LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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

View Poll Results: Does Your Primary Linux Desktop Have An HDD or SSD?
HDD 495 69.52%
SSD 217 30.48%
Voters: 712. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-15-2013, 02:07 PM   #76
bolixe29
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0

I Have only HDD on my Desktop and Laptop
 
Old 10-15-2013, 02:18 PM   #77
EdWh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2013
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ssd or Hdd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidicus View Post
As I use dual boot with Windows 8, and share the machine with another family member who uses a lot of disk space, I think SSDs are too expensive and have insufficient storage capacity for our needs at present.
Hi Everyone,


As additional information for the use of Ssd on a machine. Buy the Biggest Ssd you can afford and forget about buying more ram. Windows set up ram on the Ssd or the Hdd as additional ram for the machine, but the nice little part of this is that when using a Ssd the entire Ssd disk is made up on memory chips so when windows sets up the additional ram is the same as the memory you buy and you can go into the Windows program and increase the amount of ram for the machine at no additional cost to you.

Read this carefully since the Ssd is made of memory chips no need to buy more ram just increase in the program the amount of ram you wish the machine to have it is the same as the memory chips you buy and saves you money not having to purchase additional memory chips for the machine, nice little money saver. So again buy the largest Ssd you can afford. EdWh
 
Old 10-15-2013, 02:39 PM   #78
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 2,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdWh View Post
Hi Everyone,


As additional information for the use of Ssd on a machine. Buy the Biggest Ssd you can afford and forget about buying more ram. Windows set up ram on the Ssd or the Hdd as additional ram for the machine, but the nice little part of this is that when using a Ssd the entire Ssd disk is made up on memory chips so when windows sets up the additional ram is the same as the memory you buy and you can go into the Windows program and increase the amount of ram for the machine at no additional cost to you.

Read this carefully since the Ssd is made of memory chips no need to buy more ram just increase in the program the amount of ram you wish the machine to have it is the same as the memory chips you buy and saves you money not having to purchase additional memory chips for the machine, nice little money saver. So again buy the largest Ssd you can afford. EdWh

SSDs are nowhere near as fast as RAM, not even close. While sticking your swap on an SSD will be much faster than on an HDD, it will still be nowhere near as fast as actually having the proper amount of RAM installed in the machine.

While I love SSDs and feel they have a number of tremendous advantages over HDDs, this is NOT one of them.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 10-15-2013 at 03:27 PM.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 02:51 PM   #79
EdWh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2013
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Hi Everyone.

An additional feature to using a Ssd instead of a mechanical Hdd is that if you buy a big enough Ssd you will not have to purchase memory for your machine. The Ssd's are made of memory chips and Windows sets up additional memory on the drive for the system to use. Since with a Ssd it is already made of memory chips it is the same as the purchased memory you buy.
You can go into the Windows system and change the amount of memory you want the machine to use so if you increase 'the sizes it is the same as adding memory chips to the board and at no additional cost. Just remember it comes out of the total amount of size that the Ssd is rated at. Can't have your cake and eat it to. EdWh
 
Old 10-15-2013, 04:00 PM   #80
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdWh View Post
Hi Everyone.

An additional feature to using a Ssd instead of a mechanical Hdd is that if you buy a big enough Ssd you will not have to purchase memory for your machine. The Ssd's are made of memory chips and Windows sets up additional memory on the drive for the system to use. Since with a Ssd it is already made of memory chips it is the same as the purchased memory you buy.
You can go into the Windows system and change the amount of memory you want the machine to use so if you increase 'the sizes it is the same as adding memory chips to the board and at no additional cost. Just remember it comes out of the total amount of size that the Ssd is rated at. Can't have your cake and eat it to. EdWh
Average read/write rate of modern SSDs 450-550MB/s. (Theoretical) throughput of DDR3-1333 RAM: 10666MB/s. You are at least a factor of 20 off, even with nowadays slow DDR3-1333 RAM.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 04:57 PM   #81
CatMan3110
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Distribution: Ubuntu, Fedora, Backtrack (for Edu. purposes).
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
All of my machines have HDDs. None have SSDs. SSDs havent become enonomically feasable for most of us yet. They are way expensive, and are not capable of holding even half the data a HDD could hold. I have yet to see a 1 TB SSD, even though the technology is old now (it's the same tech that makes up flash cards and usb sticks), and yet we have HDDs capable of holding 4TB of uncompressed data, and cheaper than the highest capacity ssd, which as I said, iI haven seen one of those that can even make the 1TB mark, let alone 4TB.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 05:35 PM   #82
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 2,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatMan3110 View Post
I have yet to see a 1 TB SSD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147251

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatMan3110 View Post
it's the same tech that makes up flash cards and usb sticks
Not really

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatMan3110 View Post
All of my machines have HDDs. None have SSDs. SSDs havent become enonomically feasable for most of us yet. They are way expensive, and are not capable of holding even half the data a HDD could hold.

...

and yet we have HDDs capable of holding 4TB of uncompressed data, and cheaper than the highest capacity ssd
If you think that SSDs will ever be as cheap as HDDs for bulk storage, you're wrong. That's not what they're built for...nobody buys an SSD so they can dump 2TB onto it and then let it sit there doing nothing for years, that's what cheap, slow HDDs are for. SSDs are for high throughput, and blazingly fast random read/write. They're ideal for loading an operating system on, which only needs a couple tens of GB, or for commercial database, etc. use where cost is no object.

As I've said a few times in this thread, spend $50-100 less on your proc, buy a small SSD for your OS, and leave your bulk storage on a secondary HDD. You will end up with a MUCH faster and more usable system for the exact same price, with no loss in storage.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 10-15-2013 at 05:44 PM.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 06:53 PM   #83
Gayle Lee Fairless
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: United States of America
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
HDD or SSD

All of the computers on which I have Linux in any form have a HDD. I don't own any SSD's.

Sincerely,
(Mr.) Gayle Lee Fairless
 
Old 10-15-2013, 07:04 PM   #84
Cara25
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Distribution: Salix 13.37 with KDE
Posts: 257

Rep: Reputation: 36
Thanks for the brand recommendation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozar View Post
My vote and explanation for it were disclosed in post #7 above, but for those that aren't all that familiar with SSDs, I have a number of them and all are faster than mechanical HDDs, but I recently purchased a couple of Samsung 840 Pro Series SSDs and they are without a doubt the most impressive upgrade I've ever made when it comes to adding easily noticeable speed to my system. These things are very thin, lightweight, and blazingly fast. Highly recommended for any of you that should decide to go the SSD route. I'm thinking now about trying one of their 840 EVO Series SSDs that are a bit less expensive, the warranty period two years shorter, but are advertised to be just about as fast as the 840 Pro Series. You can check out any hardware reviews that you find on the Pro Series or EVO Series for more details.
I'm getting ready to go to SSD exclusively on my desktop machine and the quality of some of the SSDs are suspect.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 07:47 PM   #85
nigelc
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Distribution: Mageia 4
Posts: 301
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 52
Don't SSDs have a limited amount of writes?
 
Old 10-15-2013, 07:52 PM   #86
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 2,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelc View Post
Don't SSDs have a limited amount of writes?
Yes, somewhere around 3000 for MLC. Given a write multiplier of about 3x and typical usage of maybe 5 GB/day, a 100 GB drive should last around 55 years before hitting that 3000 limit. And even that isn't a hard limit, just a recommendation, there are people out there who have been stress-testing their SSDs for years to test the longevity and are at over 50,000 write cycles without issue on MLC (or so I've heard).

Just as a reference, my home server that runs ssh, ftp, http, nfs, and samba servers writes around 1.6 GB/day to the SSD that houses the OS, the rest of the data goes onto the platters. Even though it's only a 40 GB drive, it shouldn't hit its write limit until somewhere around the year 2078.

