On Saturday, November 07, 2015 03:06:32 PM the...@sys-concept.com wrote: > On 11/07/2015 02:52 PM, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > > On 08/11/15 05:22, the...@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
