For the MOS computer using 2.5" drives which one should be used: CF or SSD? I think of a capacity of at least 64GB. As far as I read they can be formatted with SFS without problems. They should behave just like normal IDE harddrives regarding that.
CF and SSD both use Flash chips. Why are CF cards of the same capacity more expensive then?
Also, what about using 1.8" drives on adapters? Any benefit by doing so?
Is there a list of (not) recommended drives? I read in some threads here that some prefer OWC devices but not the detailed device numbers while others prefer Samsung (I think geit was it). Reading Amazon's articles it seems SSDs still have a lot of problems with reliability.

huh?? Why am I called "Visitor" since today?

> Why am I called "Visitor" since today?

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=10&topic_id=8839&start=49

I still got a 32GB SSD running server-duty in the Efika which I orginally bought years ago for my 1st MacMini. Sofar no problems.

I also have a 120GB SSD running in my iBook which I use regulary for coding and watching movies while working away from home.
Less than a year old, no problems.

My PowerMac-G4 sports a 4GB CF-card as boot-device.

Useing anything but 2.5" PATA SSDs in PB/Mini/iBook allways means some level of mechanical problems so it's not advised.
Failure rates of SSD are overhyped, even more if your running an OS that does not constantly write to HD (read paging).
For laptops they also offer the additional benefits of no possibility for head-crash and lower power-consumption.

Did you format all of them with SFS? What about the .recycled dir? Do you use it? With that (and also without) I do a lot of delete operations on my disks, e.g. (re)moving YAM mails, deleting old pictures that I copied off the digicam and many more situations. It will not be a permanent swapping like with Windows or Linux but also many delete operations in daily use. Like when you code and compile then a lot of files are added, removed, extended, shortened ... This should be a heavy usage for a disk drive.

In general: do you recommend using an SSD instead of a CF? Are there any differences regarding speed (long-term)? Not from disk to interface (I hope every one of them can go up to the maximum interface speed) but on the drive itself (one partition to another or even on the same partition).

This is going back a few years but I had mixed results with partitioning and / or reformatting CF cards. Too bad I don't recall the brands I used. The first time I tried it was on an Amiga 600 - naturally a fairly small capacity card and a change from MBR to RDB type of partition table as well as a reformat to FFS. No problem there, which is why I tried it again years later on an Efika. At least twice, the brand new CF cards I was trying to use became unusable.

I haven't actually used a SSD but would expect them to behave much more like a traditional, spinning hard drive when it comes to alternate partitioning schemes and file systems.

These days it is cheaper to use SSDs unless you want to save some space.

Even the cheapest SSD is faster than any CF card available and comes with more capacity.

These days there is no reason to use a CF card anymore unless you want not use any IDE->SATA adapters.

You can get an SSD with 64GB for around 39 Euro with >400MB/s reading and writing. Now compare with CF cards.

Geit

> Even the cheapest SSD is faster than any CF card available and comes with more capacity.

The second part of your statement is not true. Since 2 years ago, CF cards come with up to 128 GiB capacity, with the 33 cheapest out of 47 listed 2.5" PATA SSDs (= 70%) having less or same capacity.

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=sm_cf#xf_top
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=hdssd&sort=p&xf=251_2.5%22~2646_IDE#xf_top

> You can get an SSD with 64GB for around 39 Euro with >400MB/s reading and writing.

More like 59 EUR for a new one.

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=hdssd&sort=p&xf=221_350~252_61440~222_350#xf_top

i can only tell you my experience here Connor as i used and use several SSDs in various systems and so far i never had any issue. I also used some CF cards but out of 5 cards i had 2 failing, none of my SSDs have failed till now.

SATA SSDs 2,5" :

- 256Gb OCZ Vertex 4 in my hackintosh as OSX boot drive, works perfectly, blasting fast. Used for 6 months.
- 250Gb Intel in the same machine, but as windows boot drive. Works nice, fast, no problems till then. Used for 8 months.
- 64Gb Crucial M3 in my radio server, windows boot drive, used for a year, no problems so far.

PATA SSDs 2,5" :
- 64Gb Kinspec (chinese cheap SSDs) : works perfectly, been using it in a macmini running morphos for more than 2 years, not really fast, even with the macmini bus limitations.
- 120Gb OWC Mercury, works perfectly, fastest SSD available on PATA, used in a Powerbook running morphOS, speed limitation from the powerbook ATA bus.

PATA SSD ZIF 1,8"
- 64Gb Kinspec, used in an old iRiver H320 mp3 player, works perfectly and reliable compared to CF cards used for this player.

I used a CF card for months in an Efika but the card failed and i was never able to reformat it in any way, doesn't mount anymore, not even recognized.

I'm not saying SSD is more reliable than CF but only told my experience. I know a lot of people are complaining on some forums about the SSDs reliability, but not more than people complaining about HD reliability back in the days.

Do they make a IDE SSD?
Powerbook is IDE.

120Gb OWC Mercury, works perfectly, fastest SSD available on PATA, used in a Powerbook running morphOS, speed limitation from the powerbook ATA bus.