If you're truly worried about it, the write limit of SLC is around 100,000 cycles, meaning that even under very heavy use, it will probably out-live you or I. It may even begin to approach the typical SSD's MTBF of about 130 years. SLC is quite a bit more expensive than MLC though.

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 10-15-2013 at 08:05 PM.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 08:13 PM   #87
jb2005
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: East coast
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Debian, Windows (7&8)
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: 0
I use an SSD for my OS on my desktop and a SSD only in my laptop. Looking to upgrade the desktop SSD as soon as I have the funds.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 08:36 PM   #88
nuubie
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I use many SSD's and even more HDD's. Running linux from an SSD is an awesome experience, I run many linux systems, all run on SSD's so came here to poll but no poll could be found



Ok I found the poll

Last edited by nuubie; 10-15-2013 at 08:38 PM. Reason: update
 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:07 PM   #89
whytigr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
If you hope to do anything with virtualization at all....

then an SSD is paramount for creating a useable solution. If you enjoy waiting and/or taking massive amounts of breaks while attempting to get anything done, stick with HDDs.
 
Old 10-15-2013, 09:32 PM   #90
whytigr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
Yes, somewhere around 3000 for MLC. Given a write multiplier of about 3x and typical usage of maybe 5 GB/day, a 100 GB drive should last around 55 years before hitting that 3000 limit. And even that isn't a hard limit, just a recommendation, there are people out there who have been stress-testing their SSDs for years to test the longevity and are at over 50,000 write cycles without issue on MLC (or so I've heard).

Just as a reference, my home server that runs ssh, ftp, http, nfs, and samba servers writes around 1.6 GB/day to the SSD that houses the OS, the rest of the data goes onto the platters. Even though it's only a 40 GB drive, it shouldn't hit its write limit until somewhere around the year 2078.

If you're truly worried about it, the write limit of SLC is around 100,000 cycles, meaning that even under very heavy use, it will probably out-live you or I. It may even begin to approach the typical SSD's MTBF of about 130 years. SLC is quite a bit more expensive than MLC though.
Considering spinning disks have a life expectancy of 3-5 years, I'd say that this calculation FAR exceeds the negatives of any write limit associated with this type of media. Further, these calculations are purely based in the premise that there is no garbage collection or write leveling mechanisms being employed.

When presented with the choice between an SSD or a hard disk, the answer really depends on one real consideration, "Does the storage requirement need capacity or performance?" There are a limited number of drive ports available on the average machine and if the answer is capacity, spinning disks are the clear choice, where as if the answer is non-latent performance for databases transactions or for responsiveness/oversubscribed virtualization implementations, then using anything less than an SSD (or battery-backed DRAM) will ultimately cost you in ways that can't easily or readily be quantified.

So realistically, in the vast majority of typical implemtations, the answer will more than likely be a mix of both media types or complete solid state when considering life expectancies, power consumption, cost of real estate, latency requirements, man hour requirements, costs of storage administration and that of keeping the whole mess cool.

Finally, SSDs are just cool and allow an insane boost in performance and lift the bottlenecks which were previously associated with storage and place the burden back on switching speeds and bus rates rather than the traditional read/write mechanisms of spinning disk. They are a heck of a lot quieter as well, taking the whirring out of the datacenter or home office.

~Tigr~~
 
  


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 09:20 AM
Reading Linux Partitions on non-primary HDD whizzo944 Linux - General 6 04-28-2010 04:14 PM
SSD's a reasonable replacement for HDD on a desktop? drmjh Linux - Hardware 10 01-17-2010 05:25 PM
[SOLVED] Using both SSD/HDD for partitioning or is it better to just get external HDD? Switch7 Linux - Hardware 16 10-26-2009 12:23 PM
[RAID1, GRUB] Secondary HDD can't boot up when primary HDD fails Akhran Linux - Newbie 2 05-04-2006 04:17 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM.

Main Menu
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