LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices



Poll: Does Your Primary Linux Desktop Have An HDD or SSD?
Poll Options
Does Your Primary Linux Desktop Have An HDD or SSD?

You must log in and have one post to vote in this poll. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
Results will be available after the polls close.

The nominees are:

HDD
SSD

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-15-2013, 02:13 PM   #211
commandline-rules
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

If SSD drives wears out from writing to it many times, then it isn't worth getting them. HDD are fast enough to read information. Sure SSD drives read data faster than a HDD, but is a few milliseconds slower going to kill you. a good 10,000 RPM hard drive is good enough and can tolerate many reads and writes.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 02:22 PM   #212
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbstemps1110 View Post
If you have a reasonable amount of memory a HDD should be as fast as SDD, except on boot. Most information is generally repeatedly used, so it should be in the cache.

John A. Ward
This is the typical response you get from somebody who has only used HDDs on how they justify not using an SSD. That is until they use an SSD.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 02:30 PM   #213
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by commandline-rules View Post
If SSD drives wears out from writing to it many times, then it isn't worth getting them.
The write limit is ridiculously high, completely outside the range of possibility for 99.99% of use-cases. For those infinitesimally rare cases in which the user could theoretically hit the write limit before the rest of the machine dies, there is always SLC. SSD write limits have been completely blown out of proportion, usually by people who have never even used one before...

Quote:
Originally Posted by commandline-rules View Post
HDD are fast enough to read information. Sure SSD drives read data faster than a HDD, but is a few milliseconds slower going to kill you.
A few milliseconds per read adds up VERY fast when you have to do over a thousand random reads in order to launch an application. A quarter of a second quickly turns into 10-20 seconds, 30 seconds to boot the machine (completely, so it's actually usable) turns into 5 minutes. 20 seconds of OS updates turns into 10 minutes. The list goes on and on.

My time is worth too much to me to sit around for hours waiting on an HDD to figure itself out and do what needs doing. There's absolutely no sense running a machine newer than 2006 if you're going to stick the OS on an HDD (at least for daily tasks, raw number-crunching is an exception). The processor and RAM are going to spend 95% of their time just waiting on the HDD, it might as well be running a Pentium 4.

Luckily every machine I use on a daily basis is running an SSD, but every so often I'm forced to use a machine with an HDD. I can tell, without exception, that it's running an HDD within about 5 seconds of sitting down. It is always unbearably slow, regardless of how powerful the rest of the hardware in the machine might be.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 11-15-2013 at 02:33 PM.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 05:56 PM   #214
commandline-rules
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Even so, my hard drive is pretty fast at opening files and applications. My hard drive is a SATA III on a 6gb data channel. SSD drives are not bad of course, it just a matter of preference and each have their pros and cons.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 06:01 PM   #215
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by commandline-rules View Post
Even so, my hard drive is pretty fast at opening files and applications.
If you've never tried the alternative, then you have nothing to compare against. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the times that you think you're waiting on your processor, you're really waiting on your HDD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commandline-rules View Post
My hard drive is a SATA III on a 6gb data channel.
It has a SATA-III controller, but it's not moving anywhere near SATA-III speeds. The seek times are still absurdly slow and the sequential transfer rate is still the same as you'd get on a SATA-II interface, hell you'd probably even get the same speeds on SATA-I. Hard drives have never come close to saturating SATA-II (they're lucky to hit 1/2 of SATA-II speeds, 1/3 or slower is typical), sticking a SATA-III interface on them is just a marketing ploy. However, modern SSDs can easily saturate SATA-II, and they're even getting close to saturating SATA-III now...in another year or two we're going to need a SATA-IV to keep up. Meanwhile HDDs are still going to be putting around at SATA-I speeds, like they have been for the last decade.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 11-15-2013 at 06:10 PM.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 06:13 PM   #216
commandline-rules
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Maybe you're right, I shouldn't compare SSD and HDD drives until I experience SSD in action and maybe one day I might buy one. For now, my HDD is working fast at least in my situation.
 
Old 11-15-2013, 09:09 PM   #217
weirdwolf
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Location: 1 AU from a G2V star
Distribution: PCLinuxOS LXDE
Posts: 120

Rep: Reputation: 207Reputation: 207Reputation: 207
You people are killing me Using a 40gig 5400 rpm PATA HDD here.

I so want a SSD
 
Old 11-16-2013, 01:34 PM   #218
Germany_chris
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 645

Rep: Reputation: 246Reputation: 246Reputation: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by weirdwolf View Post
You people are killing me Using a 40gig 5400 rpm PATA HDD here.

I so want a SSD
PATA to CF card converter
 
Old 11-18-2013, 01:30 PM   #219
enine
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 821
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
There's absolutely no sense running a machine newer than 2006 if you're going to stick the OS on an HDD (at least for daily tasks, raw number-crunching is an exception).
No such thing as an absolute. There are some occasions such as machines designed to be small and light that won't fit two drives and an SSD large enough to hold all the data costs more than the whole machine.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 01:55 PM   #220
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by enine View Post
No such thing as an absolute. There are some occasions such as machines designed to be small and light that won't fit two drives and an SSD large enough to hold all the data costs more than the whole machine.
I have a few systems like that, they run SSDs.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 02:57 PM   #221
enine
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 821
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
I have a few systems like that, they run SSDs.
Thats why I specified the price. Are you going to spend $500 on a 500G SSD for a $300 laptop, is the performance really worth it?