Do they make a IDE SSD?
Powerbook is IDE.

"OWC" specializes for Mac

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

No, I got one and for 79 Euro you can already get the 128 GB version.

128GB Version

Or for 139 Euro, the 256GB version.

256GB Version

Anyway, it seems the 64GB version is no longer available, but I paid 39 Euro and the pricings are not only "online", as I bought it in a local store.

Geit

[ Edited by geit 05.01.2013 - 11:50 ]

SoundSquare,

There is no difference between SSDs and CF card in reliability. They all work the same, with the same techniques.

A CF card in fact is an SSD with a slim ide connector. That is all. However they are not as fast as "real" SSDs, because they are mostly used in high end cameras, which means just one pipe to read/write. They cannot handle multiple writes at the same time and delay them, which results in a speed issue, when used with a real OS.

I experience this alot, when updating MorphOS.

Geit

>>> You can get an SSD with 64GB for around 39 Euro with >400MB/s reading and writing.

>> More like 59 EUR for a new one.

> No, I got one

No, you didn't. 240 MB/s write speed is below the 400 MB/s you claimed.

http://www.sandisk.com/products/ssd/sata/standard/#Specifications

> for 79 Euro you can already get the 128 GB version. [...] Or for
> 139 Euro, the 256GB version. [...] the pricings are not only "online"

350 MB/s write speed is still below the 400 MB/s you claimed.
The cheapest 128 GiB SSD that actually meets your claimed specs is currently 81 EUR "online", and the cheapest 256 GiB SSD that actually meets your claimed specs is currently 147 EUR "online".

Uhhh, I am so ashamed of that the SSDs are only 3 times faster than our hardware can handle. And CF cards matching this speed are far more expensive and can only handle 1 to 3 parallel read/writes, so what is your point?

THE SPEED DOES NOT MATTER FOR OUR IDE HARDWARE.

Any SSD is faster than our sucky hardware can handle. You can grab the cheapest shit and it will not cause any slow downs, as our IDE hardware is out dated.

Damn, I should reactivate the mindsaver script to hide your "I know anything better and prove you wrong" posts again.

Geit

> what is your point?

My point is that your assertion ("You can get an SSD with 64GB for around 39 Euro with >400MB/s reading and writing.") is false, as proven above. The SSD you purchased for 39 EUR is slower than the spec you mentioned. SSDs that meet the spec you mentioned start at 59 EUR currently.

> Any SSD is faster than our sucky hardware can handle. You can grab
> the cheapest shit and it will not cause any slow downs

False assertion again (no. 3 and counting), as proven by SSDs sold new with read and write speeds of way below 50 MB/s being listed for sale:

http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?cat=hdssd&xf=221_sonstige~222_sonstige#xf_top


Edit:
@Kronos: Is it official MorphZone policy that allows moderators deleting factual corrections of false assertions in order to "protect" their buddies?

@ connor

I guess CF cards are more expensive than SSDs of same capacity as the form factor is smaller and therefore the cards are more handy. Maybe also the use case (typically photographers with mid- and high-range cameras) allows to generate higher piece prices. By the costs for implemented controller logic they should be cheaper as geit mentioned.

Storage technology-wise there is no big difference between SSD and CF. Both use flash cells to store data. Of course there are slower and faster cells same as controllers.

Controller-wise they differ more as CF cards are mostly used for photo cameras which sequentially recorded data, so you can say you have one single data stream from the camera to the disk, means only one access to the disk at one time. This does not require sophisticated controller logic. In the use case CF was designed for, there are no parallel/competing disk accesses.

SSDs are made for the contrary use case - to replace a traditional disk drive with several/many parallel operations. So differs the controller logic and has to be more complex. Of course there are also faster (more expensive) and slower (cheaper) controllers used for SSDs. For example, Intel SSDs are known to be some of the fastest but also most expensive. In the end the cells can only be as fast (or quick) as the controller allows.

Connector-wise your are limited to PCI/IDE for EFIKA, Mac mini, PowerBook (and not SATA as the examples geit posted). Those you can only use in Pegasos or PowerMac with a SATA connector card (PCI for now). Drive-locally you can get higher rates than PCI/IDE speed.

geit,
Quote:

But connor asked for IDE devices, so he cannot use the SATA devices you mentioned here.

geit,
Quote:
You forget that drive-internally there is no bus speed limitation, so operations not leaving the drive can be much more speedy than bus speed (PCI/IDE in the required case) upto what the flash controller and cells can handle. Even though it might not make a huge speed difference for smaller files to copy them locally on the drive, for larger files it will (whether this is his use case or not).

@Sprocki

There is no extra logic between CF and IDE connector as CF is really just a small IDE form factor.

Space is also no issue as the actualy flash-memory is rather tiny these days (just look at (Mikro)SD cards and such).
the rest is just air/filler.

@AW
Dunno but it is a "MorphZone-policy" to remove personal attacks and I'm also quite ceratin that it is not considered o.k. to question moderation in the way you are doing it here.
I'll consider your reedited post as borderline on this and will delete/edit anything that goes beyond it regardless wether you or somebody else posts it.

