Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FBz]

Silver and I are currently enjoying a little vacation (out on the pampas) from the now more-traditional SSD bridge adapters (and their comparative performance) as “we” await the arrival of the ridiculously, low-low priced (other) green ones from China. AND while the M.2 SSDs and their adapters are related, I believe their inclusion here [ http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5447.0.html ] is a slight deviation from the originally intended focus (of the now more-traditional, more common & standard SSDs). But, perhaps that’s ultimately up to MacTron or DieHard to determine this.
“Topic: List of SSDs that works with Mac Os 9”

Thusly, I too now digress - further (again).

Given their (the M.2 variant) reportedly offers 7X faster speed AND the need for yet another type of adapter… their overall sum implementation cost per MB / GB might also factor into their inclusion? Again, they are related  but at - and by what distance… against comparative cost vs. performance?

i.e. If they are more expensive (2.5X more expensive?) it’s doubtful that I’ll spring for one or two.

“however, as soon as fury arrives in town he has to add the "dual" solution to current line of adapter investigations.” [My friend IIO.]

Nope, not gunna do it. Not in the R&D budget here. As tempting as it might seem… perhaps tunedbytad (or someone else) is in a better position to tackle that comparative investigation effort under a similar topic heading like: IDE/SATA Adapters - ADP-06 / StarTech Etc under General Hardware Discussions - http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5436.0.html (Possible “dual” cable hints included there too. Thanks to GaryN & Caleb!)

AND - if and when it all might eventually come down to a possible shootout / comparison between the more traditional SSDs AND the M.2 SSDs… might I suggest something other than Norton System Tools for the bench tests? While many here still fondly remember the use of Norton Utilities with OS 9… it has “fallen from grace” with many - AFTER the arrival of numerous OS X variants… as it can (and does) cause problems with our dual boot, bi-polar machines.

MacBench or QuickBench? (I’ve forgotten which one MacTron uses.)

There are comparative costs & bench tests around here of an mSATA (sled-mounted) in a Mac Mini from a couple of years back… should anyone care to dig those up… even though they’re not the same as the M.2. (*Merely as a guide for cost vs. performance comparison parameters.)

Of course intrigued here by the M.2 / but not if the cost(s) exceed (by much) the now more-traditional SSD approach. Again, perhaps grist for another topic / thread?

And yes, that limb that I was “out on” earlier… did rather quickly snap.
Mea culpa, mein cowpokes.

[IIO]

hm, the cost argument is not to be underrated - as well as the problem that the sata adapter and mac model someone uses eventually has at least the same influence on the "compatibility" question as the SSD model/name itself.

we´ve called it "OS9 compatibilty list" - but you can not connect an msata/NVMe-only card to a mac mini - there the problem begins.

for the two or three i have compared it, the m.2 version usually is some 5% more expensive. plus you need a case or adapter/bus.
and as you can put 2 of them in these wonderful "dual" cases they are... just a different type of solution.

to sum it up, i agree that the "list" needs limits, but am not sure where to set it. often it is a personal perspective what should be included and what not... in my cerebrum for example the world is limited to technology around G4 processors.

[FBz]

Perhaps a little misunderstood, or unclear? Didn’t mean to exclude them… intention was to restrict expanded convos concerning their use, implemenation, etc. to other more appropriate & separate examination via discussion threads / new topics - AND thusly keep the list as “A List”.

AND yes, cost of necessary cases or adapters need be added to total cost vs. the costs of the more traditional SSDs… and then weighed against each other… comparing “real world” performance of both / all and determining whether or not added costs are truly worth the expense or card slot?

From limited cost comparison checks yesterday, seemed that for same cost of the M.2 variants, one could get double the actual HD storage space with a now traditional SSD? [“Bang for the buck” factor.] And then of course, perhaps there’s the possibility of the bus-speed-bottleneck to consider?

*How fast can you drive your “faster-engined” vehicle down the street with your emergency brake half-engaged?

But yes, I’d like to compare / benchmark them against each other in the same machine - to see if their supposed speed is all that much greater in actual G4 use. For now, quite happy here with the reduced heat and slightly faster speed of the (now) “old” conventional SSD w/ a bridge adapter… over the old spinning platter HDs.

And “newer” (und faster) isn’t always better.
But it could be, I suppose.

Then there’s the SeriTek/1eSE2 $49.95! https://firmtek.stores.yahoo.net/sata1ese2.html mentioned recently by GorfTheChosen to possibly consider too? (Lots of loose SATA drives around here.)

[IIO]

maybe i wanted to misunderstand because i am a bit afraid of "included items pandemic"?

right now the post from diehard is perfectly right, it answers the following questions:

 - which SSD did work for somebody and in what configuration?
 - which SSD did NOT work for somebody and in what configuration?

but i think that after the discussions about cable select vs master/slave, chipsets of converters, PCI cards and mounting options and the quite frequent appearing users with G3s or lower will make a pure listing of all possible SSDs (but of course only in "worked for me in the following configuration) eventually the less interesting information compared to some basic info about "best practice" for certain applications and machines.

resctrictions? hm, i mean you know how it goes, the other day someone starts to include SCSI and windows 98.

[FBz]

 

Perhaps I was not all that clear to begin with.

[IIO]

we should fight over who is more wrong!

no wait, no time for that. i am doing 5 things at a time atm.

[refinery]

in my experience the drives with higher IOPS perform better in our machines, since we're hitting a bandwidth bottleneck. the higher IOPS doesnt make file transfers or copying go faster, but what it does do is allow more things to access the disk at the same time without a performance penalty like you get with traditional spinners.
i have access to a variety of SSDs here and some day I will sit down and do some performance testing between models to see if there's a way i can put what ive observed to tangible measurements.

