[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a) only 4x-5x, the surcharge is already 10x per GB.
b) You want your whole system to only have 128 or 256 GB? Maybe.
I store photos. They take up that much on a weekend's
shooting trip.

i store photos too, and they live on a network server so they are
accessible to multiple machines.

So that they are much slower to access than with local storage.
And all that because you want faster. Clever.

it's fast enough and if i want them local i make a local copy.

everything doesn't have to be the fastest possible speed.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a) only 4x-5x, the surcharge is already 10x per GB.
b) You want your whole system to only have 128 or 256 GB? Maybe.
I store photos. They take up that much on a weekend's
shooting trip.

i store photos too, and they live on a network server so they are
accessible to multiple machines.

So that they are much slower to access than with local storage.
And all that because you want faster. Clever.

it's fast enough

more than an order of magnitude slower ...

everything doesn't have to be the fastest possible speed.

But that's why you use SSDs in the first place, isn't it?

You really don't know what you want ...

-Wolfgang