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 AF8761384B4 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC5CB21C037; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw2.antarean.org (gw2.antarean.org [141.105.125.208]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD32721C004 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22663121704 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:53:45 +0000 () X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from gw2.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gw2.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MeIHex2QfXKh for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:53:44 +0000 (%Z) Received: from data.antarean.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB76121341 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 09:53:44 +0000 () Received: from andromeda.localnet (unknown [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E11244C for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:55:18 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New Gentoo box Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 10:55:19 +0100 Message-ID: <8021526.vDu0y5WIL0@andromeda> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.0.9-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <563E75E8.2060107@sys-concept.com> References: <563BEA07.4070201@sys-concept.com> <563E7294.2050904@iinet.net.au> <563E75E8.2060107@sys-concept.com> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: 5ec31af8-0227-4487-82e5-26f34c3c1ed0 X-Archives-Hash: d9c3f04900706b7f251b953f55042c3d 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