[Jubadub]

in my experience the drives with higher IOPS perform better in our machines, since we're hitting a bandwidth bottleneck. the higher IOPS doesnt make file transfers or copying go faster, but what it does do is allow more things to access the disk at the same time without a performance penalty like you get with traditional spinners.

Regarding this, it's worth noting that usually our SSDs are what they call "TLC" (i.e. Samsung EVO, DogFish etc.), but even better in this (and durability) are "MLC" SSDs (i.e. Samsung PRO). I have seen SATA MLC SSDs only in the 2.5" form factor, but never mSATA or M.2 (NVMe M.2, on the other hand, is out there, which won't work for us).

Even better than MLC is SLC. However, I have never seen those for ANY SATA interface whatsoever. Also do note that some TLC SSDs have a tiiiiiiny little bit of SLC SSD memory in them for caching ("SLC cache", for short), which tricks some people into thinknig they are buying an actual SLC SSD (they aren't).

SLC SSDs are crazy expensive, though. I think something like 1000 USD for 512GB. And the highest I have seen for sale was up to 1 TB in size.

[refinery]

found an SLC mSATA SSD but wow... $120 for 8GB
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/atp-electronics,-inc./AF8GSSHI-OEM/AF8GSSHI-OEM-ND/3770370?utm_adgroup=Solid%20State%20Drives%20(SSDs)&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping_Memory%20Cards%2C%20Modules_NEW&utm_term=&utm_content=Solid%20State%20Drives%20(SSDs)&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2PP1BRCiARIsAEqv-pQB3lo13c_337tWWN7gEz-zC16gAWgD7UyGPmigt634WpcOnhiM4NsaAjdIEALw_wcB

[refinery]

another thing that occurred to me... its pretty rare for a modern 2.5" SSD to actually occupy the full 2.5" housing... i recently took apart a Samsung 840 Pro 256GB drive to find that the actual PCB only used about half of the drive space. If somebody was comfortable with disassembling and running their SSD without its "case", then you could probably fit it into a laptop using one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/GODSHARK-Laptop-Adapter-Convert-Parallel/dp/B07QN9STY7/

SSD internal size: https://imgur.com/a/ROJXAES

[IIO]

yesterday i tried to open a samsung 840 EVO but i wasnt able to.

"black" sata2m2 case and "white" ide2m2 case are also good solutions when space is low. if they dont fit into somewhere, just leave the case away and attach the card without.

godshark 2,5 IDE to SATA, 10 euro - chipset?

[refinery]

lol some good QC there, look at the top right ATA pin, its clearly bent.

[refinery]

yesterday i tried to open a samsung 840 EVO but i wasnt able to.

there's an additional screw that's under the label, that threw me the first time i took one apart.

[XinSheng]

yesterday i tried to open a samsung 840 EVO but i wasnt able to.

there's an additional screw that's under the label, that threw me the first time i took one apart.

Happens some what commonly with some smaller electronics. At least the screw holes are visible. I spent a good 10-20 minutes once trying to feel out if I could or should just break open a case to get at some boards. I couldn't see any screw holes, and the tension from pulling on it, didn't make it seem like it was a clip on the other side. I had already removed a sticker that had been over it, and almost decided that they must have used the seal that used a hot plastic pin that would just bond with the hole. Thankfully, I took one more closer look at where I could feel where the case was being held together, and found a sticker covering the screw hole that matched the color of the surrounding plastic. Another sticker under a sticker, and thick enough that cursory feel test wouldn't make it seem like there was a screw hole there, or feel the notches in a screw.

[Jubadub]

found an SLC mSATA SSD but wow... $120 for 8GB
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/atp-electronics,-inc./AF8GSSHI-OEM/AF8GSSHI-OEM-ND/3770370?utm_adgroup=Solid%20State%20Drives%20(SSDs)&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping_Memory%20Cards%2C%20Modules_NEW&utm_term=&utm_content=Solid%20State%20Drives%20(SSDs)&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2PP1BRCiARIsAEqv-pQB3lo13c_337tWWN7gEz-zC16gAWgD7UyGPmigt634WpcOnhiM4NsaAjdIEALw_wcB

Wow...

And $900 for 128GB. https://www.digikey.com/products/en?keywords=AF128GSSHI-OEM

That's almost the price of the 4TB version of the Samsung 860 PRO, which is MLC (TLC, and especially QLC, are much lower).

Though we can also see $420 for 100GB, also SLC, in this, although I think this was recorded at a time V-NAND (aka 3D NAND) was still a new thing, which also are sometimes said to be superior in durability, capacity and speed (and price). Though I don't know if V-NAND SLC SSDs were ever made.

SLC should last "for life", though. But damn, most people wouldn't have many means of sustaining their lives anymore after buying one of these!

Though a 128GB SLC SSD would be the ultimate dream for any Mac with the 128GB limit under Mac OS. (I.e. G3 Wallstreet.)

Personally, I "need" at least 1 TB of SSD storage, or else I "can't breathe". (Especially on modern systems.)
On the Mac OS side, having 256GB is essentially "infinite space", though in some cases, such as software archival taken to an extreme level, or when you have 1 billion different installs of Diablo II like I do, it would be desirable to max out each disk slot with the maximum of 2 TB to achieve true "Mac space infinity".

[IIO]

And $900 for 128GB.

if you compare that with oldschool harddrives - for 900 euro you can get a current 16 TB HD - then it is 125 times more expensive.