SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Personal & professional preferences are what dictate hardware specifications for me. I still use mechanical hard drives but find the use of a 'SSD' enhances my hardware experience.
As to the life comparisons for a 'SSD' & 'HDD'. My base hardware will reach the end of life before a failure of either device. Too limit use of a 'SSD' because of 'FUD' is just plain silly. Go ahead and design your system around the device you wish to use. I will use my 'SSD' along with cheap large storage 'HDD' to provide a good workable machine.
Today's 'SSD' controller design along with the use of 'MLC' will insure a good experience over time for consumer grade drives. After a few years(2-4) then I will will be moving up to another platform with newer technology after a few years of positive experience.
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
i have a SSD...
read the section about SSD in the Arch linux wiki and in the end got a bit pissed that i have to do so many tweaks and that i had to read so much in order to just use the damn thing... eventually what i did was:
- use AHCI mode from the BIOS (don't even remember anymore why)
- use gdisk to partition the disk as GPT (so partitions are aligned properly, whatever this means)
- use EXT4 to format the partitions (because some options had to be passed in fstab, see below)
- use the following options for e.g. the root partition in fstab (don't remember what they are for either):
/dev/sda1 / ext4 defaults,noatime,discard 0 1
I do not know if everything I did was right, may be I screw up something... I have mounted /tmp/SBo into RAM, something that I always do.
yes, i know i should've mounted /home, /var and /tmp on a separate "conventional" hard disk, but since i don't have any, i just use these partitions on the SSD. And to be honest: I DON'T CARE!
Sure it is fast, but not as fast as I imagined from reading some reviews. No magic, only /usr/bin is displayed in Thunar within a second and it takes a fraction of a second to start Seamonkey. But the CPU is AMD Phenom Black (4 cores) so i suppose it would've been fast even with a HDD. There is something weird though: when LILO boots Slackware, it is very slow when the "Loading Linux.................................................. ......." completes. After that the boot is very fast (~15 sec or less with the generic kernel)
Last edited by solarfields; 07-18-2012 at 07:31 AM.
A Slackware user that is pissed by reading documentation? That is rather rare, I would think.
- AHCI should be activated for any modern disk, regardless if it is a SSD or not.
- You can align partitions with fdisk
- ext4/btrfs are recommended for SSDs because the support TRIM, an important thing for SSDs
Seems that you have done anything right.
I am using SSDs since 2010, I never had any problems. the SMART status of my oldest SSD (Intel X25-V 40GB) reports 0% wearout.
I recommend SSDs to anyone. You have fear of loosing data because of wear-out? Make a backup! I am doing that since the time I lost data when a 6 months old mechanical disk died.
As an additional data point, I'm using a Raspberry Pi, which is a tiny development board with a slow ARM CPU that uses an SD card as its storage medium -- i.e. a *very* slow SSD.
I tried the conventional advice to use the 'noop' scheduler. What a DISASTER! Any background load, such as compiling, would kill interactive response for minutes at a time.
The 'noop' and 'deadline' schedulers are equivalent if and only if your SSD performance is so fast, and utilisation is so low, that there is no queueing. But in any situation where your SSD is a bottleneck -- in other words, whenever actual scheduling is actually needed -- 'deadline' or 'cfq' will maintain responsiveness and 'noop' will be epic fail.
'noop' is the scheduler of choice only for workloads that are so utterly trivial that they don't ever need a scheduler. I'm guessing that, in practice, the 'noop' advocates are being saved from themselves by cleverness in their SSD controllers.
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Don't buy a hard drive. They are electro-mechanical, and the mechanical parts wear out. If the mechanical parts don't get you, faulty firmware will. They're doomed to fail. C'mon...
The red text alone is a perfect description of SSD.
I'd agree about the firmware. That's why you should research before you buy.
I'm just trying to illustrate the larger point that people seem to refuse to take a second look at a technology because it may have been rougher around the edges a few years earlier. They dwell on the negatives of old and come to expect that they were be there for eternity.
...
I'm just trying to illustrate the larger point that people seem to refuse to take a second look at a technology because it may have been rougher around the edges a few years earlier. They dwell on the negatives of old and come to expect that they were be there for eternity.
This comes to my second point, which you did not quote.
There is something weird though: when LILO boots Slackware, it is very slow when the "Loading Linux.................................................. ......." completes. After that the boot is very fast (~15 sec or less with the generic kernel)
Add the "compact" option to /etc/lilo.conf, run lilo and enjoy!
The / SSD:
Device Model: INTEL SSDSA2M080G2GC
Serial Number: CVPO0120057J080BGN
Firmware Version: 2CV102HD
User Capacity: 80,026,361,856 bytes
The /home SSD:
Device Model: INTEL SSDSA2CW300G3
Serial Number: CVPR112601L4300EGN
Firmware Version: 4PC10302
User Capacity: 300,069,052,416 bytes
The / SSD has been online for 8561 hours and the /home SSD for 6388 hours.
I use my system quite heavily, with lots of compilation, a boatload of git commit/push/pull and lots of copying to and from network drives. This is not a box that is idling 90% of the day.
Currently the smartctl "233 Media_Wearout_Indicator" reports 99, for both SSD's.