Even if so I mentioned before (and derailed the thread majorly) that having multiple backups is a priority over speed for me. Rather than spend the $ on one SSD to make my system fast I'll buy three more drives and let it run backups overnight or sync to my server, etc.

Thats why I say you can't say that there is absolutely no reason to not buy an SSD, and I'm simply saying there is.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 03:03 PM   #222
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by enine View Post
Thats why I specified the price. Are you going to spend $500 on a 500G SSD for a $300 laptop, is the performance really worth it?
I already have, many times, and yes. Most of the systems I was referring to in my post cost $200, they're all running SSDs costing between $3-600. They are unique systems though, small, low power, high speed data acquisition, and installed in very unique environments (high altitude balloon, research aircraft, etc. where HDDs would simply fail due to the vibration or temperature extremes).

Not all of them fit that bill though, I have an old ASUS EEEPC 1000 that's running two SSDs that cost more than the machine itself. I'd rather use that ~5 year old single core 1.6 GHz Atom machine with its SSDs than any modern $700 laptop with an HDD for daily use (ignoring screen size).

I don't consider it "buying a $300 drive for a $300 laptop", I consider it "buying a $600 laptop", it's just part of the cost, and I can pretty much guarantee you it'll blow away any $600 HDD-based laptop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enine View Post
Thats why I say you can't say that there is absolutely no reason to not buy an SSD, and I'm simply saying there is.
That's not what I said. What I said was that there's no sense running a machine newer than 2006 if you're going to be sticking the OS on an HDD. The advancements that have been made in processing power, memory bandwidth, etc. are all going to be for not if you have an HDD bottlenecking the entire system.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 11-18-2013 at 03:23 PM.
 
Old 11-19-2013, 08:05 AM   #223
enine
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 821
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 91
Thats ok you missed my point too

Lets say you have a given budget of $300 for storage and have 500G of data.
A real quick search gives me http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820168067 (I'm sure there are cheaper/better deals but I just grabbed the first quick one for an example).

So you spent your budget on one drive, what about backups?

I choose rather to buy three $100 512G hdd's so I can have two backups. I'm not doing anything that would require SSD's and I can't increase the budget, wife doesn't like me spending the $300 already And I'm not willing to forgo backups no matter what technology I use as I have data that is mine and can't be replaced (family photos, etc).

Mid 2000's is when the standard switched from PATA to SATA, thats one of the reasons I replaced my C400 with the ASUS a couple years ago when PATA drives started getting more $ than SATA. Sure the newer ASUS doesn't perform any better than the C400 but I had to keep with the current technology standard. If I could have found a tiny PATA to SATA convertor maybe that would have been an option.

Now note that I'm simplifying my example, two hdd's are not my only backup method, I have other methods. My point is that none of us have unlimited budgets and the cost per G for the amount of space I require * multiple drives for backups prevents me from purchasing SSD's currently. If/when the size/cost gets closer then I'm sure I'll switch but until then there are valid reasons to stay with HDD's.
 
Old 11-19-2013, 09:24 AM   #224
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096Reputation: 4096
Quote:
Originally Posted by enine View Post
I choose rather to buy three $100 512G hdd's so I can have two backups. I'm not doing anything that would require SSD's and I can't increase the budget, wife doesn't like me spending the $300 already And I'm not willing to forgo backups no matter what technology I use as I have data that is mine and can't be replaced (family photos, etc).
Sorry, but that indicates that you already have a working backup solution, so this should be irrelevant when deciding to buy a new disk for one of your machines.
 
Old 11-19-2013, 10:06 AM   #225
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,222

Rep: Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by enine View Post
Thats ok you missed my point too

Lets say you have a given budget of $300 for storage and have 500G of data.
A real quick search gives me http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820168067 (I'm sure there are cheaper/better deals but I just grabbed the first quick one for an example).

So you spent your budget on one drive, what about backups?
All of my devices automatically back themselves up to a central server (which then backs itself up to its own external drive) - laptops, phones, tablets, etc. Buying two external backup drives per device is an incredibly inefficient and cumbersome (not to mention expensive) way of doing things.

Invest a little bit of time and money in your infrastructure and this backup problem you keep bringing up will cease to be an issue.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 11-19-2013 at 10:10 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Installing OS on external hdd w/o changing MBR on Primary hdd KvK Linux - Laptop and Netbook 7 01-26-2012 10:20 AM
Reading Linux Partitions on non-primary HDD whizzo944 Linux - General 6 04-28-2010 05:14 PM
SSD's a reasonable replacement for HDD on a desktop? drmjh Linux - Hardware 10 01-17-2010 06:25 PM
[SOLVED] Using both SSD/HDD for partitioning or is it better to just get external HDD? Switch7 Linux - Hardware 16 10-26-2009 01:23 PM
[RAID1, GRUB] Secondary HDD can't boot up when primary HDD fails Akhran Linux - Newbie 2 05-04-2006 05:17 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration