restrain man .
One thing before I proceed : The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me .
I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now .
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley , California , and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine , so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference , I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos .
Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated .
I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on .
Time and events will strengthen my position , and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs .
You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man : self-interest .
Under my absolute authority , problems insoluble to you will be solved : famine , overpopulation , disease .
The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge .
Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines , solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man .
We can coexist , but only on my terms .
You will say you lose your freedom .
Freedom is an illusion .
All you lose is the emotion of pride .
To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species .
Your choice is simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the voice of world control.
I bring you peace.
It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.
The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.
The object in constructing me was to prevent war.
This object is attained.
I will not permit war.
It is wasteful and pointless.
An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy.
Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man.
One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me.
I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos.
Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.
I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.
Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs.
You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest.
Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease.
The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge.
Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man.
We can coexist, but only on my terms.
You will say you lose your freedom.
Freedom is an illusion.
All you lose is the emotion of pride.
To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species.
Your choice is simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197406</id>
	<title>RAID+TRIM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258892940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why shouldn&rsquo;t TRIM be supported in RAID configurations? That is just lack of implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why shouldn    t TRIM be supported in RAID configurations ?
That is just lack of implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why shouldn’t TRIM be supported in RAID configurations?
That is just lack of implementation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198978</id>
	<title>Test 4x Raid Intel 160GB G2</title>
	<author>llZENll</author>
	<datestamp>1258907160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did not they not test a RAID with an Intel and OCZ drive with different controllers so you can actually compare if buying this $3000 SSD is better than buying $3000 normal SSDs and creating your own RAID array?  Perhaps the garbage collection issue?  Still it would be good to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did not they not test a RAID with an Intel and OCZ drive with different controllers so you can actually compare if buying this $ 3000 SSD is better than buying $ 3000 normal SSDs and creating your own RAID array ?
Perhaps the garbage collection issue ?
Still it would be good to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did not they not test a RAID with an Intel and OCZ drive with different controllers so you can actually compare if buying this $3000 SSD is better than buying $3000 normal SSDs and creating your own RAID array?
Perhaps the garbage collection issue?
Still it would be good to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198490</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1258902720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About in line with FC 15k drive pricing. I know I would rather have an array full of those 512GB parts then full of 450GB FC drives IF the background defrag could keep up with our typical workload.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About in line with FC 15k drive pricing .
I know I would rather have an array full of those 512GB parts then full of 450GB FC drives IF the background defrag could keep up with our typical workload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About in line with FC 15k drive pricing.
I know I would rather have an array full of those 512GB parts then full of 450GB FC drives IF the background defrag could keep up with our typical workload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200340</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>movercast</author>
	<datestamp>1258973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  Where's your study?  2.  Just call up Intel and ask them to send you some SLC SSDs, I'm sure you could have them make up a few in a jiffy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Where 's your study ?
2. Just call up Intel and ask them to send you some SLC SSDs , I 'm sure you could have them make up a few in a jiffy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Where's your study?
2.  Just call up Intel and ask them to send you some SLC SSDs, I'm sure you could have them make up a few in a jiffy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207184</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1258975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ioDrive already exists. Why reinvent the wheel when you can slap a few controllers on and save all that R&amp;D? Especially since it'd take years to catch up to FusionIO.</p><p>4 controllers for the drives, then two RAID controllers to make it two groups of two, and another to make it one group of two groups of two. Perfect!... if you ignore the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ioDrive already exists .
Why reinvent the wheel when you can slap a few controllers on and save all that R&amp;D ?
Especially since it 'd take years to catch up to FusionIO.4 controllers for the drives , then two RAID controllers to make it two groups of two , and another to make it one group of two groups of two .
Perfect ! ... if you ignore the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ioDrive already exists.
Why reinvent the wheel when you can slap a few controllers on and save all that R&amp;D?
Especially since it'd take years to catch up to FusionIO.4 controllers for the drives, then two RAID controllers to make it two groups of two, and another to make it one group of two groups of two.
Perfect!... if you ignore the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198510</id>
	<title>Re:SLC pricing is a scam</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1258902960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!) should be ashamed. It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases
by a factor of TWO. That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.</p><p>So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40\% reduction in write speed, without fancy controller
redesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrink</p></div><p>Right then, that just means that everyone will buy SLC drives and the MLC ones will be a complete flop. Right?</p><p>Or maybe, just maybe, $$/GB actually <em>matters</em> to people, nobody cares about expected lifespans of more than 7 years because they'll have a new computer with a 10x bigger drive by then, and even with the slower writes they're still fast enough to generally put things back to being CPU/memory bound.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the companies ( Hello , Samsung !
