Just a heads up to avoid it for now:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... rives.html
re; Seagate Momentus SSD 'hybrid'
Re: re; Seagate Momentus SSD 'hybrid'
I think seagate ate something which was bad for them. (maxtor)
Re: re; Seagate Momentus SSD 'hybrid'
I have bought 1 Seagate (7200.12) since the 'firmware debacle' but for the most part my money is going to WD for desktop drives & WD or Hitachi for mobile...
Still waiting for my $1.50-$2/GB 250GB+ SSD's to come my way
Still waiting for my $1.50-$2/GB 250GB+ SSD's to come my way
Re: re; Seagate Momentus SSD 'hybrid'
Just thought I'd add my experience of XL.
I too was surprised at how little improvement I saw using this drive for sampled content.
So I used it as a Boot drive on my 32bit DAW and after 6 boots it showed the LBA was fetching the instructions from the NAND so its a great OS+Apps drive.
However, I have a Corsair 128GB SSD that increased polyphony and showed improvement but I was surprised at my friends 64MB cache 7200 and 10k 64MB cache drives performance....
I now have come to the conclusion since our apps are based on Random reads, not sequential reads, so the synthetic benchmarks that market the SSD's looks impressive but in real world usage a 380MBps is really more like 240-60MBps for streaming/RAM based sample players.
This leads me to believe that its the cache size and access times that benefit us most.
I have never really thought much of RAID but did try it using Gigastudio and noticed that the extra seeking heads raised Gigas poly from 400-600, but this was uneeded as Giga already worked fine w/o the extra poly.
Since Kontakt and PLAY are nowhere near as efficient as Giga was, and also way more complex scripting, etc. I believe that I will try an experiement on my recording DAW since I don't use it live.
The XL 250's are 90 bucks a pop and the read cache is actually 4GB's of NAND. So while a single drive might not yeild much difference I think having 4 x of these in a RAID 0 config would have 4 x controllers and 4 x seeking heads. I am splitting the costs with a friend but if this works out right, it means an entire template of sampled instruments can be used w/ high polyphony and all in a single take.
I too was surprised at how little improvement I saw using this drive for sampled content.
So I used it as a Boot drive on my 32bit DAW and after 6 boots it showed the LBA was fetching the instructions from the NAND so its a great OS+Apps drive.
However, I have a Corsair 128GB SSD that increased polyphony and showed improvement but I was surprised at my friends 64MB cache 7200 and 10k 64MB cache drives performance....
I now have come to the conclusion since our apps are based on Random reads, not sequential reads, so the synthetic benchmarks that market the SSD's looks impressive but in real world usage a 380MBps is really more like 240-60MBps for streaming/RAM based sample players.
This leads me to believe that its the cache size and access times that benefit us most.
I have never really thought much of RAID but did try it using Gigastudio and noticed that the extra seeking heads raised Gigas poly from 400-600, but this was uneeded as Giga already worked fine w/o the extra poly.
Since Kontakt and PLAY are nowhere near as efficient as Giga was, and also way more complex scripting, etc. I believe that I will try an experiement on my recording DAW since I don't use it live.
The XL 250's are 90 bucks a pop and the read cache is actually 4GB's of NAND. So while a single drive might not yeild much difference I think having 4 x of these in a RAID 0 config would have 4 x controllers and 4 x seeking heads. I am splitting the costs with a friend but if this works out right, it means an entire template of sampled instruments can be used w/ high polyphony and all in a single take.