Member Response
Hi,
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. :hattip: |
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) |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Add the "compact" option to /etc/lilo.conf, run lilo and enjoy! |
I've got two Intel SSD's in my workstation:
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:
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. |
Member Response
Hi,
Quote:
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. |
Member Response
Hi,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
'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:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Furthermore, it is super easy to recover data from a failed HDD. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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! http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paol...mark-suite.php and finally my ceterum censeo: people wanting the ultimate interactivity should not forget the CPU scheduler and look into BFS. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM. |