For those in the market for a solid-state drive, the Kingston SSDNow V300 series offers a 120GB Serial ATA 3.0 SSD for less than $90 USD. How well does this SSD work on Linux? We have benchmarks at Phoronix done under Ubuntu and compared to a range of HDD and SSDs.
It is cheap and a lot faster than a mechanical hard disk drive.
But if you want performance, its the Samsung 840 series.
which is also under $90 USD. I've been runnin 3x120gb samsung 840 evo with 16gb / partition, and 72gb partition for zfs with lz4 compression, and the performance has been damn good. and one of the ssd's can die. i also tried doing raid 10 with zfs by creating two partitions for zfs, (as it doesn't have native support for raid 10 like behaviour on 3 drives), but after further testing, adn the realisation that hardly anything in linux does high queue depth asynchronous random reads i figured that raidz would be "fast enough", and it does seem to be..., and give more storage.
it's hard to benchmark though as the 120gb evo's only have 3gb of turbowrite then go down to 130mb/sec. in "real world usage" for me, with infiniband it seems to keep up copying files over infiniband network from another system with ssd, but that's probably a combination of turbowrite and buffer caches. there's still a bit of read latency going on i think, but i don't notice it, i notice more that i7-4770 (server) is faster than i7-3770 (client).
i normally recommend samsung 840 evo 250gb for medium usage, and samsung 840 evo 120gb for light usage. i assume most people don't really care for 1300mb/sec+ read speeds. but curiously when i was playing with different file systems before using it, i noticed that btrfs couldn't keep up with lzo compression capping out at around ~ 1000mb/sec whereas zfs is capping out at around 2600mb/sec.
My eyes glaze over now when reading SSD reviews now, they're pretty much all the same at around ~500mb/s read. There's some variance, but nothing that's going to make much difference to real-world performance.
The difference between a HDD and an SSD is massive. The difference between a bad SSD and a good SSD is slight (when it comes to recent releases).
Things will only get interesting again once the SATA spec is upgraded, SATA 3 is really crippling progress. That or PCIe SSDs come down in price, or some other interface becomes viable. Whomever does the SATA spec really dropped the ball between versions 2 and 3. At the time, the change from 1 to 2 was fairly redundant. 2 to 3 seemed redundant, but boy did they really misjudge the headroom they needed. A doubling of throughput turned out to be woefully short of requirements.
@mercutio: looks like Samsung does not recommend/support running 840EVOs in RAID, yeah, lol
Regarding Kingston V300 read this post by Maxgadgetguy: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answer....html#11492819
So like buyers beware, I had a China made 120Gb one given as a gift to a friend ( also forced him to upgrade the whole system as we though SATA2 was the issue ) and the store clerk did not even asked my friend why he was returning it, just nodded and asked for a little bit more money for a Kingston HyperX 3K 120Gb that works as expected. I also got 2 more HyperX 3K 120Gb for a RAID0 on a SATA2 system and they get 500MB/s as expected.