http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DPQW0e9ufM 

if you have a set of identical hdds, but one of them already has data from a non-raid setup, is it possible to create the raid 1 set without loosing the data without having a third hdd to temporarily store the data on? 

You will lose all data when you create the raid array. 

i couldn't find any information about what happened since most raid info pretty much assumed you were using brand new disks. 

Be aware that RAID1 is only protecting you from harddrive failure. It is not a backup at all. You do not want RAID1 unless you are running a highly important service. 

Playing with my 80gb Intel X2-M G2:

http://jago.pp.fi/temp/SSD-LOL.jpg 

80gb Intel X25-M: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/SSD-LOL.jpg
1,5tb Seagate Barracuda: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/HDD-LOL.jpg

Note that the Barracuda isn't really a "slow" disk at all, its actually one of the better traditional mechanical disks, it's just that NAND media wipes the floor with everything. 

Then I looked at the numbers, hehe.

Past 16MB the HDD has the lead in write speeds, is that because of a larger cache? Does it matter? Rendered irrelevant through the huge difference in latency? 

SSDs traditionally lose in raw sequential write throughput, but dominate in read speed and minimal latency (we're talking a difference of 7-8ms to 0.1ms). There are SSDs that have excellent writes as well, for example the Intel X-25E and a few others that push above 190mb/s writes, but these are enterprise grade drives where a 80gb disk will cost you over 650-800 euro. 

The numbers you were looking at are not MBs, they are KBs. The test reads and writes 256mb files in blocks of 0.5, 0.1, 2, 4, 16, etc. 

If you put your OS and favorite games on the SSD, then you would mostly be reading that data, not writing it. 

No matter how smart and cunning you are when implementing your bulletproof storage solution, you are a complete retard if you expect "reasonable" performance from a disk controller card attached to a 66 Mhz PCI 32bit bus.

Individual disks on the controller: 75mb/s reads and writes
2 disks on the same controller in a mirror: 48mb/s reads and 28mb/s writes. 

http://jago.pp.fi/images/linux-menu.png

This is how you make a nonshit Linux GUI. 

this is if you want to start digging: http://jago.pp.fi/images/terminal.png 

100 euro gets you this: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/intel40gbssd.png
Intel 40gb 2nd gen SSD, perfect for a budget performance system, great read speed, awesome 0.1ms seek time, but pretty low write speed.

200 euro gets you this: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/SSD-LOL.jpg
Intel 80gb 2nd gen SSD, the true overall best consumer SSD, double the cost not only gets you double the space, but also noticably higher read and write speeds 

how could you consider that mainstream? 40gb is just barely enough for your os, and maybe a few content creation applications and a single game. 

Super Self Destruct 

That's what it's ment for, not for storing 1080p movies. 

You can get 6 times more storage capacity for quarter of the price compared to the Intel drive. Hardly mainstream yet. I could see them as supplemental drives, though, at the moment.

Even budget laptops these days come with 320GB. 

The general thought among the engine team here is that SSD will be common place in ~2 years. By then they'll have the kinks worked out, they'll be a decent size and the price won't require a bank loan to get a good one. 

You are missing the point and are comparing apples and oranges.

Traditional SATA mechanical disks, which do ~110-115mb/s reads with 8-10ms seek time are not exactly in the same category as SSDs with 0.1ms seeks and 200+ mb/s reads. Neither are laptop drives that are even slower. 

...if you are using an SSD as your only drive, and filling it up with rips of The Wire, you are a giant failure of a man.

These are crazy awesome value now, I bought a Raptor about 6 years ago for the same reasons, and it was ace. 

The cost of RAM per density is and has been dropping on a curve similar to Moore's Law. For the near future I'd see a co-existence of both systems, cheap terabytes are nice. 

This is the weirdest thing. Pandora and Windows Vista can make sounds just fine, but iTunes, MediaMonkey and Quake are silent. This is on my Macbook Pro.

Any ideas? I've never seen anything like this before... 

Is Quake running under Windows or Mac OS X?