| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Kfir Lavi <lavi.kfir@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:19 AM, David Ford <david@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On 12/07/10 19:34, wireless wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > [... |
| 8 |
>> > You've got to be kidding me? I posted on Gentoo user a few |
| 9 |
>> > days ago (NOV 8th) about a netbook. The resounding number |
| 10 |
>> > one issue is avoid SSD and get a mechanical HD! |
| 11 |
>> > <from a pretty smart person> |
| 12 |
>> > "Those SSDs are shite. Get a mechanical drive. 8G is also |
| 13 |
>> > not enough and the write performance is pathetic. " |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> from another pretty smart person - and an empirical relationship. i have |
| 16 |
>> a dell w/ an SSD drive. have had it for a year now. it goes -everywhere- |
| 17 |
>> with me, daily. physically, it's been dropped, kicked, whacked, you name |
| 18 |
>> it. the SSD drive is still cruising along nicely. for r/w workload, i run |
| 19 |
>> gentoo on it and do nightly ~x86 updates. so the only rest it gets is the |
| 20 |
>> short period between finishing nightly updates and when i grab it and hit |
| 21 |
>> the road. the only time it gets shut off is if i happen to run out of |
| 22 |
>> battery every few months. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> it's not the same as a 15K drive, but then, it's not a 15K drive. unless |
| 25 |
>> you want to pay really outlandish prices, you won't find that type of speed |
| 26 |
>> on a laptop. it would eat batteries like bot snacks. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> the really smart thing is to really know what sort of hardware you |
| 29 |
>> get/have, and understand how to pick $better kernel driver vs. |
| 30 |
>> $generic_fallback thingie. you can't expect even a performance drive to |
| 31 |
>> operate smashingly if you're loading the generic |
| 32 |
>> i-can-just-barely-make-it-work driver :) |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I feel I need to share my SSD data ;-) |
| 37 |
> I have a Lenovo x200 laptop with 60GB ssd from OCZ. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> $ hdparm -tT /dev/sda |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> /dev/sda: |
| 42 |
> Timing cached reads: 3746 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1874.96 MB/sec |
| 43 |
> Timing buffered disk reads: 340 MB in 3.02 seconds = 112.67 MB/sec |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> I have a board with SD card that will perform 22 MB/sec. This is a ~5 fold |
| 46 |
> difference. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> So it seems to me (I know it's not a double blind test), from my little |
| 49 |
> experience, that SD is not fast as SSD. |
| 50 |
> (please correct me if I'm wrong here). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Of course not: The SD electrical interface is much simpler, cheaper, |
| 53 |
and the protocol run over it is inefficient. It was not initially designed |
| 54 |
for high speed operation, but cheap implementation. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Manuel |
Archives