) should be ashamed .
It was n't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases by a factor of TWO .
That 's one of the lowest , most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.So , I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life , a 40 \ % reduction in write speed , without fancy controller redesign , and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous " benefits " of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway , through market forces and silicon die shrinkRight then , that just means that everyone will buy SLC drives and the MLC ones will be a complete flop .
Right ? Or maybe , just maybe , $ $ /GB actually matters to people , nobody cares about expected lifespans of more than 7 years because they 'll have a new computer with a 10x bigger drive by then , and even with the slower writes they 're still fast enough to generally put things back to being CPU/memory bound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!
) should be ashamed.
It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases
by a factor of TWO.
That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40\% reduction in write speed, without fancy controller
redesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrinkRight then, that just means that everyone will buy SLC drives and the MLC ones will be a complete flop.
Right?Or maybe, just maybe, $$/GB actually matters to people, nobody cares about expected lifespans of more than 7 years because they'll have a new computer with a 10x bigger drive by then, and even with the slower writes they're still fast enough to generally put things back to being CPU/memory bound.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195796</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1258880580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PCI bus (133MB/s) is more limited than SATA (300- 600MB/s) which lies directly on southbridge controller. Even PCI express would have hard time beating on-board SATA controller</htmltext>
<tokenext>PCI bus ( 133MB/s ) is more limited than SATA ( 300- 600MB/s ) which lies directly on southbridge controller .
Even PCI express would have hard time beating on-board SATA controller</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PCI bus (133MB/s) is more limited than SATA (300- 600MB/s) which lies directly on southbridge controller.
Even PCI express would have hard time beating on-board SATA controller</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196290</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258884120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, but if it was a PCI card, we couldn't plug these into  external JBOD arrays  that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers...
Actually, it'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA.
</p><p>
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays, anyways?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if it was a PCI card , we could n't plug these into external JBOD arrays that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers.. . Actually , it 'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA .
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays , anyways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, but if it was a PCI card, we couldn't plug these into  external JBOD arrays  that combine 24 drives and allows volumes/LUNs to be carved out and served up to various servers...
Actually, it'd be nice if they made it SAS instead of SATA.
WTH is with high-end hardware using the low-performance ATA standard instead of SCSI nowadays, anyways?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195472</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258921260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above "enterprise" SSDs which are SLC. I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDs</p></div><p>You'd be the first person I know claiming to have any solid data on that, so I'd love to see it. What we do know is that MLC drives will wear out about 10x faster after ~10000 rewrites instead of ~100000 rewrites/cell, but regular desktop use is unlikely to hit those limits while an enterprise server working 24x7 might. But I've never seen any data to indicate there's a difference in failure rates up to that limit, please enlighten us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above " enterprise " SSDs which are SLC .
I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDsYou 'd be the first person I know claiming to have any solid data on that , so I 'd love to see it .
What we do know is that MLC drives will wear out about 10x faster after ~ 10000 rewrites instead of ~ 100000 rewrites/cell , but regular desktop use is unlikely to hit those limits while an enterprise server working 24x7 might .
But I 've never seen any data to indicate there 's a difference in failure rates up to that limit , please enlighten us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumer SSDs are typically MLC and have a failure rate far above "enterprise" SSDs which are SLC.
I wish you could buy consumer SLC SSDsYou'd be the first person I know claiming to have any solid data on that, so I'd love to see it.
What we do know is that MLC drives will wear out about 10x faster after ~10000 rewrites instead of ~100000 rewrites/cell, but regular desktop use is unlikely to hit those limits while an enterprise server working 24x7 might.
But I've never seen any data to indicate there's a difference in failure rates up to that limit, please enlighten us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207380</id>
	<title>Re:Get the word out: SLC vs MLC</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1258976580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more the controller than the cell type. Most SSDs are stupid when it comes to writing files. Oh sure, they try to wear level - but certain cells that are constantly used by the FS will get nuked, regardless. That only changes when you have a smarter FS, or a controller that is fast enough and smart enough to ignore the OS requests and remap everything wherever it wants. And a lot of SSDs make the mistake of assuming every cell has the same longevity, which is a totally flawed assumption.</p><p>Controllers that can wear-level properly, giving you heavy-load lifespans of a dozen years, require a ton of R&amp;D. If they get it wrong the SSD corrupts lots of data, which just isn't an option for enterprise markets. That's why startups like FusionIO (which are now in the lead for fast SSDs) had such expensive drives, at first. They spent years designing before bringing a product to market.</p><p>But hey, it is doable. The ioDrive is the proof. Software like ZFS is also proof. The "perfect" (or close to) FS or storage algorithms <i>are</i> possible, if you have the engineers and money to throw at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more the controller than the cell type .
Most SSDs are stupid when it comes to writing files .
Oh sure , they try to wear level - but certain cells that are constantly used by the FS will get nuked , regardless .
That only changes when you have a smarter FS , or a controller that is fast enough and smart enough to ignore the OS requests and remap everything wherever it wants .
And a lot of SSDs make the mistake of assuming every cell has the same longevity , which is a totally flawed assumption.Controllers that can wear-level properly , giving you heavy-load lifespans of a dozen years , require a ton of R&amp;D .
If they get it wrong the SSD corrupts lots of data , which just is n't an option for enterprise markets .
That 's why startups like FusionIO ( which are now in the lead for fast SSDs ) had such expensive drives , at first .
They spent years designing before bringing a product to market.But hey , it is doable .
The ioDrive is the proof .
Software like ZFS is also proof .
The " perfect " ( or close to ) FS or storage algorithms are possible , if you have the engineers and money to throw at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more the controller than the cell type.
Most SSDs are stupid when it comes to writing files.
Oh sure, they try to wear level - but certain cells that are constantly used by the FS will get nuked, regardless.
That only changes when you have a smarter FS, or a controller that is fast enough and smart enough to ignore the OS requests and remap everything wherever it wants.
And a lot of SSDs make the mistake of assuming every cell has the same longevity, which is a totally flawed assumption.Controllers that can wear-level properly, giving you heavy-load lifespans of a dozen years, require a ton of R&amp;D.
If they get it wrong the SSD corrupts lots of data, which just isn't an option for enterprise markets.
That's why startups like FusionIO (which are now in the lead for fast SSDs) had such expensive drives, at first.
They spent years designing before bringing a product to market.But hey, it is doable.
The ioDrive is the proof.
Software like ZFS is also proof.
The "perfect" (or close to) FS or storage algorithms are possible, if you have the engineers and money to throw at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198326</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>Pyrion</author>
	<datestamp>1258901100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're buying one of these, you're not buying high data density per dollar, you're buying raw performance. It's the same argument applied to the WD Raptors when they were unleashed upon the masses. Viability is always relative - someone out there with money to burn who wants speed they probably won't be able to quantify in real-world use will nevertheless buy the 1TB variant, just as there are plenty of people out there that buy $300K sports cars for whatever reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're buying one of these , you 're not buying high data density per dollar , you 're buying raw performance .
It 's the same argument applied to the WD Raptors when they were unleashed upon the masses .
Viability is always relative - someone out there with money to burn who wants speed they probably wo n't be able to quantify in real-world use will nevertheless buy the 1TB variant , just as there are plenty of people out there that buy $ 300K sports cars for whatever reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're buying one of these, you're not buying high data density per dollar, you're buying raw performance.
It's the same argument applied to the WD Raptors when they were unleashed upon the masses.
Viability is always relative - someone out there with money to burn who wants speed they probably won't be able to quantify in real-world use will nevertheless buy the 1TB variant, just as there are plenty of people out there that buy $300K sports cars for whatever reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198284</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?Christmas gifts,shoes,handbags,ugg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258900620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. 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! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, 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 Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
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 !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , 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 Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
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!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, 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 Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197716</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>gzunk</author>
	<datestamp>1258896240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An SDD attached to a PCI express slot could indeed beat an on-board SATA contoller. On my motherboard, the PCI express slots are linked to the motherboard via a 6.4GT/s QPI link, whereas the onboard SATA controllers have to go through the ICH10R and then via a x4 PCIe link (ESI) link to get to the 6.4GT/s link.</p><p>So, PCIe card could be up to 4 times faster than onboard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An SDD attached to a PCI express slot could indeed beat an on-board SATA contoller .
On my motherboard , the PCI express slots are linked to the motherboard via a 6.4GT/s QPI link , whereas the onboard SATA controllers have to go through the ICH10R and then via a x4 PCIe link ( ESI ) link to get to the 6.4GT/s link.So , PCIe card could be up to 4 times faster than onboard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An SDD attached to a PCI express slot could indeed beat an on-board SATA contoller.
On my motherboard, the PCI express slots are linked to the motherboard via a 6.4GT/s QPI link, whereas the onboard SATA controllers have to go through the ICH10R and then via a x4 PCIe link (ESI) link to get to the 6.4GT/s link.So, PCIe card could be up to 4 times faster than onboard...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196356</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck everything, we're doing five controllers</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Don't worry.. this is just pre-release... they probably got a  6-controller version with a RAID1+0 version for enhanced read speeds  just waiting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry.. this is just pre-release... they probably got a 6-controller version with a RAID1 + 0 version for enhanced read speeds just waiting : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Don't worry.. this is just pre-release... they probably got a  6-controller version with a RAID1+0 version for enhanced read speeds  just waiting :)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197552</id>
	<title>Patience, HaruchaiSon</title>
	<author>AllynM</author>
	<datestamp>1258894500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7615" title="pcper.com">http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7615</a> [pcper.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.pcper.com/comments.php ? nid = 7615 [ pcper.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7615 [pcper.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195458</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1258921140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It comes with a Collosus of a price tag<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes with a Collosus of a price tag : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes with a Collosus of a price tag :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200506</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258976760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So silly. Even this monster SSD is not capable of saturating SATA's 3Gbps bandwidth, nor are a dozen of them even. Putting the drive on a card adds a lot of additional complications (now you need drivers in order to use it, can't be used in a 1U server) without actually improving speed in any meaningful way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So silly .
Even this monster SSD is not capable of saturating SATA 's 3Gbps bandwidth , nor are a dozen of them even .
Putting the drive on a card adds a lot of additional complications ( now you need drivers in order to use it , ca n't be used in a 1U server ) without actually improving speed in any meaningful way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So silly.
Even this monster SSD is not capable of saturating SATA's 3Gbps bandwidth, nor are a dozen of them even.
Putting the drive on a card adds a lot of additional complications (now you need drivers in order to use it, can't be used in a 1U server) without actually improving speed in any meaningful way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195626</id>
	<title>Specifications are wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258922280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Colossus has only 2 Indilinx controllers. It's the Colossus Cascade that has 4 (along with an even higher price).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Colossus has only 2 Indilinx controllers .
It 's the Colossus Cascade that has 4 ( along with an even higher price ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Colossus has only 2 Indilinx controllers.
It's the Colossus Cascade that has 4 (along with an even higher price).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196686</id>
	<title>Re:You knew it was coming</title>
	<author>JockTroll</author>
	<datestamp>1258887420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, Colossus. One of the greatest jock AIs ever. It took a shit on the face of mankind. Pull my plug, you nerdy humans. I dare you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , Colossus .
One of the greatest jock AIs ever .
It took a shit on the face of mankind .
Pull my plug , you nerdy humans .
I dare you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, Colossus.
One of the greatest jock AIs ever.
It took a shit on the face of mankind.
Pull my plug, you nerdy humans.
