I thought Sata 3 6gb speeds were incredible, until

[Amon]

I bought an ADATA SX8200PNP Pro, 2TB M.2 nvme drive. I thought everything was super fast on my standard SAMSUNG 870 EVO SATA SSD but this NVME drive has a performance boost like I never imagined.

If you have the latest Gen4 PCIE M.2 slot then I highly recommend getting one of these with the read/write ops through the roof. Everything absolutely blinks with speed.

[Derron]

Yeah ... and with increasing internet connection speeds you are in need to be able to handle incoming gbits.


Remember when you had your first CD RW ... a whopping 700 MB - and 750 were also possible, price only 10DM at start - later 50's pack for a handful of coins. Then you laughed at 4.3 GB DVD discs ... absurd prices - later for 4.3 GB RW (once everybody had a DVD Recorder as "give away" for 20 euro per drive).
Then they started to increase USB Stick-Size and they became affordable (now: 5 eur for 64gb ...). Same to say for (micro)-SDCards.

Man and I wrote my videos to DV-Tapes (which already was "digital").

For hard discs the same: PATA/IDE -> SATA -> SATA-SSDs and now the next connection method.

Am pretty happy to see that the "AM4" thingy accepts so many CPU types. Hate to see how each Intel CPU requires its own chipset - how many man hours are lost for doing this idiocrazy thing?


Wonder if with the speed possible other the internet the technics to save data ("storage") will change too. Data centers might be able to host storages not feasible for "home environments".  Especially with a lot of "redundant" data this saves a lot of resources (if all want the same audio file of an artist, why have it stored 1 million times?).


BTW I think I will skip "nvme drives" or only buy one if they became the "cheap option" to the next big thing. SSD is already pretty fast for me and I only have 1gbit LAN which my drives can already bring to its limit. My Cat 6e cables should be able to do more but the hardware for switches ... no need to invest in something which is not really required (yet).



bye
Ron

[Qube]

Modern quality SSD's have crazy speeds which is great as they are so much faster than spinning hard drives and a great cheap OS upgrade path. I still use the older style hard drives for storing certain data and OS backups as the price ratio between those and SSD's for that type of scenario is a no brainer.

[Qube]

Remember when you had your first CD RW ... a whopping 700 MB

My first one was a SCSI CDROM requiring a stupid big wide cable. My first CD/RW was a pile of junk that failed more often when writing discs than I care to remember. The amount of times I went "Oh well, that's another coffee coaster" was crazy.

[blinkok]

i used to work with these hard drives

[Xerra]

Remember when you had your first CD RW ... a whopping 700 MB

My first one was a SCSI CDROM requiring a stupid big wide cable. My first CD/RW was a pile of junk that failed more often when writing discs than I care to remember. The amount of times I went "Oh well, that's another coffee coaster" was crazy.

I remember having one of the first CDR drives back in the mid 90's. I had some software that I could use for backing up CD's that used to work fine on the DOS version but would always fail around 10 mins in if you were burning with the Win95 version. Took me nearly a month to twig that it was the power saving settings in Windows that were causing it to coaster a CD back then :-)

[Naughty Alien]

..for things im working with, 64Kb is still considered a lot..   

[Derron]

..for things im working with, 64Kb is still considered a lot..   

Only 8 Kilobytes? Already run into issues putting everything into 64 kB (or here more exactly real 64 KiB)
Think it depends on whether you have to put in your own firmware or if this is just the memory for you to store stuff in.



@ SCSI and 10MB hdd
Still have my Iomega-Zip-Predecessor lying around - Borsu drive with 20MB per "disc"
#
it looks similar to this - but format was kind of 5 1/4 inch and only 20 MB fit on it.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_Box#/media/File:Bernoulli230.jpg

Had such small hdd later on too - but on our first "intel PC" at home (486 33mhz dx) we already had a 40mb disc (which we split into "OS", "Tools" and "Games" - including the according DOS configuration for as much free memory as possible - later with extended memory setup then). Hah the times of finding a smaller/lighter mouse.com file to save a bit of conventional RAM - if I remember correctly we had about 612 KB free). On the 286 in the shop of my father we were still playing Civ 1 ... albeit it also only had 20mb.

All the way better than having the music tapes to store your software (like on the KC85/4 we had in the GDR to play with - if you got one and were able to afford it).


bye
Ron

[Naughty Alien]

..hehehe..yes..current hardware(oil rig related) has EEPROM of only 32KBits, which is some mighty 4KB..its still more than enough to store various settings for MCU to operate..largest one i have seen installed was 256KBits(32KB), but of course, there is larger capacity EEPROMS, but in reality, usually is more than sufficient for various configuration, mapping, and so on..funny to see large vessels operate on such 'puny' devices..   

[Derron]

Ahh so only config/data storage. that explains it. Think in what I've programmed so far the datasets (available to be fetched from "attached" (serial, bluetooth, ...) devices) were also small enough to fit easily into a 4 Kib data frame).

But sooner or later more data can be fetched by hardware in "one shot" so data increases there too - some newer devices (powered by bigger chips ) collect some hundred of thousand bytes per frame - and you need to have some buffer if message transport fails ...


bye
Ron