From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-158247-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A1E13877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:05:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43D8DE0C09;
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D77C3E08BF
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u56so2226701wes.30
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Vx9v50UhLu8bFeT7t6d/BT2/Ulk1IPY/80pFIKzshqA=;
b=XmxUeJYQrFe5ruBfbtvn5W4QqPuJm9VTfE59ZaOsTZuDNsdx89zgRVp1G5X29rrv2D
gHZxnJpQ9W9ddL/DCMKHKQJTrRW6QoNtYYvuvwYK51NOVCbbHbzC9GSOxliBW7s1SL6Y
dzn1sdUo3ElkhlaCBBud79C0g42W0zD3FXKFzvTqEnqdx9vFjBuJIuNRq8X6GIUmjkJV
2Yla5LoHfiJuJlt2js4gNXRP67M3/uVLwoGl+s2jv0XD8r8f9SMLHSSrddwojFk1uVLe
DUQLtvH1VCFWFZRRUI7n7C8626FuGD3Nv221jYs4JmCZglHZnHGb3YY8Gx5/AQ1mzbEU
EWtQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.58.83 with SMTP id o19mr14038988wjq.20.1409321101474;
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.40] ([41.85.145.17])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id eo12sm5540840wid.23.2014.08.29.07.05.00
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54008848.6020004@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:03:52 +0200
From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SSD recmmendation / input
References: <20140828204510.GI26952@syscon7> <53FFFD5B.1060301@gmail.com> <20140829045425.GK26952@syscon7> <4637952.D1VSpZ7Neu@andromeda> <20140829132800.GB29499@syscon7>
In-Reply-To: <20140829132800.GB29499@syscon7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 8d8b5aa5-68e4-4589-a82f-41a91f67e852
X-Archives-Hash: 41baa1cd0da7d6f9568aee9821849428
On 29/08/2014 15:28, Joseph wrote:
> Thank you for the input.
> I've decided to try SSD:
> Crucial MX100 512GB SATA 6Gb/s 2.5
>
> It seem to have a good review
> I have a Poly-ITX 945GC3 an ATOM-330 how to check if this disk will be
> compatible with this motherboard?
I have to ask: how much exactly do you really know about computers?
Because most of your questions lead me to believe not very much, and you
ask folks here to do your thinking for you.
Now go onto TheGoogle(tm), find the data sheet for your motherboard and
see if it supports SATA running at that speed.
Why should we do your google searches for you mean you can just as
easily do them yourself?
>
> The unit run asterik, hylafax and VM (VirtualBox) 7/24
>
> --
> Joseph
>
>
> On 08/29/14 08:58, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:54:25 PM Joseph wrote:
>>> No, I wouldn't get 1TB SSD too expensive but something like 300GB I
>>> might
>>> consider it. Are they worth the investment? What brand do you have
>>> and how
>>> long?
>>
>> Please do NOT top-post.
>>
>>
>> Currently, from what I found out, good brands are:
>> Intel, Samsung and Crucial.
>>
>> Do check on how they perform though, for my usage (Extensive use of
>> VMs), the
>> Samsung EVOs were not suitable as the performance can drop with large
>> writes.
>> (doesn't help when taking a full snapshot, eg. with memory-dump, of a
>> VM with
>> a lot of memory)
>>
>> But for most people, the EVOs are good.
>> The Samsung Pro does not have this, but costs more.
>>
>> The Crucial has, according to some reviews, a cleaner shutdown where any
>> outstanding writes during shutdown are actually committed to disk. I
>> am not
>> convinced I will ever notice it either way though.
>>
>> Intel has good reviews and good performance.
>>
>> For any model you are considering, check the reviews online as the
>> technology
>> behind SSDs is still changing and the firmware and chips keep changing as
>> well. A good brand now, might be a bad one tomorrow.
>>
>> For reference, I use the following in my laptop:
>>
>> # smartctl -a /dev/sda | grep "Device Model"
>> Device Model: INTEL SSDMCEAC120B3
>> # smartctl -a /dev/sdb | grep "Device Model"
>> Device Model: Crucial_CT1024M550SSD1
>>
>> --
>> Joost
>>
>>> --
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>> On 08/29/14 06:11, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> >On 29/08/2014 00:56, Joseph wrote:
>>> >> So there seems to be a pattern :-/
>>> >> How about SSD they are not that much more? Will it withstand Gentoo
>>> >> compilations :-) ?
>>> >
>>> >No. There is not a pattern. Two guys used drives for 5 years and then
>>> >they failed.
>>> >
>>> >5 years? Wow. That's double what you can reasonably expect, you got
>>> good
>>> >service.
>>> >
>>> >SSDs are much more expensive than spinning disks, 1TB will cost a
>>> >fortune. But they work in Gentoo very well - I'm on my second and this
>>> >one is 256G, still runs as fast as the day I got it.
>>> >
>>> >> --
>>> >> Joseph
>>> >>
>>> >> On 08/28/14 22:46, Mick wrote:
>>> >>> On Thursday 28 Aug 2014 21:45:10 Joseph wrote:
>>> >>>> I need to select 500GB or 1TB infernal 2.5in drive, any
>>> recommendation
>>> >>>> (reliability) of the brand. My current WD 320GB fail after 5-years.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Interesting ... mine also failed catastrophically a couple of months
>>> >>> ago after
>>> >>> around 5 years of continuous use.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Which reminds me to run a backup on my Seagate:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Model Family: Seagate Momentus 7200.4
>>> >>> Device Model: ST9500420ASG
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm not sure how much anecdotal reports on reliable drives
>>> actually hold
>>> >>> water, unless we're talking about an epidemic of failures like I
>>> seem to
>>> >>> recall Dell's Seagate drives experienced a few years ago.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Regards,
>>> >>> Mick
>
>
>
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com