Hardware compatibility
 

Hi everyone,

I've been using ubuntu on my laptop for while and I am very happy with it. I now plan to build a desktop from scratch and I was wondering if I could get some input regarding my hardware choices to avoid compatibility issues. I plan to use:

CPU: Intel Core i5-7600

Motherboard: Asus Prime Z270-A

RAM: SO-DIMM Corsair ValueSelect 16GB (1x16GB) DDR4-2133MHz CL15

Storage: SSD 2.5" Samsung 850 Evo 250GB TLC SATA

GPU: Intel integrated graphics

I've checked this https://dlcdnimgs.asus.com/websites/...inux170105.pdf for the motherboard but it refers to Ubuntu 16.10 which is not LTS (I was hoping to use 16.04).

Can I get your help or this is not the place for this question? If not could please tell me the correct one?

Thank you

Hi Fr4ncisco and welcome to LQ! :)

I think you'll be fine with 16.04. That list appears to verify the "latest" Linux kernel verified on each motherboard and it just happens that they verified as recent as 16.10.

I might have a small SSD where I put the install, however would prefer my /home to be on a different type of drive like a regular HDD, as well as any swap space if the distribution uses it. SSD's are great, stable, and fast, but they still (to me) are flash re-writable devices and eventually will wear out. The question is, will they wear out any faster than traditional HDDs. I do wonder where technology stands these days to compare lifetimes between each, I fear we are getting close, but honestly do have no idea if SDDs are yet close enough in longevity with HDDs. And any hard drive of either technology can fail prematurely. For all I've said, I feel it is a minor concern and overall the system you envision will be a good desktop.

Hi rtmistler,

Thank you very much for your reply. It was very useful.

I hadn't considered the issue with the SSD. I actually intend to have dual boot (Ubuntu+Windows 10). So, do you reckon I should put on a HDD: Swap partition; /home; NTFS partition? Maybe I don't need 250 GB on the SSD then, right? Maybe:
128GB SSD + 1Tb HDD

Just another question (I hope this is not too much off topic):

I am about to start a PhD which has a very strong CS component (Machine Learning mainly). As I am a math major and I am no expert on these matters: Do you think I should invest in a better cpu (somthing with overclock maybe)?

Thank you

Overclocking is only useful if the fastest available hardware is not fast enough. Otherwise, it's always cheaper to just buy faster hardware. I recently purchased parts for a desktop with a core i5, 16 GB ram, SSD, HDD, CD-R/DVD-R; for about 400.00.

I could overclock the system to make it faster, but if I need faster hardware, I can just buy faster hardware. I don't need to overclock the system.

I remember when SSDs first came out, there was much concern about the number of "writes" they could sustain. In usage, I think those fears have been found to be, if not unfounded, at least overblown.

You may find this article interesting: http://www.pcworld.com/article/28560...ity-fears.html

A web search for "ssd lifespan" will turn up much more.

Full disclosure:

I don't have any SSD drives and find myself puzzled that the same Linux users who boast that they haven't rebooted their machines in umpty-ump [unit time] will crow over shaving three seconds off the boot time.

Persons are the craziest people.

@frankbell,

Great link. Calms my mind a bit more.

AwesomeMachine,

Despite that article and similar ones, don't get too relaxed.

My 256 GB Samsung 850 PRO (with 10 year warranty) lasted all of 8 DAYS.

My replacement 240 GB Intel 535 is performing well, but it would not totally surprise me for it to have failed the next time I switch on.

There are many reasons for sticking to conventional HDDs, including the ability to retrieve data easily and cheaply, unlike with SSDs.

I think the SSD/HDD combination you suggest sounds like a very good idea and people do, do it this way.

Regarding revising selection of CPU, how about you get this for now and if/when you know enough that it matters, you can then get a faster CPU, or one which contains the features you require for any potential work you'll be doing.

Thank very much you for all your inputs.

As I don't believe I'll be making use of O.C (neither the multi GPU) I reckon I am not gonna go for the z270 and maybe buy something cheaper.

I want to keep the display port so I found out that Asus Prime H270-PRO meets my needs and is cheaper.

My problem is: I really want to use Ubuntu but on the website https://dlcdnimgs.asus.com/websites/...inux170105.pdf it is mentioned that Ubuntu works on Asus Prime H270-Plus.

My question is: Is it safe to assume (as it has the same chipset) that if it works on Asus Prime H270-Plus then it'll work on Asus Prime H270-PRO?

Thank you

All electronic devices have high failure rates in the first few weeks/month of usage, this is nothing new with SSDs, and is not indicative of anything more than [lack of] luck of the draw.

Not overblown, they're completely unfounded. All you have to do is run the numbers...most MLC SSDs have a write limit of around 2000. The OP is looking at a 250 GB drive, that's a write limit of 500 TB not accounting for any over-provisioning. Typical SSD write amplification is on the order of 3, so that brings 500 TB down to 167 TB. Typical OS usage will write maybe a few hundred MB of data a day, maybe 1 GB on the upper end (remember, this is average usage, day in day out, every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year, no down time). Whatever, let's be generous and call it 10 GB a day, every day. 167 TB at 10 GB a day is 17,100 days, or 47 years.

My laptop that has been running 24/7 since I got it 2 years ago currently reports a media wearout of 99% (the logic is backwards, that means I've used 1% of the drive's write cycles). My home server that has been running 24/7 since I built it over 6 years ago currently reports a media wearout of 96%, and that's on a 40 GB drive no less. Another 24/7 server I built about 6 years ago is sitting at 96%, another one I built 5 years ago is at 94%, this one from 4 years ago is at 95%, another 24/7 5 year old laptop is at 99%...the list goes on and on. Unfortunately the oldest machines I've built that used SSDs didn't have smartctl support, but of the ones that do, the worst wearout is sitting at 94% after 6 years.


It's not [just] about boot times, it's about responsiveness. The difference between a good SSD and a mechanical drive is night and day when it comes to almost everything you use your computer for. Every once in a while I'll run across somebody that can't tell the difference, but that's very rare.

Full disclosure: I've used an SSD for the boot drive in literally every machine I've built since 2008, of which there are on the order of 50. Not a single one has failed, ever. In that time, of the ~200 or so HDDs that are also under my control, I've had >20 fail. The reliability difference is no joke. HDDs are good for cheap, bulk storage, and that's it. They're slow as all get out, and the reliability difference is laughable.

Yes, HDDs are sometimes easier to recover data from, but if you're at that stage you're already screwed. Backups people, backups.

I'd have to say the response of SSDs is like lightning compared to HDDs. I run Debian testing on my laptop, and I mirror the Debian repositories on an external SSD. I have an internal SSD in the lappy.

When I do an upgrade it is so much faster! The bottleneck has become the CPU, which is a core i7 8 core.