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 A15A11384B4 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 22:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0540621C060; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 22:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail144c7.megamailservers.com (mail144c7.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.244]) (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 EFFF121C031 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 22:05:55 +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 mail144c7.megamailservers.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id tA7M5rtj014641 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:05:55 -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> <563E6BA9.8080100@sys-concept.com> <563E7294.2050904@iinet.net.au> From: thelma@sys-concept.com Message-ID: <563E75E8.2060107@sys-concept.com> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:06:32 -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: <563E7294.2050904@iinet.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.563E75C3.004B,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=FOwimYYs 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=6Mqh8v1fCzThCruMbssA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Archives-Salt: 13c06786-3e3b-4146-a256-d1918605f285 X-Archives-Hash: 55ba963a41ac38d3abfcd3dafbf8b2c3 On 11/07/2015 02:52 PM, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > On 08/11/15 05:22, thelma@sys-concept.com wrote: >> 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 >> > > olympus ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda > > /dev/sda: > Timing cached reads: 20442 MB in 1.99 seconds = 10278.90 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 1164 MB in 3.00 seconds = 387.66 MB/sec > olympus ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb > > /dev/sdb: > Timing cached reads: 20320 MB in 1.99 seconds = 10218.13 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 300 MB in 3.00 seconds = 99.88 MB/sec > olympus ~ # > > > Something is not right with your system ... > > sda is an older intel ssd, sdb is a western digital red which somethimes > gets close to that your speed. > > try multiple measurements, no load on the system. I did run test several times, still get the same numbers. Maybe the reason is that one system is much smaller slower. The SSD is running on smaller box: Atom-TM-_CPU_330_@_1.60GHz The WD is bitter unit: AMD_FX-tm-8150_Eight-Core_Processor -- Thelma