@ Kronos

You always need a controller between Flash cells (in general: storage media) and external connector. How else do you want to address the memory cells? You cannot nail the IDE pins directly to the flash to hope to read what you expect to read. The same goes for any other kind of flash drive. Either you put the logic controller in the media case which rises piece costs, or in your device but you need to have it in some place. Without r/w logic, the stored data is just garbage.

Space *is* an issue as with e.g. MicroSD you cannot perform as fast as with CF cards (Class 10 upto 10MB/s vs. 2000x upto 300MB/s). MicroSD cards are tinier but a lot slower than bigger flash cells used in e.g. CF cards. This is why you won't find MicroSD cards as general harddrive replacement.

Sprocki,
Quote:

Of course I don´t forget anything. Any SSD is faster than IDE. Well, there may be some crappy SSDs, but who wants them. if an SSD gets around 100MB/s it is faster than the Pegasos2, which limits are around 60/70MB/s. No clue where the limits in Mac hardware are, but recent SSDs are for sure faster than IDE can transfer.

The flash controller does not matter. If the vendor says it reads 400MB/s than he means on the SATA port and not on controller/flash side. IDE speed is the limit.

So it simply does not matter if the SSD reads/write 200, 300 or 400MB/s.

Seektimes are zero, too. Which even means that a crappy CF card with 22MB/s feels hell faster than a 70MB/s harddrive. Until you try to launch MPlayer or OWB. In such rare cases you need to transfer big files, where the speed of the media gets visible. MorphOS usually only reads small files, so it simply does not matter. Writing is the same. Only small files, mostly configs. The only handbreak with CFs is the lack of multiple drive actions at the same time, which especally when writing are causing a problem and cause slow downs.

I am using a CF card in my system now for over 3 years. I started with a 8MB/s card, swapped to some 22MB/s Transcent and now use a 400x 44MB/s. I tried the SSD and it even made the system more quick, but I deceided to not use it inside, as I prefered the dual slow adapter, where now a second backup CF card lives.

I also did some tests with the efika and USB boot. The harddrive has a speed of 5.5 MB/s. USB just 1MB/s. USB boot was faster, due no seek times.

Geit

@Sprocki

Well you mentioned size and interface to be one factor in the price difference between CF and (IDE)SSD.

Both need a Flash_2_IDE-interface (+/- some extra quirks) and I somehow doubt the actual flash inside a 2.5" SSD is any bigger than a CF-card.

MikroSDs are indeed tiny tiny so there might indeed be a difference in the actual flash-cells.

> Any SSD is faster than IDE. Well, there may be some crappy SSDs, but who wants them.

That's the point exactly. Nobody wants the crappy ones, so with pretending that they don't exist by falsely claiming (now twice in this thread) that "any SSD is faster than IDE" you surely don't do people who look for cheap SSDs any favour. I think it's way more sensible to make them aware of the existence of the crappy ones and the fact that they are still being sold to help them proactively avoid those.

Just some fresh benchmarks from me. Machine - Pegasos II. SSD OCZ Agility3 128 Gb with latest FW v. 2.25. SFS partition.

100 Percent at : 500.0 MB/sec
Score weight : 110.0%
Loopsize [bytes] : 16777216
CPU Cache : YES
Multitasking : YES

1) SSD connected via IDE to SATA adapter, plugged directly in IDE port:

Read from FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.43 MB/s
Maximum : 87.49 MB/s
Average : 49.27 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 10.84 Percent

Write fo FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.44 MB/s
Maximum : 47.42 MB/s
Average : 31.26 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 6.87 Percent

2) SSD connected to Silicon Image Sil3512 2-port serial ATA PCI controller card:

Read from FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.56 MB/s
Maximum : 92.87 MB/s
Average : 54.80 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 12.5 Percent

Write fo FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.55 MB/s
Maximum : 91.63 MB/s
Average : 33.45 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 7.36 Percent

3) SSD in Debian Linux Squeeze via Sil3512 Ext3:

root@Pegasos:/home/oleg# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@Pegasos:/home/oleg# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda4

/dev/sda4:
Timing cached reads: 504 MB in 2.01 seconds = 251.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 256 MB in 3.01 seconds = 84.93 MB/sec

4) IDE HDD in Debian Linux Squeeze via internal IDE port + Seagate Barracuda 200 Gb Ext3:

root@Pegasos:/home/oleg# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
root@Pegasos:/home/oleg# hdparm -Tt /dev/hdc3

/dev/hdc3:
Timing cached reads: 372 MB in 2.01 seconds = 185.17 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 196 MB in 3.00 seconds = 65.31 MB/sec

5) Old Compact Flash card RiData 512 Mb connected via CF to IDE adapter plugged directly in IDE port, SFS:

Read from FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.53 MB/s
Maximum : 91.12 MB/s
Average : 12.88 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 2.83 Percent

Write fo FILE - [Soft]
Minimum : 1.54 MB/s
Maximum : 47.86 MB/s
Average : 7.58 MB/s
AmigaMARKS : 1.66 Percent