This is pretty mad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs

Samsung brand...


jasus.

Quote from LFSn00b :

How about you go sit in the corner and think why you're dumb.

nah.


Samsung = aoc/tevion/aldi

Got any proof for that?

Quote from LFSn00b :

Ontopic now, sheesh that's really neat! wish i could do something like that

Got about 20 grand, then you can lol

Finally a box that will run GTA4 at a decent FPS! (maybe!)

Quote from Bladerunner :

Finally a box that will run GTA4 at a decent FPS! (maybe!)

Lol.

Haha that was pretty funny, especially the defrag bit, if only defrag was that fast on my PC.

Quote from Jakg :

Got any proof for that?

buy samsung phones, tvs etc and you'll know.


their customer service is good, but their products...

id rather Super Aids.

I posted the following on [H]ardForum a while ago:

Quote from amp88 :

Just saw this video (also available in HD) where Samsung have created a setup to show off the power of their SSDs. Something similar to the older Battleship mtron system. Presumably they're at the limit of the controller rather than the drives (linear scaling should give 4+ GB/sec). The controller is an Areca 1680ix-24 with an Intel IOP348 @ 1200MHz (specs here).

For anyone who's not technically minded let me explain what I said above. Using a practice called RAID0 you can link together a number of hard drives so that they appear to the operating system as if they're actually one hard drive. There are a few benefits of this but the major one is that you get increased performance. Instead of just writing data to or reading data from one drive, you're doing it to more than one. This means you can read/write a lot faster than to a single drive. When you use normal mechanical hard drives (ones with spinning platters and moving heads) the scaling you get (i.e. the difference in read/write with many drives) doesn't scale as you would expect. If you put 2 drives together you don't usually get twice the read/write speed. With SSDs the scaling is much better and you would get very close to twice the speed. With 24 drives linked together (as in the video in this thread) you would expect the total speed to be roughly 24 times that of a single drive, but the results 'only' show about a ten time increase in performance. This is because of the controller card they're using to link up all the drives. The controller card is responsible for deciding how to read/write data from/to the drives and in this extreme case it cannot cope with the speed of the drives. The card used is a very high end model, but if it were to be upgraded you would see even higher numbers from this build.

Quote from amp88 :

I posted the following on [H]ardForum a while ago:



For anyone who's not technically minded let me explain what I said above. Using a practice called RAID0 you can link together a number of hard drives so that they appear to the operating system as if they're actually one hard drive. There are a few benefits of this but the major one is that you get increased performance. Instead of just writing data to or reading data from one drive, you're doing it to more than one. This means you can read/write a lot faster than to a single drive. When you use normal mechanical hard drives (ones with spinning platters and moving heads) the scaling you get (i.e. the difference in read/write with many drives) doesn't scale as you would expect. If you put 2 drives together you don't usually get twice the read/write speed. With SSDs the scaling is much better and you would get very close to twice the speed. With 24 drives linked together (as in the video in this thread) you would expect the total speed to be roughly 24 times that of a single drive, but the results 'only' show about a ten time increase in performance. This is because of the controller card they're using to link up all the drives. The controller card is responsible for deciding how to read/write data from/to the drives and in this extreme case it cannot cope with the speed of the drives. The card used is a very high end model, but if it were to be upgraded you would see even higher numbers from this build.

is their an acutal limit to the amount of HD you can provide... i know power, sockets etc have their limit, but is that card the Only realistic limit ?

Quote from theirishnoob :

is their an acutal limit to the amount of HD you can provide... i know power, sockets etc have their limit, but is that card the Only realistic limit ?

Do you mean the number of drives you can use in an array (i.e. in the original link in this thread there are 24 drives in 1 array)? The obvious answer is that you can use as many drives as there are ports on the RAID controller card (the Samsung system has 24 ports, most cheaper cards will have 2, 4 or 8). I don't honestly know if you can "team" up two or more controller cards (so you could have a 48 drive array, for example).

Reading this thread is making me do this---->

Well back on topic, I can't believe he had the time and money in order to do this. I really wish I had both because my computer is a bunch of crap, and it even has upgrades!

Quote from GrIp DrIvEr :

I can't believe he had the time and money in order to do this.

He didn't. The company he works for (Samsung) did.

Quote from amp88 :

I don't honestly know if you can "team" up two or more controller cards (so you could have a 48 drive array, for example).

Yes you can - but it gets impractical. I know someone who had so many HDD's each one had to start a second or so apart because HDD's suck up so much juice when they spin up for the first time - which meant his PC took almost 2 minutes before it even got past the controllers booting...