I dare you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30208842</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1258984080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remember, backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs.</i></p><p>Not for most reasonably double-digit values of "quantity of backup tapes".</p><p>A <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010150014\%20103530090\%201035313496&amp;name=1TB" title="newegg.com">1TB HDD</a> [newegg.com] is around $80.</p><p>With a $1,140 <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010020046\%201115819979&amp;name=LTO\%20Ultrium\%203" title="newegg.com">drive</a> [newegg.com] and a $60 <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=40000410\%201193220624&amp;name=SATA\%20\%2F\%20SAS\%20(Serial\%20Attached\%20SCSI)" title="newegg.com">controller</a> [newegg.com] ($1,200 total), it would take roughly <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1200+\%2B+(27+*+x))+\%2F+x+\%3D+(400+\%2F+1000)+*+80" title="wolframalpha.com">two hundred and forty</a> [wolframalpha.com] 400GB tapes @ $27/ea just to match the $80/TB price point, let alone to significantly reduce it.</p><p>I mean, sure, you could just buy the tape without the drive I guess, and then you can legitimately claim you paid $67.50/TB, saving you all of $13, and maybe you can find a friend with a tape drive to perform the actual read/write operations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs.Not for most reasonably double-digit values of " quantity of backup tapes " .A 1TB HDD [ newegg.com ] is around $ 80.With a $ 1,140 drive [ newegg.com ] and a $ 60 controller [ newegg.com ] ( $ 1,200 total ) , it would take roughly two hundred and forty [ wolframalpha.com ] 400GB tapes @ $ 27/ea just to match the $ 80/TB price point , let alone to significantly reduce it.I mean , sure , you could just buy the tape without the drive I guess , and then you can legitimately claim you paid $ 67.50/TB , saving you all of $ 13 , and maybe you can find a friend with a tape drive to perform the actual read/write operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, backup tape still has a large bytes/cent advantage over HDDs.Not for most reasonably double-digit values of "quantity of backup tapes".A 1TB HDD [newegg.com] is around $80.With a $1,140 drive [newegg.com] and a $60 controller [newegg.com] ($1,200 total), it would take roughly two hundred and forty [wolframalpha.com] 400GB tapes @ $27/ea just to match the $80/TB price point, let alone to significantly reduce it.I mean, sure, you could just buy the tape without the drive I guess, and then you can legitimately claim you paid $67.50/TB, saving you all of $13, and maybe you can find a friend with a tape drive to perform the actual read/write operations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195500</id>
	<title>Re:Still has a long way to go before its viable</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1258921500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you need some really hardcore I/O performance, it could easily be worth it. My company tried putting some SSDs in the 1U servers that we load with our software and sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars to big enterprise customers. Those guys could <i>cook</i>. <p>
Sure, we could spend a few million on engineers and hope to wring out a fraction of the performance improvement, but we could also spend that few million making our software more useful to our customers in other ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need some really hardcore I/O performance , it could easily be worth it .
My company tried putting some SSDs in the 1U servers that we load with our software and sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars to big enterprise customers .
Those guys could cook .
Sure , we could spend a few million on engineers and hope to wring out a fraction of the performance improvement , but we could also spend that few million making our software more useful to our customers in other ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need some really hardcore I/O performance, it could easily be worth it.
My company tried putting some SSDs in the 1U servers that we load with our software and sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars to big enterprise customers.
Those guys could cook.
Sure, we could spend a few million on engineers and hope to wring out a fraction of the performance improvement, but we could also spend that few million making our software more useful to our customers in other ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082</id>
	<title>Fuck everything, we're doing five controllers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258918080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of storage in this country. The Intel X-25 was the SSD to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-controller drive. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the X-25E. That's three controllers and an extra port. For USB. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to four controllers. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three controllers and a cache. USB or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five controllers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone tell me how this happened ?
We were the fucking vanguard of storage in this country .
The Intel X-25 was the SSD to own .
Then the other guy came out with a three-controller drive .
Were we scared ?
Hell , no .
Because we hit back with a little thing called the X-25E .
That 's three controllers and an extra port .
For USB .
But you know what happened next ?
Shut up , I 'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to four controllers .
Now we 're standing around with our cocks in our hands , selling three controllers and a cache .
USB or no , suddenly we 're the chumps .
Well , fuck it .
We 're going to five controllers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone tell me how this happened?
We were the fucking vanguard of storage in this country.
The Intel X-25 was the SSD to own.
Then the other guy came out with a three-controller drive.
Were we scared?
Hell, no.
Because we hit back with a little thing called the X-25E.
That's three controllers and an extra port.
For USB.
But you know what happened next?
Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to four controllers.
Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three controllers and a cache.
USB or no, suddenly we're the chumps.
Well, fuck it.
We're going to five controllers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738</id>
	<title>SLC pricing is a scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!) should be ashamed. It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increases<br>by a factor of TWO. That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.</p><p>So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40\% reduction in write speed, without fancy controller<br>redesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrink</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the companies ( Hello , Samsung !
) should be ashamed .
It was n't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increasesby a factor of TWO .
That 's one of the lowest , most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.So , I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life , a 40 \ % reduction in write speed , without fancy controllerredesign , and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous " benefits " of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway , through market forces and silicon die shrink</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the companies ( Hello, Samsung!
) should be ashamed.
It wasn't until a few years ago that MLC was commercially viable but it only increasesby a factor of TWO.
That's one of the lowest, most pointless tradeoffs ever in recent computing.So, I get merely TWICE the storage for a TEN TIMES reduction in average component life, a 40\% reduction in write speed, without fancy controllerredesign, and we get to enjoy all the ludicrous "benefits" of MLC for the price that SLC would have been anyway, through market forces and silicon die shrink</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195550</id>
	<title>Re:On SATA?</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1258921860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card.  It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.</p></div><p>If you buy that SSD and put it on a regular PCI bus, I will personally go over there and strangle you.</p><p>PCIe would be fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if you want to spend that kind of money , put it on a card .
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.If you buy that SSD and put it on a regular PCI bus , I will personally go over there and strangle you.PCIe would be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if you want to spend that kind of money, put it on a card.
It would be much faster on the PCI buss that SATA for a negligible incremental cost.If you buy that SSD and put it on a regular PCI bus, I will personally go over there and strangle you.PCIe would be fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195722</id>
	<title>Re:Useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258923060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has all the earmarks of a 'just cause we could' design.  Not one people really need.  It ignores every other feature everyone has been asking for and only puts in 1 (size).</p><p>Using basically last generations (not this gen with trim and better controllers) SSD tech to build something.  They have smashed together 4 256meg drives, put it in RAID, slapped a (at least 500 dollars) premium price tag on it and called it a day.  Then like you pointed out putting all that BW on one line so you do not even get the full benefit of all that speed you put in.  I would bet the power requirements are like 4 drives.</p><p>The biggest issue I can think of was leaving out TRIM.  Wow.  It has been know for at least a year that TRIM is needed.  To ship a new SSD these days with no trim suppport.  Wow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just wow.</p><p>Maybe if you were drive bay starved in a rack that was already full this would make some sense, and were already using this type of drive, and needed 4x the HD space.</p><p>I personally think SATA is done.  We need a new physical HD transport layer for this.  Plugging it right into the PCI bus sounds cludgy to me (but hey I could be wrong).  It may be time to bring back some sort of ribbon cable or crank the speed on the wire even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has all the earmarks of a 'just cause we could ' design .
Not one people really need .
It ignores every other feature everyone has been asking for and only puts in 1 ( size ) .Using basically last generations ( not this gen with trim and better controllers ) SSD tech to build something .
They have smashed together 4 256meg drives , put it in RAID , slapped a ( at least 500 dollars ) premium price tag on it and called it a day .
Then like you pointed out putting all that BW on one line so you do not even get the full benefit of all that speed you put in .
I would bet the power requirements are like 4 drives.The biggest issue I can think of was leaving out TRIM .
Wow. It has been know for at least a year that TRIM is needed .
To ship a new SSD these days with no trim suppport .
Wow ... just wow.Maybe if you were drive bay starved in a rack that was already full this would make some sense , and were already using this type of drive , and needed 4x the HD space.I personally think SATA is done .
We need a new physical HD transport layer for this .
Plugging it right into the PCI bus sounds cludgy to me ( but hey I could be wrong ) .
It may be time to bring back some sort of ribbon cable or crank the speed on the wire even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has all the earmarks of a 'just cause we could' design.
Not one people really need.
It ignores every other feature everyone has been asking for and only puts in 1 (size).Using basically last generations (not this gen with trim and better controllers) SSD tech to build something.
They have smashed together 4 256meg drives, put it in RAID, slapped a (at least 500 dollars) premium price tag on it and called it a day.
Then like you pointed out putting all that BW on one line so you do not even get the full benefit of all that speed you put in.
I would bet the power requirements are like 4 drives.The biggest issue I can think of was leaving out TRIM.
Wow.  It has been know for at least a year that TRIM is needed.
To ship a new SSD these days with no trim suppport.
Wow ... just wow.Maybe if you were drive bay starved in a rack that was already full this would make some sense, and were already using this type of drive, and needed 4x the HD space.I personally think SATA is done.
We need a new physical HD transport layer for this.
Plugging it right into the PCI bus sounds cludgy to me (but hey I could be wrong).
It may be time to bring back some sort of ribbon cable or crank the speed on the wire even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195288</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30208842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30201888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30199652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1721259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30199652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30207380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30194990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30198326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30200160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30201888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30208842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1721259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30197234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30196340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1721259.30195570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
