Re: [gentoo-user] New Gentoo box

["J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org>]

On Saturday, November 07, 2015 03:06:32 PM thelma@sys-concept.com wrote:
> 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

For real comparisons, you need to stick both in the same box.
The low results for the SSD are because of the lower-spec hardware of the rest 
of the system.
Speed is always determined by the slowest part. In this case, the difference is 
very noticable.

Put the SSD into the AMD-box and you'll see the true performance of the SSD.

--
Joost