On 10/28/12 04:54, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
SSD might still be good bet. They are like switching from floppy disk to
harddisk for me.
+1
On 10/28/12 11:11, Mark Allums wrote:
> The principle is sound, but the prices are 10x too much.
Intel 520 series 60 GB SSD -- $91.93
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Solid-State-Drive-SATA-2-5-Inch/dp/B006VCP72W
Western Digital Barracuda 80 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB SATA 2 HDD -- $25.25
http://www.amazon.com/WESTERN-DIGITAL-WD800JD-Drive-Electronics/dp/B0007YYDBG
Yes, the SSD is more expensive -- $67 more, or 3.6x the price.
But looking at total system cost, today's price would be $820 with SSD
vs. $753 with HDD. Saving 9% total system cost and limiting system
drive performance by investing in obsolete technology would have been a
poor choice.
And now that I have one fast SSD, I can buy a second, set up RAID 0, and
double drive throughput for 11% additional system cost. Imagine 1
GB/second drive throughput -- yowza!
Similarly, I can double memory size for 5%. Or, when 2 @ 8 GB DDR3 1333
MHz kits are ~$82, I can triple memory size for 10%.
So, with a solid foundation and the right upgrades, I should be able to
get good service out of this machine for the next 7 years.
>
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/24/1848203/ext4-data-corruption-bug-hits-linux-kernel
Yuck. I think I'll leave my systems on...
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/508da847.5050...@holgerdanske.com
