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 71B2C138010 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4BEEE076B; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088A2E072D for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lahc1 with SMTP id c1so688257lah.40 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:43:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=iaLwZFOQOEEjFoW2U51HyHWUb6iEhSh2uhF9g2qXCzg=; b=wf3Wjk/7lJW3ZhKs+cEJ/RBFDrZksfs24G+7hFRN9eq0lvCNccKhVJ1G03LZujphdC mOiBbHkZXnbTu27B7MSHVA8XoD5oObfSOnC2vKvJ7A4X60pd5xtPGSj8hPdaodwx8+oU p6KDAyJYfvSX+86BbSuMn5Z42vxsF6kLohpHy/QJUp8e16zyTopLDIJMv5bB44YCSlpu md9qOvrNVAHvYhEWy28ZT2ko4CMDv3zBD8x7x6H41is3nGV29z2lRyESnTJGszDgthKp kwAbDUsWuJ8ItUVKxjyVLfP/PTmFYzjpnhXN6hVQ408cR1ILKcvmAxOfyW6yN1CMXP4J Cx2A== 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 Received: by 10.152.148.199 with SMTP id tu7mr3023285lab.37.1345750985925; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.197 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:43:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120823202245.4678e3c1@hactar.digimed.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:43:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SSD performance tweaking From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 951a6859-8a9b-4589-ba09-cd916136dd0b X-Archives-Hash: 7233e5a66f8858f77e4244bd364324e6 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:25 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: >> >>> This limitation is likely just a byproduct of using a 1 lane >>> controller. If one was willing to spend a (fairly large) bit more one >>> could get a 16 lane SATA3 controller and would likely do much better >>> in terms of throughput... >> >> If you want real performance from SSD, you ditch SATA altogether and use >> a drive on a dedicated card. Of course, you're talking real money now. >> >> >> -- >> Neil Bothwick >> >> OPERATOR ERROR: Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah! > > Can you supply a link to such a solution? Just curiosity. I'm sure I > don't have the money... ;-) > > - Mark > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120+600038468&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=636&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc= Long URLs are long, but short URLs are unreliable. Still: http://bit.ly/Pfa54T -- :wq