IoFX 1.6TB SSD coming this summer

[Jeremy Garchow]

OH NO!

IT’S ONLY 4X PCIE 2.0????

WHAT WILL WE DO????

Sorry, I am being facetious.

[Christian Schumacher]

[Jeremy Garchow] “OH NO!

IT’S ONLY 4X PCIE 2.0????

WHAT WILL WE DO????

Sorry, I am being facetious.”

Hey, I was googling this product and came up with this thread lol! You know what we’ll do Jeremy? We’re putting it into a MacPro. One thing that pertains to this conversation is when browsing their site, I reckoned that all high end cards this company produces were not available to Mac at all. And also noted that those same cards can reach six times Thunderbolt’s maxim speed at 16x PCIE. (but who needs that, right?) Even though today’s MacPros do have these slots, somehow Fusion-io is not supporting them. Well, those cards are excellent companions to maximize GPU processing with their powerful throughput, so it’s not a surprise that Macs are lagging there, really. But it is great news that more companies are supporting MacOS, albeit in a lighter fashion in this particular case. Just don’t put it in TB enclosure! It will be capped at 1.0 GB/s despite going 50% faster than that at a “real” 4x PCIE on a MacPro.

[Jeremy Garchow]

OH NO!!!

1.0 GB/s!!!!

WHAT WILL WE DO WITH THAT TERRIBLE SPEED???? ON A LAPTOP????

I’m being facetious again.

[Christian Schumacher]

[Jeremy Garchow] ” WHAT WILL WE DO WITH THAT TERRIBLE SPEED???? ON A LAPTOP????”

Beyond that you’re capped, just that. It can be really WTF!!! I think, if one is planning on building an array of SSDs, for example, then you’re throwing money away, as they can’t reach the highest speeds they are capable of. See this for reference;

“Like all Thunderbolt devices, the transfer speed of 10 gigabit per second translates to something less than 1000MB/s — even if you load it up with eight 6Gbps SSDs capable of a combined speed of 4000MB/s. And, as you can see, even with eight 6Gbps HDDs capable of a combined speed exceeding 1200MB/s, they don’t come close.”

There’s a typo there, but you get the point, and this;

“SSDs generally handle small random transactions much faster than HDDs. However, in the case of the ARC-8050, the aggregate random transfers per second is so close, one questions the need for solid state drives.”

https://www.barefeats.com/hard167.html

[Jeremy Garchow]

OK. My sarcasm in now off.

You can’t compare a big giant 8 drive array to a little PCIe card.

They are different pieces of gear and will be used in different situations.

Also, you can’t tell me 1.6TBs of really fast SSD storage on a laptop/iMac is not useful.

[Christian Schumacher]

[Jeremy Garchow] ” Also, you can’t tell me 1.6TBs of really fast SSD storage on a laptop/iMac is not useful.”

If you’re willing to accommodate the PCIE enclosure at high dollars, yes! Powerful mobile setup…But why is Apple trying to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist on a desktop computer? I guess they’re not keen on producing true desktop models any longer, so that makes sense. The problem with using those small footprint machines on a facility or office is that you going to have two of each of them in order to realistically service them in case of failure. You see a pattern here? More money for less power. That’s not going to be good for business, I think. Anyway, many MacPros will still walk the earth for the foreseeable future.

[Jeremy Garchow] “You can’t compare a big giant 8 drive array to a little PCIe card.
They are different pieces of gear and will be used in different situations.”

Yes, but a big giant 8 drive array is pretty much aimed at a hungry user. And so is a PCIE SSD module in my understanding, as both are for workstation applications. More to the point, if Fusion-io were to release for Mac their other high end “little card”, for instance, that would be even more comparable. In this scenario the cap would be much higher than the TB array, as it cannot cope with 16x PCIE at 6.0GB/s, so there’s that.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Christian Schumacher] “If you’re willing to accommodate the PCIE enclosure at high dollars, yes! “

If you’re throwing down for the Fusion-io, a PCIe enclosure isn’t going to put you out of business. Let’s keep this conversation real.

[Christian Schumacher] “Powerful mobile setup…But why is Apple trying to solve a problem that simply doesn’t exist on a desktop computer?”

Apple is solving this problem? I thought it was intel. You know why intel is solving this problem? They want to separate server racks with 100 Gbps light pipe interconnect. Sound familiar?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/intel-wants-to-kill-the-traditional-server-rack-with-100gbps-links/

So is this Apple’s problem or intel’s problem? Or is Apple aligning with intel’s technology design?

[Christian Schumacher] “The problem with using those small footprint machines on a facility or office is that you going to have two of each of them in order to realistically service them in case of failure. You see a pattern here? More money for less power.”

I don’t get the math. If a MacPro fails, it costs twice as much to replace is buying a new one. I don’t see how a failed computer you cost you less even if the computer costs more.

[Christian Schumacher] “Yes, but a big giant 8 drive array is pretty much aimed at a hungry user.”

Hungry in a different sense. Someone who is buying a 480GB Fusion-io is probably not looking to buy a 32TB 8 drive TBolt array for the exact same reasons.

[Christian Schumacher] “In this scenario the cap would be much higher than the TB array, as it cannot cope with 16x PCIE at 6.0GB/s, so there’s that.”

Bummer, I guess I’ll have to settle for 1GB/s. I’m not sure if I will be able to make it through my work day.