ssd
in [Suse]
|
From: Darklight on 16 Feb 2010 03:41 Chris Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 08:17 +0000, Darklight wrote: >> J. van der Waa wrote: >> >> > houghi wrote: >> >> Darklight wrote: >> >>> does any one know how well opensuse 11.2 handles ssd >> >> >> >> What problems are you expecting? I have not heard of any problems. ssd >> >> is just another type of HD merely explaining the technical details of >> >> how it works on the inside. The outside is just sata. >> >> >> >> houghi >> > Couldn't agree more :-) >> > But you might get a pleasant surprise: it can be faster..... >> > >> > Joost >> >> thanks for your reply i know it will be faster just wanted to know if >> there would or could be potential problems. > > The problem is the NORMAL common problem of how much reading and > (esp.) writing might be done as part of normal operation... > > SSD technology is advancing, but a bit slowly in some areas. > > Minimizing writes is still a good idea. Future filesystems and > options on current filesystems might work better with SSD in > the near future. > > In general, most people have ignored the issue and deployed anyhow. truth after posting the post and looking into it. I can not justify the expense all for the sake of speed. Interesting exercise thou. what i got is by far good enough.
From: JT on 16 Feb 2010 05:42 On 16/02/10 09:57, houghi wrote: > Paul J Gans wrote: > >> Booting should be faster with SSD. >> >> And some programs will start faster. >> > And as we have seen from the videos, it will gain you a minute. The > lifetime of a business portable is 3 years. Lets make that 5 years. And > make it 300 working days. That is 1500 minutes or 25 hours. > Yep, a whole day. or three working days. > > Now how big do you want the storage to be nowadays? I will go for 256GB > SSD and compare it with 250GB HDD. That is 669EUR(1) andd 46EUR(2) > A difference of 623 EUR. > > So I can understand that for some it will be worth it. For me not by a > long shot, yet. But hey, everybody needs to make their own calculations > and I hope many select SSD now as early adopters, so in 10 years they > will cost almost nothing when I want to buy some. That is when I suppose > my 4 TB is full and I need more/newer storage. > > (1) http://www.alternate.be/html/productDetails.html?artno=IMIM29 > (2) http://www.alternate.be/html/productDetails.html?artno=AABWG3 > I have sorted both by price per GB and simply selected the cheapest. > > houghi > Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't if I were ....) but wasn't there also an issue with multiple writes to ssd? So using it for database-like files or for swapspace (both with multitudes of small-writes) seemed not a good idea. -- Kind regards, JT
From: JT on 16 Feb 2010 11:21 On 16/02/10 16:06, Vahis wrote: > On 2010-02-16, JT <reply_only_to(a)newsgroup.nl> wrote: > >> On 16/02/10 09:57, houghi wrote: >> > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't if I were ....) but wasn't >> there also an issue with multiple writes to ssd? >> >> So using it for database-like files or for swapspace (both with >> multitudes of small-writes) seemed not a good idea. >> >> > Quoting might suggest otherwise, but this was my text..... No problem, but for the record > One thing seems to be forgotten in this thread. > As we speak of SSD drives we need to acknowledge that there are MLC and > SLC types of these drives. > > One can't talk about SSD drives in general. > As I stated: Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for doing just that. So do I understand correctly that SLC's might be an option for production systems - even with high write-I/O-rates? > As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking into SLC type of a drive as a system > drive. > > The best of them give warranties for write endurance of > > 20 years(a)1TB write/erase per day for 128 GB disks. > 10 years(a)1TB write/erase per day for 64 GB drives > 5 years(a)1TB write/erase per day for 32 GB drives. > > MLC drives are another story. They are "consumer stuff" for lap tops. > > Where an MLC drive costs tens, the SLC ones cost hundreds of Euros. > > It's kinda sad that the MLC drives, as they have become to consumer > price levels, have caused people to say general things about SSD drives > without knowing better. > > Also the manufacturers are doing a bad job there. I've been > investigating these drives in order to purchase one in the next couple > of months. It's difficult to find and compare them because thair types > are well hidden in the marketing material. > > I seem to have generated a rule of thumb as for drives of 32-64 GB: > > 1. If the price is tens or maybe a hundred, it's MLC, forget it. > > 2. If it's several hundreds, it may well be SLC, see in more detail. > > Ttry to wait, the price may (or may not) come a bit down before next summer, > that's when it will be needed. > > Anyways, my next system drive will be SLC type SSD and storage drives > will all be LP or "green" type. > > Vahis > -- Kind regards, JT
From: JT on 16 Feb 2010 08:46 On 16/02/10 13:08, houghi wrote: > JT wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't if I were ....) but wasn't >> there also an issue with multiple writes to ssd? >> > I thought that was only for SD? > If my memory serves me right, that applies to SSD. Don't know about SD - that's hobby stuff ain't it ? ;-) > >> So using it for database-like files or for swapspace (both with >> multitudes of small-writes) seemed not a good idea. >> > Mmm. And that is where they would be the most usefull on a server. Put > the database on SSD and you should have improved your output by a lot. > Correct, on the other hand : if your database is tuned correctly, most writes will go via memory with a delayed write. But : Yes - A write intensive app will be penalized by the I/O throughput. > Comes another thought: RAID is often also used to increase speed. Would > SSD in RAID do the same, or would it be slower then a single SSD as the > RAID needs to do stuff which slows it down? > Depending on the RAID you choose (and of course comparing raid vs no-raid and NOT SSD *with* and normal disk *without* RAID): - RAID-5 is what I call in Dutch (which I know you understand, and the rest may wonder) "Lik me reet 5". Roughly meaning: don't do this at your boss' systems. Is a slower than slow option due to what you mention the 'doing stuff'. The writes will, again if memory serves me right, be 3-5 times slower - but you can do the maths (reading parity blocks, writing them again etc etc) - RAID-0+1 is what I used to advice for DB's and will not slow down (too much) and will give you the benefit of mirroring. Fact remains that the small writes will wear out the SSD faster than you'd probably like. BTW: small writes for swap under linux on an SSD in a laptop will not wear it out so fast that you should worry too much. Seen some calc's that predict wearing out in 5-7 years - i.e. longer than the lifespan of you laptop, most likely. Sorry for the long answer. > > houghi > -- Kind regards, JT
From: JT on 16 Feb 2010 09:46 On 16/02/10 15:40, houghi wrote: > JT wrote: > >> Sorry for the long answer. >> > Thanks for breaking my SSD drives with all those characters. :-/ > > houghi > You're welcome :D Best to know what you've got exactly, though, isn't it? -- Kind regards, JT
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Google Chrome for Linux is out in beta Next: Software using wypython |