From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7675C1384B4 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2730B21C058; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail119c7.megamailservers.com (mail732.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6E721C02E for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:22:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-User: info.sys-concept.com Received: from [10.0.0.100] (S01060050da7ae68c.ed.shawcable.net [68.149.90.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail119c7.megamailservers.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id tA7LMBM1015121 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:22:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New Gentoo box To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <563BEA07.4070201@sys-concept.com> <20151106015618.GA1125@ca.inter.net> <563C0DC2.50801@sys-concept.com> <29533042.x3D0Mf0YZZ@andromeda> From: thelma@sys-concept.com X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <563E6BA9.8080100@sys-concept.com> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:22:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <29533042.x3D0Mf0YZZ@andromeda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.563E6B86.009F,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.1 cv=RdipVTdv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=C3ZDv51cNVt4vJz/79I2xQ==:117 a=C3ZDv51cNVt4vJz/79I2xQ==:17 a=SDcUNfBxAAAA:8 a=BDKbP5mgAAAA:8 a=046jbqsEAAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=DQTCzQKxThDC8iG4zwUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Archives-Salt: 4b8d396b-86c4-41b3-92dc-964ee65a649b X-Archives-Hash: 86b3f0de9bfbee52191f87c59301e762 On 11/05/2015 11:06 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: [snip] >> You might be right, maybe I'll add one HDD for backup (good suggestion). >> The killer is my 1TB SSD $499.99CAD > > Get 1 SSD for the OS, software and your home directory. (240GB is usually > enough) > And 1 big HDD for your data. > > Keep your documents and other data out of the home directory if doing this. > Reason I suggest your home directory on SSD is because programs tend to store > a lot in your home directory which can benefit from a faster disk. It seems to me that SSD drives are slower than standard spinning disks. I was just comparing my two disk with hdparm 1.) Western Digital model: Model=WDC WD2002FAEX-007BA0 hdparm -Tt /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 9406 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4705.88 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 432 MB in 3.00 seconds = 143.92 MB/sec 2.) Intel SSD model Model=INTEL SSDSC2BF480A5 /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 1292 MB in 2.00 seconds = 645.51 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 536 MB in 3.00 seconds = 178.63 MB/sec It seems to me the spinning disk WD is faster than my Intel SSD So is there an advantage of overpaying for SSD? -- Thelma