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. BillK
