Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED STATION

ORDERED!

Haha, my first RED product. I hope it has a serial number so I can put it in my signature! :P Or maybe in my credits I will put "Captured on Red Station" Hehehe.
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
Ordered as well.

Can someone tell me the difference between 1.8 and 2.5 SSD?
i.e advantages of each?

thanks
Click to expand...

The difference is about 0.7

:) Just kidding! From what I gather, really it looks like size is one of the features, also power, 5V vs 3.3V. Last is the interface on the drive, SATA vs microSATA.
 
From what I recall Jarred saying, the 1.8" is an acquisition drive, a digimag. the 2.5" is a back up drive, a digineg.
 
Voila

Jarred Land said:
Base Module provides power to the entire stack so you dont need to have power cords going to each module for E-SATA operation.

2.5" RED MAG accepts bare 2.5" SSD and Spinning hard drives for offloading.

You can mix and match up to 3 modules per base station.
Click to expand...
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
Hi, sorry, I specifically meant transfer speeds... Brook?
Click to expand...

I've been searching to find a definitive answer and I don't really see anything. In terms of what to expect in this specific situation I think Red will have to comment on the specific drives they are using.

I've been searching SSD drives for about a year now and really see no pattern except for this:

Large Capacity SSD = Slow Write
Small Capacity SSD = Fast Write

(In terms of the same manufacturer)

I wonder if this is the case with the drives red uses as well. Sadly, some of the larger SSD drives can have WORSE performance than spinning hard disk. That said, they offer consistent latency whereas you know how a spinning disk depends on a LOT of other factors in its physical design.

And this stuff is RAPIDLY changing. I also see a LOT MORE 2.5 drives available than 1.8 drives.

I did a quick search through multiple providers of SSD drives. Most of the faster drives appeared to be 2.5's at least in the computer world. But that is stated speeds. A lot of people who have done benchmarks on the advertised speeds did not get those speeds (go figure, same as the CF world too).
 
it's probably gonna be a custom build SSD rather than off the shelf, or at least rehoused off the shelf they trust the most in a raided solution. If you look at the new Sony SR 1 tb SSD medium, it's a massively raided SSD component, shrunk down to the size of a hershey bar.

and at redcode 250 and for high FPS, it's probably gonna be on similar lines. You may just be fooled into thinking it's a single disk SSD. Even Phantom HD only has 512 SSD cartridges to use. So I don't really see, seeing capacity beyond that at the moment. It will probably start with 128 gb - 512 gb models to start with.
 
SSD's and CF cards or other type of FLASH media are really all the same thing. Currently, the solid-state world is based on NAND FLASH memory chips. Which are actually quite fast for both read and writes under the proper conditions. And there are not that many NAND suppliers -- Siemens, Intel, Samsung, Toshiba and a couple others. When it comes to performance, that proper conditions clause has a huge effect on how the chips perform in various applications. The biggest piece of the puzzle in making high-performance SSDs, CF cards, etc.. is not really the memory chips themselves, assuming they are fast enough to begin with, but the control circuitry that connects them and builds them into something more than a handful of non-volatile memory chips.

The SSD makers know that they need to have really fast performance and large capacities in order to replace magnetic and mechanical storage. It will happen, but we are still a few years away from SSDs becoming the new standard. Smaller SSD forms like CF and SD cards are not typically as demanding of performance. Most any decent 130X or faster CF card will record frames as fast as a Canon 7D can shoot them. My $75 32GB Transcend cards don't skip a beat. And that is where the market is currently at. RED is much more demanding, but a smaller niche. So RED has to make their own cards to meet a spec they can live with. And even then, it's hard to pack that much performance into a CF card. So if we want faster than CF on EPIC, we will have to step up to the 1.8" SSD.

We know RED is making their own 64GB CF cards, or working with someone to have them made to RED spec. I would assume the 1.8" SSD is the same case and not off the shelf. In fact, it's probably an extension of their 64GB CF cards to use the extra physical size for increased capacity and performance.

As for 1.8" vs. 2.5" SSDs. They can theoretically have the same performance. It all comes down to the guts inside the devices. The micro SATA interface is the same as SATA on a 2.5" or 3.5" storage device, just made into a smaller physical connector. Most off the shelf 1.8" devices are typically quite slow in terms of performance. 1.8" HDDs are what are inside devices like the iPod Classic and other "large" MP3 players for example.
 
For any of you guys buying the RED STATION or thinking of buying it and looking for a good way to connect it to a Mac or PC tower I would recommend a SAS controller like the ATTO H680. ...Hey, some lucky guy just won one of those in the RED event raffle yesterday. It has two external mini-SAS (SFF-8087) connectors, which provide 4 channels of SAS or SATA on each connector. It's an expensive card, but far superior to most eSATA host adapters with individual SATA ports. Besides, the SAS lets you connect an LTO tape or other devices as well.

Highpoint offers a mini-SAS to 4 x eSATA fan-out cable for about $50.
 
Completely agreed. I've even seen some SSDs that work great when they start, then degrade rapidly, which is probably a heat issue and a problems with their control circuitry.

I'd imagine some sort of internal raid type solution will also be employed (stripping) as you can get some AMAZING speed by doing this with nand flash memories.

What annoys me most with all NAND packages is that they can pretty much advertise whatever they want, and you have to rely on third party testing to see what lives up to its name and what doesn't (and there is a lot of doesn't).
 
Someone may have already asked this a couple hundred posts ago, but why is the Red Station module equipped with obsolete USB 2.0 instead rapidly evolving USB 3.0? Surely the RED engineers weren't surprised by the adoption of the backward compatible 3.0 standard? Would've gone a long way toward future-proofing... seems to me.
 
Apple still hasn't commited to USB 3.0...

We are keeping an eye on it though.. And we will be ready for lightpipe or usb 3 or whatever. That's the advantage of a modular architecture.
 
Jarred Land said:
Apple still hasn't commited to USB 3.0...

We are keeping an eye on it though.. And we will be ready for lightpipe or usb 3 or whatever. That's the advantage of a modular architecture.
Click to expand...

But aren't the data ports all on a per-module basis? Wouldn't we need to repurchase every module except for the AC->DC converter?

"The great thing about our new laptop is that you can replace it and still keep the same power cord!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top