This is relevant - "Why solid-state disks are winning the argument".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 19/11/2014 03:24, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

You do need to choose wisely if intending to store highly compressed
binary images on them. Plenty of makers game the benchmarks by using on
the fly compression to get maximum headline read write speed.

Samsung 840 is pretty good and you generally want something sized at
256GB or above so that all the memory controller channels are populated.
You can RAID0 them too for scratch disks if you want more bandwidth and
are prepared to accept the increased risk of failure.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 19/11/2014 5:24 πμ, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives. I
have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.

I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

On 19/11/2014 5:30 μμ, nospam wrote:
In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.
I do�I have both, as I am writing after that (both a hard drive and an SSD)
I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Yep! I usually turn it off when I'm not using it. I just couldn't afford
even a 128 GB SSD (to the 120 GB I finally got) but it's enough, for
now. The barracuda １TB cost as much as the 120 GB SSD, also 62
euros-but the speed difference is tremendous�even with an AMD CPU.

In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.
I do?I have both, as I am writing after that (both a hard drive and an SSD)

most people have both.

I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Yep! I usually turn it off when I'm not using it.

what for? sleep it. there is no need to turn off a computer anymore
unless you have to physically unplug it to move it to another room or
open it up for some perverse reason.

I just couldn't afford
even a 128 GB SSD (to the 120 GB I finally got) but it's enough, for
now. The barracuda ?TB cost as much as the 120 GB SSD, also 62
euros-but the speed difference is tremendous
even with an AMD CPU.

how long ago was that? i bought a 256 gig ssd for about $110 or so
about a month ago, which is about $88 euro.

On 11/19/2014 1:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.
I do?I have both, as I am writing after that (both a hard drive and an SSD)

most people have both.

I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Yep! I usually turn it off when I'm not using it.

what for? sleep it. there is no need to turn off a computer anymore
unless you have to physically unplug it to move it to another room or
open it up for some perverse reason.

I just couldn't afford
even a 128 GB SSD (to the 120 GB I finally got) but it's enough, for
now. The barracuda ?TB cost as much as the 120 GB SSD, also 62
euros-but the speed difference is tremendous
even with an AMD CPU.

how long ago was that? i bought a 256 gig ssd for about $110 or so
about a month ago, which is about $88 euro.

That's a strange way of writing a price; it seems to imply that the Euro
is the European dollar. You can get the Euro symbol (€) by using
ALT-0128 or, if you don't want to do that, use the recognized
trilateral, EUR. I'll just list a few mo
British Pound GBP
US Dollar USD
Canadian dollar CND
Australian dollar AUD
Russian Rouble RUB

If you want others, look on http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

nospam wrote:


20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Except modern software is so buggy^W feature-rich that all those memory
leaks and stack overflows add up, so a fresh start now and again is
essential.

--

Pablo

http://www.ipernity.com/home/313627
http://paulc.es/

In article , Pablo
wrote:

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Except modern software is so buggy^W feature-rich that all those memory
leaks and stack overflows add up, so a fresh start now and again is
essential.

nonsense, but even if that were true, you're agreeing with my point
that booting is rarely done.

boot time a very stupid way to measure ssd improvement. nobody sits
around and reboots their computer all day long.

what people want to know is how much of an improvement there will be in
normal day to day tasks, including launching apps, creating and editing
files, switching between multiple apps, etc., and an ssd improves all
of that, generally by quite a bit.

On 11/22/2014 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Pablo
wrote:

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Except modern software is so buggy^W feature-rich that all those memory
leaks and stack overflows add up, so a fresh start now and again is
essential.

nonsense, but even if that were true, you're agreeing with my point
that booting is rarely done.

boot time a very stupid way to measure ssd improvement. nobody sits
around and reboots their computer all day long.

what people want to know is how much of an improvement there will be in
normal day to day tasks, including launching apps, creating and editing
files, switching between multiple apps, etc., and an ssd improves all
of that, generally by quite a bit.


Some software upgrades require rebooting. Most often it is my antivirus,
AVG.


--
PeterN