Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
evistin
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 01:13:00 -
[1]
Just wondering
Linkage
I am not sure where the Bottle neck for eve is, but I am sure this will help out somewhere. ------------------- Management and Leadership û The Eve-online Guide |
Kuang Jao
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 07:51:00 -
[2]
It's a nice idea, and a good effort on the jump to solid state, but for gaming, I don't see it doing a whole ton for you. Maybe a slightly decreased load time. Besides, in eve were usually waiting on the server anyway :P I think 2-4gb solid state storage integrated into standard hdds is the next step. A bootable solid state specifically for the os.
|
Sphit Ker
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 02:06:00 -
[3]
From my understanding it will not improve too much, yet. Even tho they say DDR2 can transfer 1.6GB/s, it is using SATA interface which is limited (?) to 150MB/s. I think not an improvement in loading times but data blocks will copy faster for sure, within itself.
|
Karador
Legionari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 10:05:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:51 Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:04 Well, look at how fast an Ethernet Interface (at best) is = 10 MBit (1 Gbit and 10 Gbit cards are still not wide used. Not yet.). That's a whooping 1.2 M/sec (theoretical) tranfer rate. Do your own math. Then you'll see where the problem "lies". Until we get (in general) faster and "fatter pipes" (as our american "friends" like to call it) that is going to be the real bottleneck. Sure, Solid State ram is not going to be without use, but don't expect miracles.
|
evistin
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 00:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Karador Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:51 Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:04 Well, look at how fast an Ethernet Interface (at best) is = 10 MBit (1 Gbit and 10 Gbit cards are still not wide used. Not yet.). That's a whooping 1.2 M/sec (theoretical) tranfer rate. Do your own math. Then you'll see where the problem "lies". Until we get (in general) faster and "fatter pipes" (as our american "friends" like to call it) that is going to be the real bottleneck. Sure, Solid State ram is not going to be without use, but don't expect miracles.
I think you have a confusing here, the ethernet is rated in megabits, while the sata is rated in megabytes.
8 bits make a byte. ------------------- Management and Leadership û The Eve-online Guide |
Karador
Legionari
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:21:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Karador on 05/09/2006 08:26:11 Edited by: Karador on 05/09/2006 08:25:50 Edited by: Karador on 05/09/2006 08:24:27
Originally by: evistin
Originally by: Karador Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:51 Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:04 Well, look at how fast an Ethernet Interface (at best) is = 10 MBit (1 Gbit and 10 Gbit cards are still not wide used. Not yet.). That's a whooping 1.2 M/sec (theoretical) tranfer rate. Do your own math. Then you'll see where the problem "lies". Until we get (in general) faster and "fatter pipes" (as our american "friends" like to call it) that is going to be the real bottleneck. Sure, Solid State ram is not going to be without use, but don't expect miracles.
I think you have a confusing here, the ethernet is rated in megabits, while the sata is rated in megabytes.
8 bits make a byte.
Try this simple equation => (10 Mbit/sec) / 8 bit and see what it gives. Yep, 1.25 megabytes / second. It's that easy. If you don't beleive me, try this search on Google: 10 megabit/sec to megabyte/sec
|
postbote
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 08:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Karador Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:51 Edited by: Karador on 04/09/2006 10:09:04 Well, look at how fast an Ethernet Interface (at best) is = 10 MBit (1 Gbit and 10 Gbit cards are still not wide used. Not yet.). That's a whooping 1.2 M/sec (theoretical) tranfer rate. Do your own math. Then you'll see where the problem "lies". Until we get (in general) faster and "fatter pipes" (as our american "friends" like to call it) that is going to be the real bottleneck. Sure, Solid State ram is not going to be without use, but don't expect miracles.
don't forget that is base speed today is Fast Ethernet (100MBit/s which results in about 11-12.5Mbyte/s)
|
evistin
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.09.05 13:52:00 -
[8]
Karador,
I am well aware of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA
You will find that Sata is considerable faster than your fast ethernet anyday.
------------------- Management and Leadership û The Eve-online Guide |
Miner Nilt
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 17:19:00 -
[9]
Originally by: postbote don't forget that is base speed today is Fast Ethernet (100MBit/s which results in about 11-12.5Mbyte/s)
While that may be true on a LAN you're forgetting that the bottleneck is the connection to the Internet. If you've got a 100 Bit connection then you're correct but how many of us are that lucky? That's sort of a side issue, though.
The real issue here is that the solid state RAM disk linked by the OP is limited by the SATA Interface, not the speed of RAM. I didn't see that mentioned in the article but that's how it is. Considering most hard drives are now capable of a full 3 GB/s I don't think you'll see any real performance gain aside from the access times themselves. Overall throughput will depend on the access method used; that's the SATA port in this case.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |