Discussion in 'SSD Manufacturers' started by FiftyOne, Jul 13, 2012.
MSI to use SandForce controller in upcoming solid state drive - TechSpot News
Thanks for the link 51. Looks like more and more companies are jumping on the SSD bandwagon, good for the end users as competition makes prices drop even further. I doubt that MSI would opt for toggle nand, as latecomers in the SSD field they'd probably adopt cost-cutting solutions in order to be competitive with the established players... ...which is going to be kinda hard anyway since the big guys keep dropping their prices too.
In their Super Raid notebooks they're using the less than stellar SanDisk U100 mSATA 2 x 64GB in raid0
In their GE series in my region they offer a Transcend mSATA TS128GMSA720 in the SATA III mSATA Slot
Their GT783-625 gaming notebook offered a really old and slow SATA II Transcend TS128GSSD25S-M
You know, it does surprise me. MSI & other companies now are making B-lines to make either SSD's or SSD hardware. OCZ completely ripped up their business model & now produce almost exclusively SSD's which would be the majority of their business (& profit) now. Yet, the two stedfast storage suppliers in the world WD & seagate aren't adopting/developing/researching nor investing heavily in solid state storage. No, for the forseeable future there will deffinately be a need for platter drive magnetic storage for various reasons. But like with floppy drives & magnetic tape, we found something better. I really see another Kodak on the horizon one day.
MSI REFLEX Series SSDs specs
MSI Officially enters SSD Business | Inside Industry News
> I really see another Kodak on the horizon one day.
A while back we wrote to WDC to recommend a "RAID Edition 5" series of HDDs:
they eventually responded with their "Red" series:
Western Digital Red 3TB SATA SOHO NAS Drive - Full Review | PC Perspective
Western Digital Hard Drives, Network Drives, Media Players
Where I think they fell short with this new line is a cache size of 64 MB.
I had suggested a larger cache e.g. either 128MB or even 256MB per HDD.
My reasoning was the expectation that this "RAID 5" series would
definitely be used in large RAID arrays, and the cumulative effect
of multiple caches would definitely help overall I/O throughput.
Now, apply this same logic to SSDs: Plextor make SSDs with
a pretty big cache e.g. 256MB in their 128GB model:
Newegg.com - Plextor M3 Pro Series PX-128M3P 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC 7mm Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
... and 512MB in their 512GB model:
Newegg.com - Plextor M3 Pro Series PX-512M3P 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC 7mm Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
With semiconductor fabs continuously shrinking dies,
now into the 20nm range, it shouldn't be too difficult
to pack a 512MB DRAM cache into SSDs that are
designed primarily for large RAID arrays.
Why not jump all the way to 1024MB of cache?
Then, by "syncing" SATA-IV with PCIe 3.0 i.e.
increasing the transmission clock to at least 8 GHz, and/or 12 GHz,
and upgrading the legacy frame to the 128b/130b "jumbo frame",
we can see a visible future that supports storage subsystems
that routinely operate in excess of 2.0 GB per second.
---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------
p.s. A PCIe 3.0 "jumbo frame" is 130 bits per 16 bytes, or 130/16 = 8.125 bits per byte.
8.0 GHz / 8.125 bits per byte = 0.985 GB/second per SATA-IV cable.
12. GHz / 8.125 bits per byte = 1.477 GB/second per SATA-IV cable.
2 SSDs in RAID 0 @ 0.985 = ~1.970 GB/second
2 SSDs in RAID 0 @ 1.477 = ~2.954 GB/second
MFRS,what does your post have to do with the original post?
Separate names with a comma.