backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by Alpha4.. on Jul 17 at 12:07 PM


Ridata MLC 128GB SSD
Ridata 128GB SSD uses MLC technology and will retail for $537

SSDs still have a way to go before they are on par with traditional hard drives as far as price and storage capacity goes. Ridata, however, today announced three new SSDs that are at least helping to push the price barrier down to more affordable levels.

The new Ridata SSDs use multi-level cell (MLC) technology that allows the storage of two data bits per cell making for fast read and write speeds with low power consumption. Low power consumption is the key to longer battery life in a notebook and utility savings in the enterprise environment.

The line of SSDs is called the Ridata Ultra-S Plus series and will be available in 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB capacities. The drives have a mean time between failure of 4,000,000 hours and data integrity is enhanced with static wear leveling and Reed-Solomon ECC. Ridata says that SMART features work to provide a write endurance cycle of up to 1,000,000 times depending on the drive capacity.

According to Ridata, the drives have a read speed of 128MB/sec and a write speed of 80MB/sec.

The Ridata SSDs connect to notebooks and PCs via a traditional SATA connection. The line of drives will be available in late July and according to Engadget; the 32GB SSD will sell for $169.90, the 64GB for $294.90, and the 128GB will sell for $537.90.

The pricing for the 32GB is right in line with OCZ's new Core Series SSDs, however, the 64GB and 128GB models are a bit more expensive. Samsung announced a line of SSDs that also use MLC technology in July.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

correction
By Andypro on 7/16/2008 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 4
Power consumption is quoted at 5 volts

Don't know who's to blame here, but power is measured in watts.




RE: correction
By Screwballl on 7/16/2008 12:45:24 PM , Rating: 5
yeah the failboat has been sailing daily here at DT


RE: correction
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 12:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair, the line DOES say "quoted" :p


RE: correction
By Clauzii on 7/16/2008 11:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right. It's total valid saying "quoted at 5 volts. Though I think that "rated @ 5 volts" would be more correct. No nitpicking needed here :)


RE: correction
By lexluthermiester on 7/16/2008 11:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it has, not only have things gotten a bit sloppy as of late, but DailyTech is actively censoring PUBLIC posts, a highly dubious and distasteful practice. I've lost respect for DailyTech as a result...


RE: correction
By MamiyaOtaru on 7/17/2008 12:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
"censoring public posts" .. as opposed to?

Anyway, you're obviously free to disagree with a policy of censoring things, but it's their site. No first amendment rights here :)


RE: correction
By lexluthermiester on 7/17/2008 12:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, you're obviously free to disagree with a policy of censoring things, but it's their site. No first amendment rights here :)


That is not entirely true. No one may agree to forfeit or by contract[or in this case "terms of service" agreement] sign away certain statutory rights. Also, by allowing anyone from the general public to post on the site, they agree by proxy and default to allow free expression of opinion. To censor such opinion is at the least exceptionally distasteful and at the most[in some countries] unlawful.

Am I going to sue DailyTech for censoring my comments? No, and mostly because I was not the only one censored, the OP and all of his/her posts were deleted. My comment was only a reply and was not the target of the censorship. Yet my comments were a victim of said censorship and I am understandably displeased about it.


RE: correction
By Visual on 7/17/2008 2:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
I am not aware of any censoring. What do you mean?
I hope you are not referring to the comment ratings - because they are not determined by dailytech but by the users, and they are not preventing any comments from being displayed either.


me so happy
By vapore0n on 7/16/2008 1:03:28 PM , Rating: 5
hmm, I smell 32gbx2 raid 0 for OS drive for next year :)




RE: me so happy
By Souka on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: me so happy
By HakonPCA on 7/16/2008 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
wow...joke's getting old, please come up with something new.


RE: me so happy
By Alexstarfire on 7/16/2008 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
Like what? Vista takes up the most space out of all OSes. Give us something that uses more space and we'll use that as a reference.

God, I hope this doesn't start something lame.


RE: me so happy
By Oroka on 7/16/2008 11:05:26 PM , Rating: 3
Oh noes, Vista uses up 10GB of my 1000GB... time to go cut myself. Oh noes, Vista needs 2gb of RAM to run smooth, OMG, I can get 8GB for $100, but actually using my hardware to improve performance = Fail

WTF is with all these emo nerds these days? Geeze.


