The SSD Diaries: Crucial's RealSSD C300

51 Comments

View All Comments

• strikeback03 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Really? I have 3 computers, and can see a use for the 30-40GB, 60-80GB, and 100+GB size drives depending on which system I am thinking of. For my HTPC, a small drive would be fine, all it holds is the OS. For my desktop, I have an 80GB X25G2, as IMO a smaller drive would be iffy when 2 operating systems are installed on the drive, and allowing for extra spare area. For my laptop I wouldn't consider anything under 100GB, as I don't want to have to carry a separate external drive to store stuff to.

• erple2 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  I'll second that - my laptop has the 160 gig Intel G2 drive in it because I have installed slightly more than the OS on it (a few steam games + WoW = need more than 80 gig).
  
  I don't need more than about 120-160 gigs on my laptop (that's what my home server is for). My desktop would be in the same boat - I'd need enough "space" to install some large applications on it plus the OS.
  
  I've heard people recommend that you should install applications on spindle drives, but the reality is that some of those applications are very slow loading on a spindle drive.
  
  Personally, I don't care if my OS takes 5 minutes to boot. I almost never shut down anyway.

• neoflux - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Fantastic article as always, Anand. Informative, investigative, and conclusive. I couldn't ask for anything else ( other than the funds to purchase a Vertex 2 :P ).

• Slaimus - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  With such a large DRAM cache, is there greater risk of data corruption when there is a power outage or power supply failure?

• Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Crucial claims to store very little user data in the external DRAM, it's mostly to give the firmware room to store mapping tables and history data to make better decisions about how to organize future writes.
  
  Take care,
  Anand

• GourdFreeMan - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Have you ever actually put this to the test, though?
  
  Intel claims they do the exact same thing with their DRAM, yet I have had applications that were not in use become corrupt after a sudden power loss (i.e. bluescreen after resuming from hibernation, cat depressing laptop power button) on my Intel G2 drives. The mechanical drives that were in the exact same system prior to being replaced by SSDs only lost minimal amounts of data (and typically only the data in use at the time) under the exact same power loss scenarios.

• Echo147 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  My first SSD - And it couldn't be picked up after just 5 hours. Pretty crushed :s
  
  It'd been shipped with Firmware 0001 which I'm guessing was a large oversight by Crucial or the retailer. I wasn't about to go flashing a £500 drive, so it's in RMA as we speak.
  
  Will be waiting for Intel's 25nm offerings before dipping my burned toes again...

• greggm2000 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Anand,
  
  Are there any plans to test these drives in RAID configuration? You've already done so with Intel's cheapest value drive, but for those of us who are considering in the higher end drives, it would be interesting to know such things as will a pair of Crucial RealSSD 128GB drives on SATA outperform a single 256GB on SATA 6Gb... or even how well 4 of the 64GB drives compare as well. Also, how do the Sandforce drives compare in RAID to the others.
  
  Thanks! Great article as always!

• mckirkus - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Just to get a sense of what is used by most humans (hard drives, not VRaptors).

• Alkapwn - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

  Do SandForce controllers suffer when BitLocker is enabled? I'm guessing there would be less predictable data patterns for it's controller to use, and thus might be slower? Would that then solidly put the lead in Crucials favor?