Hybrid Vs SSD

[Unix]

Yes, on OS X using a Fusion drive (their name for the combination of an SSD and HD together with the OS's support for optimised use of that combination).

The "I put those files on there, these files on here" approach is a manual and inefficient way of doing something the computer is perfectly situated to do, and keep optimising, itself.

The opposite, its the most efficient as the files are exactly where you want them, an algorithm will get it wrong and be swapping files constantly between both. I _never_ want my OS to be on the IDE and never want 2GB movies taking up SSD. If guess if you are a fanboi of apple then you'll believe any tulip the spout though rather than thinking for yourself.

[d000hg]

You're effectively running a manual algorithm at a macro level based on guesswork, rather than one based on actual usage patterns at the file level.

[d000hg]

If guess if you are a fanboi of apple then you'll believe any tulip the spout though rather than thinking for yourself.

Hybrid drives aren't an Apple thing, they just use them.

This is the serious forum, go be a moron in General if you must.

[Scruff]

Why would you need SSD in a NAS? I'm not sure how well the hybrid firmware can cope with being in a RAID array ran by the NAS OS/Firmware. I doubt that there is any performance gain in your setup, but if the price was similar - why not.

I can only imagine that MAC OSX is designed to fully benefit from SSD giving the fact that MacBook Air is SSD only

It isn't an SSD in a NAS, it a Hybrid Drive. It has an 8GB SSD onboard, plus a 4TB Mag Spindle. It isn't going into a Standard RAID but will be in ZFS.

[Unix]

You're effectively running a manual algorithm at a macro level based on guesswork, rather than one based on actual usage patterns at the file level.

But even if I use a large file regularly for a few days I still have the "higher level" knowledge that I wont be using it regularly in the future, so I don't want it swapping out other files from SSD. An algorithm can never have the knowledge and therefore will always be suboptimal.

[Unix]

Hybrid drives aren't an Apple thing, they just use them.

This is the serious forum, go be a moron in General if you must.

He mentioned OSX and fusion drive, which I was replying to.

[NickFitz]

The opposite, its the most efficient as the files are exactly where you want them, an algorithm will get it wrong and be swapping files constantly between both. I _never_ want my OS to be on the IDE and never want 2GB movies taking up SSD. If guess if you are a fanboi of apple then you'll believe any tulip the spout though rather than thinking for yourself.

You know what the algorithm used by Apple's Fusion drive is, do you? No? Thought not.

[sal]

Hybrids (not just SSD/HDD but in general) are always a compromise - you get some of the both worlds, but it's never the best of them. So you end up with a sub-par SSD, faster than HDD but 1/2 of the performance of the top pure SSDs. And HDD with a limited capacity and again sub-par performance.

My personal setup involves 1x256GB Samsung 840 Pro (one of the best SSDs in both performance and £/GB) and 3x3TB Seagate Baracuda 7200 HDDs (again one of the best HDDs in both performance and £/GB)

And it's not like i have to constantly shuffle files around on a daily basis in order to keep it optimized - it's straight-forward is the best way to do it even on pure HDD - OS+Applications+Games go to the C:\ that is the SSD, Downloads,Music,Video,.ISO etc go to the D:\ drive

Performance wise beats any Hybrid

It isn't an SSD in a NAS, it a Hybrid Drive. It has an 8GB SSD onboard, plus a 4TB Mag Spindle. It isn't going into a Standard RAID but will be in ZFS.

I meant why would you need the performance gain offered by SSD (hybrid or native) at a price premium on a NAS. By definition NAS is for storage of data and favor reliability and cost/TB, not for constant operations with data that demand performance - that's SAN.

[Unix]

Hybrids (not just SSD/HDD but in general) are always a compromise - you get some of the both worlds, but it's never the best of them. So you end up with a sub-par SSD, faster than HDD but 1/2 of the performance of the top pure SSDs. And HDD with a limited capacity and again sub-par performance.

My personal setup involves 1x256GB Samsung 840 Pro (one of the best SSDs in both performance and £/GB) and 3x3TB Seagate Baracuda 7200 HDDs (again one of the best HDDs in both performance and £/GB)

And it's not like i have to constantly shuffle files around on a daily basis in order to keep it optimized - it's straight-forward is the best way to do it even on pure HDD - OS+Applications+Games go to the C:\ that is the SSD, Downloads,Music,Video,.ISO etc go to the D:\ drive

Performance wise beats any Hybrid



I meant why would you need the performance gain offered by SSD (hybrid or native) at a price premium on a NAS. By definition NAS is for storage of data and favor reliability and cost/TB, not for constant operations with data that demand performance - that's SAN.

I have the same SSD on my custom build desktop, everything loads instantly with 16GB ram also I can run a few virtual machines easily.

[d000hg]

But even if I use a large file regularly for a few days I still have the "higher level" knowledge that I wont be using it regularly in the future, so I don't want it swapping out other files from SSD. An algorithm can never have the knowledge and therefore will always be suboptimal.

Yes but most of the time it will be right.

I don't think the argument is even if a 256Gb SSD + 1Tb spinny drive is better than a 1Tb hybrid. It's if a 1Tb hybrid is the best option for the price. If you buy a 16Gb SSD your approach simply won't work because you won't ever move things between disks and it will.

It's a compromise by design, but for instance in a MacMini or most laptops you can't physically fit two drives in.