Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DragonFly BSD Lead Developer Preaches The Blessing Of SSDs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Welcome to 2010

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
      Welcome to 2010
      Oh I wish. Now software like Windows and Gnome does more pointless hard drive access to make up for the increased SSD speed

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by computerquip View Post
        It's not so bad for Linux but for Windows desktop use, it's a night and day difference.
        Man, Windows 10 is a real dog with HDDs. If you do not start up a Windows machine or partition regularly, the thing will not turn off the HDD led any time soon. I don't know if that is the antivirus, Windows update or the built in MS spyware, things will be slow for a long time.

        To make it worse, a Windows machine with a SSD will install updates at best at Linux HDD speeds.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by M@GOid View Post

          Man, Windows 10 is a real dog with HDDs. If you do not start up a Windows machine or partition regularly, the thing will not turn off the HDD led any time soon. I don't know if that is the antivirus, Windows update or the built in MS spyware, things will be slow for a long time.

          To make it worse, a Windows machine with a SSD will install updates at best at Linux HDD speeds.
          I can't even imagine, last time I did a clean install with windows 10 after updates and after post update disk cleanup. Windows 10 base after updates 25+GB after performing drive cleanup. Even on SSD the disk cleanup takes ages to complete, it gets to around 90% and likes to take its merry time. Yikes.

          That storage heap for its base is retardidly huge. What the...! Don't ever perform disk cleanup to free up storage space before retiring for sleep, it will be on your watch if you always shutdown when not using, thanks Clanksoft.
          Last edited by creative; 14 July 2018, 01:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by creative View Post
            Been running ssd only for a while now. You can pick up a 250GB serial ata ssd for about sixty bucks. Have close to 700GB total on station. It's good to diversify drives or at least thats the way I like it, will eventually add a 4th drive on station for Ghost BSD, Void Linux or the next Slackware release.
            And then you realize a game these days is 60GB or so (mostly with wasted crap you'll never use, like "uncompressed textures" for Ultra which is dumbest thing in existence). Then there's people who want redundancy, you know, in case stuff breaks. So you double (or more) the required capacity.

            It wouldn't be such a big deal if stuff (software & data) was slimmer, but it's not.

            Comment


            • #16
              When I can get 24TB of SSD for less than $500 then I'll think about it. Until then, lol, try again.

              Honestly, I've never noticed much of a difference when building stuff. It's mostly CPU bound even on the 40-core machine I build on. I mean it does make a difference, just not enough to justify the price. I save the SSD's for databases and other heavy I/O tasks.

              Comment


              • #17
                Weasel

                One game takes up to 73GB, have no problems with that honestly. I would rather have more than one 128-250GB drive than one big drive that has multiple boot loaders or one bootloader to boot a bunch of different things. I know why Solus chose goofiboot and completely embrace and respect that. I think it was a great idea and choice.

                I don't have a lot of redundant applications across drives that take up a lot of space, if a large game is installed on one drive I don't install it on another. To be honest most of my favorite games range from 20MB-20GB. I don't really require that much storage.
                Last edited by creative; 16 July 2018, 03:46 AM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                  And then you realize a game these days is 60GB or so (mostly with wasted crap you'll never use, like "uncompressed textures" for Ultra which is dumbest thing in existence). Then there's people who want redundancy, you know, in case stuff breaks. So you double (or more) the required capacity.

                  It wouldn't be such a big deal if stuff (software & data) was slimmer, but it's not.
                  A lot of software and data is small. It depends on where your priorities lay. On my main drive I have 20 games installed, that is a ton in my opinion and with 30gigs to spare. Thats just a 250 size drive. If I need more space I just toast a game that is not being played.
                  Last edited by creative; 16 July 2018, 03:48 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by linner View Post
                    When I can get 24TB of SSD for less than $500 then I'll think about it. Until then, lol, try again.

                    Honestly, I've never noticed much of a difference when building stuff. It's mostly CPU bound even on the 40-core machine I build on. I mean it does make a difference, just not enough to justify the price. I save the SSD's for databases and other heavy I/O tasks.
                    This is still a huge sticking point for anyone running gear on their own dime. All of my machines now have SSDs for their system drive, and the prices are affordable enough to do so. But as soon as you get to bulk storage, it's still completely unaffordable. I've got about 12TB of HDD in my main storage machine, currently with two-disk redundancy ZFS-raidz-2. When you get up into the TB range of requirements, prices increase for SSD storage by a factor of at least 8. That's almost an order of magnitude increase in price to move to SSD.

                    As much as I wish I could do so, it is absolutely unaffordable.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      A desktop user/small project developer needs a lot less. Obviously people that are doing server type stuff and maintaning databases are going to need way more storage. I totally get it and understand it, just have never had to do that type of stuff.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X