Quote from Jakg :

Yes you can - but it gets impractical. I know someone who had so many HDD's each one had to start a second or so apart because HDD's suck up so much juice when they spin up for the first time - which meant his PC took almost 2 minutes before it even got past the controllers booting...

Ah, cool. Staggered spin-up is actually pretty common in RAID controllers (even cheaper ones). My RAID controller has the capability to do it and it isn't that expensive. I don't use it because I have a dedicated PSU, but if I had a large number of drives in the main PC (10+ in a Coolermaster Stacker, for example) I would definitely use it. Better to take a few seconds extra at start-up than to overload the PSU with 3+ Amps per drive at spin-up.

Quote :

(the Samsung system has 24 ports, most cheaper cards will have 2, 4 or 8)

Actually, it had 8 onboard ports and a RAID controller with 16 ports, the system shown has two distinct arrays, a C: and a D: drive. what you are seeing is the performance of the D: drive (no OS) with 16 drives, with Windows operating on it's own 8 drive array. This is why it's not 24x the speed...

I've had RAID + SLi on my home system before (not with 24 drives mind you) and i'll never do it again, RAID 0 is just too unreliable. Hard drives are one of the most common failure points in a computer on account of the number of moving parts, SSD's fix that but are a newer and still developing technology, having a RAID 0 stripe of two drives doubles the chance of failure, add in rare but ocassional controller crashes, and the chance of failure becomes very real.

RAID10 is the best way to go for a multi-drive setup, which uses a combination of striping and mirroring to provide data redundancy so that the RAID can keep on going in times of failure, although check your controller, as some controllers will simply halt operations until the failed drive is replaced.

Because of this, I would not recommend a RAID10 build unless you also purchase a spare drive with which to install a replacement should 1 fail. Also the economics of data redundancy mean it does not really yield power and performance at an economical price until you reach a 4 drive configuration.

SLi is similarly a waste of time, graphics technology doubles in speed every 6 months or so which means unless you intend to purchase two top of the line cards every 6 months you are leaving yourself with an upgrade dilema later on. It does not make power-versus-price sense to run two cards which are not top of the line, and whilst the top of the line keeps moving ever forwards as one of the fastest developing areas of technology, SLi just is not worth it.

As for Samsung, well I use a lot of Samsung stuff myself. I tend to buy stuff that is middle to high end and Samsung always seem to come in at the best spec/price for what i'm looking for. I'm not brand centric, I look at performance and price and I keep on ending up with Samsung gear. None of it has ever failed.

Quote from theirishnoob :

buy samsung phones, tvs etc and you'll know.


their customer service is good, but their products...

id rather Super Aids.

Samsung make what is widely regarded to be the best line of PC Monitors available - without spending ££££'s for a 100 inch curved one.

If you buy cheap electrical's from any manufacturer, they're going to be crap - not just the ones from Samsung.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Actually, it had 8 onboard ports and a RAID controller with 16 ports, the system shown has two distinct arrays, a C: and a D: drive. what you are seeing is the performance of the D: drive (no OS) with 16 drives, with Windows operating on it's own 8 drive array. This is why it's not 24x the speed...

I hadn't seen that. I thought they were using the 24 port model rather than the 16.

Quote from Becky Rose :

RAID10 is the best way to go for a multi-drive setup, which uses a combination of striping and mirroring to provide data redundancy so that the RAID can keep on going in times of failure, although check your controller, as some controllers will simply halt operations until the failed drive is replaced.

Because of this, I would not recommend a RAID10 build unless you also purchase a spare drive with which to install a replacement should 1 fail. Also the economics of data redundancy mean it does not really yield power and performance at an economical price until you reach a 4 drive configuration

I'd rather have a RAID6 or RAID60 myself, given the option. I currently have a RAID5 but without a hot spare it's quite a bit riskier than a RAID6 would be. When I was looking RAID6 controllers were quite a bit more expensive than RAID5 controllers and I couldn't afford to 'lose' the extra disk to distributed parity that 6 causes over 5. If/when I get a chance to upgrade in the future I'll probably go for larger drives, keep the RAID5 and use one of the new drives as a hot spare. Saves upgrading the controller card that way.

That's pretty insane, specially the defrag part. God knows how many hours mine tok.. impressive.

looks nice.

Quote from The Very End :

That's pretty insane, specially the defrag part.

If they'd had defragmented the drive 5 mins earlier, I'm not surprised it was so fast to run.

I'll agree on that, but still it's pretty wicked performance. Specially those 53 programs on 18 seconds was kind of nice in my eyes. My computer would be happy if it would manage to open LFS on 30