Live data from Hacker News

Poll: Are you using SSDs?

news.ycombinator.com

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#141
post #67
post #25

We're using Fusion-io SSDs in a lot of our database (MySQL) servers. It makes a massive difference.

What host are you using and how much does this cost you?

We're self hosted (craigslist.org) and the cost is pretty much what you see if your price out the Fusion-io gear (I'd have to go dig that up).

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#142
SSDs took my DAW (digital audio workstation) from being able to mix 32 tracks of 96/24 audio with effects to easily over 100 tracks. It wasn't so much achieved by the change in the steady flow of data, but in data transfer spikes. Occasionally there is a disk load spike. When your disks are running 80% capacity, that spike takes them over 100% and causes a dropout in the audio. With the SSDs the disks run at about 4% normally, and the occasional spike just bumps it to the 10 - 20% mark, and it keeps on chugging!

I am a total convert to SSDs as a result. Still using HDD for the OS and other things like mass storage. When the price point is better I'll move all the disks across.

Now it's CPU that's the bottle neck :P

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#143

I'm not using one in a production web environment, but my Macbook Pro has one in it now and it's phenomenal. Photoshop boots up in quite literally 3 seconds or less (cold startup) and every other action imaginable is noticeably quicker. I used to feel like browsing files in the Finder was slower than it was for me on my old Windows XP machines but eventually I got used to it. I use keyboard navigation as well, so it…

I got one when I bought my new laptop, and between SSDs and Windows Seven it has been the greatest productivity boost I've ever gotten out of a hardware upgrade in literally a decade. My machine now screams -- going from a cold boot I can get Chrome open before wireless handshakes are complete.

I would like to think of a clever follow up, but 'ditto'. I keep my 1TB hard drive as a long-term storage solution but otherwise all productivity has been moved to the SSD and boot times are in seconds.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#144
This is a VERY unscientific poll. Simply because anyone who knows what one is will click the SSD Poll link to check it out. Most people who have no clue will pass it by. According to this 43% of people are using SSD while 57% are not. In reality, less than 5% of people use SSD. The poll is pointless and doesn't indicate anything.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#145
This is a VERY unscientific poll. Simply because anyone who knows what one is will click the SSD Poll link to check it out. Most people who have no clue will pass it by. According to this 43% of people are using SSD while 57% are not. In reality, less than 5% of people use SSD. The poll is pointless and doesn't indicate anything.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#147

I'm not using one in a production web environment, but my Macbook Pro has one in it now and it's phenomenal. Photoshop boots up in quite literally 3 seconds or less (cold startup) and every other action imaginable is noticeably quicker. I used to feel like browsing files in the Finder was slower than it was for me on my old Windows XP machines but eventually I got used to it. I use keyboard navigation as well, so it…

It's a cool drive. But if you were really using one in production etc, it's not like you'd need a Mac! Everyone thinks that every where I go and it's like a disease actually. Macbook is absolutely worthless in terms of raw computing power. You pay double and get a computer 1/2 the speed, but most people think you get a computer double the speed. Simple example: I got an i7 based pc at 4ghz that will out render any typical $1600 imac, or the $2000, or $2500 pro. It cost $730. I also work with video and audio in a studio etc. I think the thing that irks me is every last macbook pro user tends to buy ssd first because they spend tons of cash easily. But then they are always determined to say "I use it on MY Macbook pro". To me this is not a sign of professionalism, but lack of understanding. It's not like most will run final cut pro. But most use adobe software anyway, which runs on windows 7 just fine. And there are other alternatives about as good as fcp for windows 7. Some of which are used to create very pro looking videos that have gotten famous on youtube. Search cows cows cows. There are thousands of others. But every last SSD review has some mac guy explaining how good the ssd works in a mac, lol. But I will agree on part of this. Mac's are typically slower, and their hard drives usually are terrible. So, it makes sense I suppose. And I know there are POS pc's. But with a little shopping around and looking, you can buy stuff better than a mac for 1/2 th ecost.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#148

Been using an SSD in my Macbook Pro for the last year ... easily the best computer upgrade I've made in my lifetime (no kidding) ... Photoshop and Netbeans open up in 5-9 seconds, booting into OS X takes less than 30-40 seconds and applications generally fire up in the blink of an eye. One word of caution though, when the SSD runs out of free blocks and has to re-use blocks marked as deleted, the performance hit can…

Yes, SSD is great. It works even better in high end PC's which are FAR faster than Macbook Pro's. I have one in an i7 based pc at 4ghz on pretty high end motherboard. I can load Photoshop in about 1 to 2 seconds. So I'm not sure why your mac takes 5-9 seconds other than maybe they typically use cheap chips for the bus I/O etc. Macs tend to be slower at drive operations, even when an SSD is in place. I keep hearing about these mac users that would take a minute to boot their machines, and have it cut in 1/2 to 30 secs. What? why? My machine boots in 9 seconds on an SSD, and 17 with a regular HD.

As for "sudden application freezes" on XP. That's not true unless it's true for all people running XP. My systems NEVER freeze on HD, or SSD. But WAIT. I see what you are doing. You run in IN your Apple machine which proves my point that Apple Mac's are cheap hardware, and also the drive is not formatted in regular NTFS which also helps to slow it down. Don't sit there on a slow mac thinking how slow XP is. Get a high end PC for under $1000, and watch it out do your mac. Also notice how mac doesn't support TRIM.

But again. I see one of you Macbook Pro users about every 2 hours. Please don't tell me you bought it because it was faster and better. It's not. Only in terms of the fact that it's so obscure that you are less likely to get malware. But it's not a big enough difference to matter really. Other than this one point, there is NOTHING better about mac. Unless in a stylistic way, you like the shiny colors etc. The OS's are far too similar and both work just fine.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#149

I'm not using one in a production web environment, but my Macbook Pro has one in it now and it's phenomenal. Photoshop boots up in quite literally 3 seconds or less (cold startup) and every other action imaginable is noticeably quicker. I used to feel like browsing files in the Finder was slower than it was for me on my old Windows XP machines but eventually I got used to it. I use keyboard navigation as well, so it…

It's a cool drive. But if you were really using one in production etc, it's not like you'd need a Mac! Everyone thinks that every where I go and it's like a disease actually. Macbook is absolutely worthless in terms of raw computing power. You pay double and get a computer 1/2 the speed, but most people think you get a computer double the speed. Simple example: I got an i7 based pc at 4ghz that will out render any ty…

by the way. I realize there are a couple of macs $3000 and higher that have more cores. For that I'd just upgrade my board to dual cpu version and the computer would cost me $1200 and still be faster than the fastest mac on the market. In fact I could just hackintosh it and have a mac faster than what apple sells, and some do that. But I prefer windows 7.

Re: Poll: Are you using SSDs?

#150
While awesome for a lot of tasks, I've still found that a file system and OS tweaked for a particular task can have remarkable results. On a system with a few hundred thousand RRD files, I've found that ZFS with a 16k block size reduced my load by 75%. Obviously, the average RRD workload goes is vastly improved by SSD -- the move to SSD has me forgetting about IO forever in this case.

But, it's just a hack to begin with and SSD is the patch. I don't have the time/option to find and hack out a better storage mechanism for that particular task. RRD makes little sense in this day and age, but it's what I'm stuck with due to time constraints.

Post reply on HN