Quote:
This attribute reports the number of cycles the NAND media has experienced. The normalized value declines linearly from 100 to 1 as the average erase cycle count increases from 0 to the maximum rated cycles. Once the normalized value reaches 1, the number will not decrease, although it is likely that significant additional wear can be put on the device.
I personally do not worry about the drives wearing out.
I use EXT4 with the discard option added to fstab. I can honestly say that buying those two SSD's have made a tremendous difference in my computing experience. They are A LOT faster than even the fastest HDD's. Probably one of the best hardware buys I've ever done.
<snip>
With the money for an Intel 320 Series SSD of 160 GB, I can buy four 7200 rpm HDDs of 500 GB each, three as backups. How can the latter be less reliable for normal usage?
Less reliable? This really depends on the usage, configuration and user abilities. I look at the gains provided by the purchase and use of the 'Intel 320 Series SSD of 160 GB' over the time frame. My gains will surpass with the use of a 'SSD' as compared to a 'HDD'. I use the 'HDD' to enhance my 'SSD' experience. 'HDD" are good secondary storage devices since the cost per GB is lower for a 'HDD' then a 'SSD'. With a properly configured system the 'SSD' will provide gains far above a 'HDD'. By using a 'HDD' as secondary storage I can have a system that will provide the means to work at better performance with a 'SSD' and provide enough storage for everything else on a 'HDD'. As to the 'normal' usage part, I think the use of a 'SSD' has become normal for me.
I have experienced 'HDD' failure and that is no walk in the park. For me the 'MTBF' for a 'SSD' surpass the life time of my general hardware. I do replace the system long before a failure will occur for a properly configured system with a 'SSD'. Currently replacing a Laptop that will be used for a 2-3 year time frame. 'SSD' will be a Patriot drive around 160GB-250GB with secondary USB 3.0 'HDD' at 500GB. Still shopping for the 'SSD' but think I will stick with a 'MLC' based unit for cost reasons. My laptop choices are narrowing and a new selection to be made soon.
As an additional data point, I'm using a Raspberry Pi, which is a tiny development board with a slow ARM CPU that uses an SD card as its storage medium -- i.e. a *very* slow SSD.
'SD' controller and 'SSD' controllers are different thus the write/read will be handled different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020
I tried the conventional advice to use the 'noop' scheduler. What a DISASTER! Any background load, such as compiling, would kill interactive response for minutes at a time.
Your system may not have been configured properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020
The 'noop' and 'deadline' schedulers are equivalent if and only if your SSD performance is so fast, and utilisation is so low, that there is no queueing. But in any situation where your SSD is a bottleneck -- in other words, whenever actual scheduling is actually needed -- 'deadline' or 'cfq' will maintain responsiveness and 'noop' will be epic fail.
'noop' and 'deadline' a totally different schedulers. 'noop' is a 'FIFO' and will provide better scheduling for a properly configured system 'SSD'. Some 'SSD' provide better cache methods that must be configured.
'deadline' does provide good scheduling for 'SSD' that could be used for DB management with potential overlay issues.
I would like to to see the data to support your statements for 'noop' and 'deadline'. If you make a system wide scheduler change then I can see some issues with the mix of 'SSD' & 'HDD' scheduling. If the system is configured for independent scheduler for each device then the data/benchmarks state otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020
'noop' is the scheduler of choice only for workloads that are so utterly trivial that they don't ever need a scheduler. I'm guessing that, in practice, the 'noop' advocates are being saved from themselves by cleverness in their SSD controllers.
Care to show me where you get this from. Seems to be a broad paint brush statement.
I tried the conventional advice to use the 'noop' scheduler. What a DISASTER! Any background load, such as compiling, would kill interactive response for minutes at a time.
Posting this while playing a Youtube video and compiling a kernel with -j10 on my Corsair Force 3 120GB, noop scheduler, just to test this. No, I can't see any sluggishness. Something must be wrong with your system configuration.
...
I have experienced 'HDD' failure and that is no walk in the park. For me the 'MTBF' for a 'SSD' surpass the life time of my general hardware. ...
With the same money for your tiny SSD I can buy a bunch of large HDDs, putting some of them in the U.S., some in Russia, some in China, some in Iran, ... and I can be sure that my data will not be lost as long as the world exists
Furthermore, it is super easy to recover data from a failed HDD.
With the same money for your tiny SSD I can buy a bunch of large HDDs, putting some of them in the U.S., some in Russia, some in China, some in Iran, ... and I can be sure that my data will not be lost as long as the world exists
SSDs are made to put work on it, they can handle that really fast. They are not made to store large chunks of data (at least not now). So what is your point?
Quote:
Furthermore, it is super easy to recover data from a failed HDD.
Sure, let me see how you recover data from a HDD with headcrash. By the way, recovering data is for people that are either to lazy or to ignorant to make proper backups.
Posting this while playing a Youtube video and compiling a kernel with -j10 on my Corsair Force 3 120GB, noop scheduler, just to test this. No, I can't see any sluggishness. Something must be wrong with your system configuration.
or something works different for SD cards which was the previous poster's configuration. I also use NOOP for my SSDs and it r0x0r5.
Btw, there are benchmarks done by the BFQ people (BFQ is a superior I/O scheduler for *rotational* disks) showing that for disks with NCQ (native command queueing) the I/O scheduler strategy matters less, to the point of NOOP being competitive with BFQ!
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.