From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Ramsey <MikeJRamsey@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:20:10 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20090624T021752-858@post.gmane.org>
References: <loom.20090623T024010-331@post.gmane.org> <20090623144123.GB19276@think> <20090623181935.2b01c17d.skraw@ithnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw <at> ithnet.com> writes:

[snip]
> 
> Can someone explain to a quite naive person like me why one should be
> interested in SSDs that perform worse than Intel? Why shouldn't I just buy the
> best-performing product? This is a moving market, and it is obvious that the
> bad performers will be left behind...
> If you really care to fiddle with ssd options then use a real bad hw for
> testing the performance - take an ide interface and connect a CF card.
> This is a common setup for embedded usage and frequently used. Everything in
> between CF and Intel will just be dead before your fs options will become
> really stable. So why loose time with it?
> 

Depends on who you talk to.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ocz-ssd-vertex-intel-solid-state,7127.html

"OCZ Says Its New Vertex SSD Beats Intel's X25-E"

I am not taking sides.  I am just saying that the SSD market is fluid.

--Mike Ramsey