51–60 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?
Since when it's a "serious" performance increase when "it boots faster"? Or if the first grep after the boot is faster (others must be fast since the file cache kicks in for every next one, unless you have, say, 128 MB RAM). Really not worth to mention.
On the subject, any tips on running a Mysql server on SSD? I've just taken the jump, and what I can find on the net seems more like opinions then solid info.
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/common_drives.html (HD103SJ)
I actually use the 500gb model @ $40 each, I have three that I rotate for full backups which take only 1 hour with a sector-to-sector based copy.
But seagate just bought samsung so best stock up on these drives soon as they are sure to disappear.
Why am I not using a $100-200 SSD? Because my laptop cost $350, and my desktop cost $300. SSD's amaze me, and I don't need an SSD larger than 64-128GB, but the performance boost just isn't as important to me as keeping my rigs cheap. Oh, and when I need truly fast disk access? I use ramdisks.
As a developer, I'm more concerned about the lifespan of a SSD than a 'usual' user. That's why I didn't get a SSD, yet. I probably would, if the SSD will last long even when thousands of files change on a daily basis (compilation etc). But maybe my concerns are unnecessary...?
Hard drives are much more likely to fail without warning than SSDs. Modern SSDs use wear-leveling along with spare flash cells to increase reliability. To give one example: Intel warranties their X25-Ms for 3 years. They claim you can write 100GB/day for 3 years without exhausting the flash cells. The typical failure mode for a hard drive is for it to work fine and then completely die. No reading or writing, just dea…
Maybe it was bad luck twice but I'm sticking with hard drives for now.
My SSD has been the single biggest win for hardware for me in the last decade. Dell quoted me $600 on putting one in my new laptop. It would be cheap at twice the price. In addition to my perhaps unprofessional weakness for playing games, the huge win for me is that it slashes boot times for hefty programs, most noticeably the VMs that I do all my development in and, of course, browsers. Chrome boots practically inst…
My SSD has been the single biggest win for hardware for me in the last decade. Dell quoted me $600 on putting one in my new laptop. It would be cheap at twice the price. In addition to my perhaps unprofessional weakness for playing games, the huge win for me is that it slashes boot times for hefty programs, most noticeably the VMs that I do all my development in and, of course, browsers. Chrome boots practically inst…
Seriously, if you don't have an SSD yet, go now and order one. Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
Because a $55 Samsung 1TB drive is 80% as fast as a SSD ? http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/common_drives.html (HD103SJ) I actually use the 500gb model @ $40 each, I have three that I rotate for full backups which take only 1 hour with a sector-to-sector based copy. But seagate just bought samsung so best stock up on these drives soon as they are sure to disappear.
For a desktop, a 147GB, 15k RPM harddrive, bought second-hand, is the price-performance-reliability sweet spot. For example, a Seagate Cheetah one generation older than the current. Also, because I've been using XFS on it. With journal on another drive, performance is blazing fast -- and yes, including mass deletes of small files. XFS used on the only SSD (cheapest one, admitably) I have was performing terribly -- be…
You should probably investigate the current hardware (OCZ's Vertex 3, Crucial's m4, Intel's 510 series); it might surprise you just how much better it's gotten in such a short time.