RE: me so happy
By CSMR on 7/17/2008 12:01:05 AM , Rating: 1
Right but your 1000Gb is a regular HDD. If you want to use a low-capacity SSD, e.g. for HTPC use, then in deciding what OS to use space may be a factor.


RE: me so happy
By Clauzii on 7/17/2008 12:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well, since these drives are minimum 32 GB, You'll just HAVE to live with 64 total.

Or wait till Windows 9 ;)


RE: me so happy
By masouth on 7/17/2008 5:37:27 AM , Rating: 1
The hardware makes the joke not only lame but out of place as well.

Smallest HD they are making (per the article) is 32GB
RAID is going to require at least 2 HDD

So 64 GB is the absolute smallest RAID array you could make.

OS = 10GB? array will be 64 GB
OS = 1GB? array will be 64 GB
OS = 10MB? array will be 64 GB

Picking up the trend here? Lame joke...


RE: me so happy
By Alpha4 on 7/17/2008 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OS = 10GB? array will be 64 GB

I'm confused. Would you happen to mean if OS = 10GB then array = 54GB ?


Something curious
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/16/2008 4:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've never been pro RAID 0 in mechanical drives because of the obvious increase in failure probability while providing little to no benefits in most real like applications.

But thinking about SSDs, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, I start thinking that in SSDs a RAID 0 could actually be the other way around:

My argument:

A mechanical drive's MTBF has to be based on the MTBF of its weakest mechanical component.
But on an SSD, the MTBF has to be more related to cells starting to fail after a certain count of write cycles, because that, with today's SSD technology, should happen quite before the other electronic elements of an SSD just dies of old age.

With this in mind, if you make a RAID 0 of 2 SSDs, you'd be using half the cells on each drive in every write operation, than you would if you had a single, twice the size drive.

Plus, performance benefits have to be better in an SSD RAID 0 as there are no mechanical heads to be synchronized, you just issue a write command to the same absolute memory location, simultaneously to both drives.

In mechanical HDDs this can't happen because, in a RAID 0 configuration, it doesn't matter how many sectors you write, it matters that the plate is spinning and that you make the heads move.

Please, tell me were my flaw is right before I take my wallet out and go get a RAID 0 with 4 of these drives :D




RE: Something curious
By kake on 7/16/2008 5:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
There are very few situations where RAID 0 is of a performance advantage. Gaming systems have been shown to see minimal (1-2%) increases, and in some tests have actually given decreased performance.

Most performance bottlenecks are not located in the storage subsystem for the average, or even enthusiast system. Even RAM cards have had little impact on the speed of most gaming systems (sadly).

Take the thousand dollars for two 128GB SSD's and spend that on processor, RAM, or video card and it is a much better appropriation of funds.


RE: Something curious
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/16/2008 7:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you're right, but anyway my main point was not about performance, but about durability :D

If you read back my post, I was basically saying that in a RAID 0 of normal HDDs, the probability of data loss is greater than for any single disk, but that some factors made me think that in the case of SSDs, a RAID 0 might actually help enhance the lifespan of your data. :D

I know it's my fault, as I tend to express myself in a pretty much disordered manner, and sometimes I even go back and forth through different subjects in a single paragraph...
Then add the fact that English is not my natural language, and voilâ, there you have a quite potentially confusing and even obscure writing combo.


RE: Something curious
By lexluthermiester on 7/17/2008 12:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you read back my post, I was basically saying that in a RAID 0 of normal HDDs, the probability of data loss is greater than for any single disk, but that some factors made me think that in the case of SSDs, a RAID 0 might actually help enhance the lifespan of your data. :D


DeepBlue1975, Based on the info of how SSD's and standard HDD's work, your assessment seems sound. It would be interesting to see some testing results on this point of view.

quote:
I know it's my fault, as I tend to express myself in a pretty much disordered manner, and sometimes I even go back and forth through different subjects in a single paragraph... Then add the fact that English is not my natural language, and voilâ, there you have a quite potentially confusing and even obscure writing combo.


I understood you perfectly. Your english skills are better than you give yourself credit for and greatly better than many of the posters on DailyTech. LOL!


RE: Something curious
By lexluthermiester on 7/17/2008 12:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
I have two 250GB Sata2 Samsung drives in a Raid 0 and I would only change this config to increase the number of drives. This Raid 0 array boots Windows faster and cuts load times for EVERY app[including games] I own nearly in half. Once loaded the games run the same, but no one who is "in the know" sets up a Raid array to improve their frame rates. They do it to improve read/write performance. So if DeepBlue1975 has the money, he/she should invest in a pair[or quad] of SSD's, if they so desire. I am personally thinking of a Raid 5 with four of the OCZ 64GB drives. But that's just me. DeepBlue1975, wisdom would suggest that if you wish to get into the SSD game, buy two 64GB drives and wait on bigger drives until the prices come down[which they always do]. Use a standard HDD for storage and Raid the SSD's to give you the load time advantage for games and other load time sensitive apps. Up to you really.


RE: Something curious
By Bladen on 7/17/2008 4:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
I would imagine that solid state drives, like all electronic devices, are susceptible to complete device failure.


pricing?
By johnsonx on 7/16/2008 12:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That pricing makes them more expensive than the line of SSDs introduced recently by OCZ.

The prices for the OCZ SSDs quoted in the linked article are higher than the prices quoted for the new Ridata units.

Is that a typo then? Or, i the price of the OCZ units are now lower, please elaborate.




RE: pricing?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2008 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ridata: $169.90, $294.90, $537.90
OCZ: $169.00, $259.00, $479.00

The OCZ units have always been quoted at that price.


RE: pricing?
By johnsonx on 7/16/2008 9:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
ah, yes, sorry, I just re-read the linked article about the OCZ drives again (for the third time), and finally realized I was looking at the prices for the Supertalent drives, which were then undercut by the OCZ drives a paragraph or two further down.

My bad, move along, nothing to see here...


RE: pricing?
By Clauzii on 7/17/2008 12:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes - that the OCZ's are cheaper :)


PATA SSD's?
By chronicfudk on 7/16/2008 6:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
I know, I know....old interface that's slow. But that's what I have. A dell d430, with a 1.8" pata (I think zif) interface. I really want an ssd, the 1.8" HD it came with is painfully slow, so I think an SSD would be the perfect upgrade. Anyone know of any new SSD's coming out that will support the old interface? I think the first mac book air's used this interface as well, maybe they'd like a faster cheap drive too. Seems like every new ssd that gets announced supports only sata2. Or is there an adapter I could squeeze into my small laptop?




The future...
By Clauzii on 7/17/2008 12:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
... looks small, fast and silent. Gotta love that.




One more year
By Frallan on 7/17/2008 5:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
Just 1 year or so then Ill hop on the bandwagon. I have a 160 GB HDD now in my Lappy I want a 256 and at around 200-250 USD. Which is where this will bee in a year or so if this continues :)

/Frallan




Low Cost?
By Alexstarfire on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Low Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2008 12:32:14 PM , Rating: 3
Just because OCZ has a new line of SSDs that are a bit cheaper doesn't mean that these aren't "low cost" compared to what have been available previously at these speeds and capacity levels.

Just because a Chevrolet Aveo is lower-priced than a Honda Fit doesn't mean that the Fit isn't a relatively "low cost" automobile.


RE: Low Cost?
By tastyratz on 7/16/2008 1:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
speeds?

That's one thing I was curious about but there's no mention of projected speed in the article for comparison to other alternatives.


RE: Low Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2008 1:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Reads: 128MB/sec
Writes: 80MB/sec

Not bad, not bad at all.


RE: Low Cost?
By Suomynona on 7/16/2008 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
The quoted specs sound good, but Ridata's quality track record isn't the greatest.


RE: Low Cost?
By Clauzii on 7/17/2008 12:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing I know them for is REC CD's. Haven't used them though..


nice
By RU482 on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: nice
By Alpha4 on 7/17/2008 12:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that to emphasize vibration and shock resistance is very unnecessary at this point, but I think you got downrated for the harshness of your words. Just an FYI ;)


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki