View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
dmmh
|
Posted: 02.16.12 |
|
|
Godlike |
|
Joined: 01.19.09 Posts: 1134
|
natirips wrote: dmmh wrote: it shouldn't...it doesn't do anything to the hardware... In windows source code there is a part that goes like this: Code: while(1) { flicker_led(LED_HDD); } Are you sure it didn't do anything? P.S.: I'm out of spare HDDs, sorry (unless you want me to send you a cca. 250MB PATA drive from early '90s [edit]it worked last time I used it[/edit]). Lol. Thnks for the offer man. But U guess 2MN won't work lol My BIOS doesn't even see the drive, so I guess it just was time for it to die. Those SSD disks are looking mighty interesting now, when they fail, they fail in read only mode, do at least you can get your stuff. But 2000 euro for a 500 GB HDD us a little out of my price range
_________________ the meaning of the word cunt....loool
|
|
Top |
|
|
havoc
|
Posted: 02.17.12 |
|
|
Godlike |
|
Joined: 06.26.09 Posts: 674
|
Crusher wrote: I still don't have enough confidence to buy these SSDs disks... good only if you tend to kick your computer a lot
_________________ "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Top |
|
|
natirips
|
Posted: 02.17.12 |
|
|
[dswp]R.Stallman |
|
Joined: 04.13.09 Posts: 2946 Location: Solar System/≈Zagreb
-----tdm:
nick: [ntr]Shortly
skill: 497.05
kills: 3446
deaths: 4411
ratio: 0.78
-----bomb:
nick: [ntr]Shortly
skill: 707.602
kills: 526
deaths: 863
ratio: 0.60
|
One question: why place OS on a fast disk and data on the slow one? I mean, OS gets loaded at startup after a minute or so and remains in memory. It's the data that I always find being so slow.
_________________ ssh natirips@*.255.255.255 sudo chown -R natirips / \; echo Also, »QUESTION EVERYTHING«
|
|
Top |
|
|
havoc
|
Posted: 02.17.12 |
|
|
Godlike |
|
Joined: 06.26.09 Posts: 674
|
wursti is server-biased :P
_________________ "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Top |
|
|
wurst
|
Posted: 02.17.12 |
|
|
Godlike |
|
Joined: 07.15.08 Posts: 4648 Location: Behind U
-----tdm:
nick: [dswp]GewitterOma
skill: 1122.83
kills: 25960
deaths: 19847
ratio: 1.30
-----bomb:
nick: [dswp]GewitterOma
skill: 812.172
kills: 3885
deaths: 3541
ratio: 1.09
|
hm, i meant the programs too. its booting multiple times faster, every program loads faster. its more reliable, less power consuming, more shock resistant, easier to erase. but sure, i must give in: urban terror maps dont load significantly faster. u wont be more sexy at all and ur porn wont look any better.
all computer parts went faster all the time, doubling in capacity and speed every 18 months. at least all integrated circuits. hard disks had a linear raise in size and speed, growing maybe 15% in the doubling time of the rest.
those mechanical monsters survived all times, failing that often that u can call them a "job creation instrument" cause mass storage on them is cheap. 10 cent/GB is a word. so its no wonder that in any, its THE bottleneck. the newer the comp, the higher the performance gap between HDD and the rest.
however, now comes bandwidh vs. latency discussion, u all know that those two factors are known as speed in any digital transportation.
from the latency side SSD are already cheap. hell cheap, they crossed that line long time before there were SSDs. some freaks already used USB sticks for powerful web applications, they never fail when u dont write. they are "green". the limited write cycles held everyone back. in fact a storage with 100 GB is likely to fail every day when theres just 10K writes. usb sticks? never trust it! its what we learn from real life.
a 15KRpm disk can have a latency of 3 milliseconds. Queueing Events wont make it faster, its more likely that its heads have to do bigger movements. in the End we get 333 strikes per second. under good conditions. thats it. an SSD has typically 0,2ms access time. This means 5000 strikes per second. modern SSD can deal up to 50 simultaneous reads. in the end u will recieve something bewtween 40.000 and 100.000, depending on size, state and R/W. the worst value would mean a replacement of 120 (600Euro-) Disks, including controllers and electricity. the SSD costs hm... 100 Euro. Power? 8760 hours * 2 watt = 17,5 Kwh / ~2,-- the 120 hdd * 600 Euro + ~10K for sans/controllers. Not less then 1,5K Euro p.a. for electricity. Calc urself^^
the disks of today deal great with these issues, they bring one nice new part to pur computers: something with some properties ram and some of hard disks. soon flash will be cheaper, mram will come.
from the speed side they are already way cheaper then comparable drive arrays. from the storage side they are not, sure. especially those nice new drives cost up to 4 Euro per GB. thats 40 times the price of a hdd! they will become cheaper one day. the secret is teh chips inside. their raise is a constant doubling in size, so one day their priceline will cross the hdds. a hdd will always stay a mechanical masterpiece. compare a rolex to a hard drive: rolex loose. those costs will stay more or less constant in mine expectation. metal price raises *maybe?
be sure to have 1 hdd for ur children (so u can show them what kind of storage mankind used those times).
_________________
|
|
Top |
|
|
natirips
|
Posted: 02.17.12 |
|
|
[dswp]R.Stallman |
|
Joined: 04.13.09 Posts: 2946 Location: Solar System/≈Zagreb
-----tdm:
nick: [ntr]Shortly
skill: 497.05
kills: 3446
deaths: 4411
ratio: 0.78
-----bomb:
nick: [ntr]Shortly
skill: 707.602
kills: 526
deaths: 863
ratio: 0.60
|
You just inspired me to do a little research on the local market. In my favorite shop the storage-oriented pricing (since I personally consider my 2TB to be a very tight living space but I'm not rich enough to afford more ATM) is: mechanical SATA: 60€/TB SSD SATA: 1080€/TB PCI-Express* SSD: 440€/TB *o_O I didn't know PCI-Express drives existed I guess I'll stick to mecha drives for a while longer, especially as I personally wouldn't benefit at all from any faster OS/programs load times. Also, wouldn't pagefile (windows) and filesystem journaling (linux) hurt SSD drives? Edit: Maybe I should get a SSD drive for firefox config. It takes extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemly long time to exit. It gets frustrating at times. I even keep a root terminal open at all times and a script like this ready at hand: /usr/bin/firefox-must-die wrote: #!/bin/bash killall -9 firefox-bin
_________________ ssh natirips@*.255.255.255 sudo chown -R natirips / \; echo Also, »QUESTION EVERYTHING«
|
|
Top |
|
|
dmmh
|
Posted: 02.19.12 |
|
|
Godlike |
|
Joined: 01.19.09 Posts: 1134
|
havoc wrote: Crusher wrote: I still don't have enough confidence to buy these SSDs disks... good only if you tend to kick your computer a lot you forget it's ultra fast
_________________ the meaning of the word cunt....loool
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
voice server |
|
|
|
top 20 players
name | skill | kills |
---|
-Dws.BLINGBLING*-* | 1730.63 | 418631 | NormaSnockers | 1865.75 | 400492 | Zottel | 1760.8 | 276378 | make.them.suffer | 1846.17 | 269872 | >8v= | 1825.35 | 230156 | moon | 1777.56 | 195615 | sjas | 1692.49 | 192315 | peace | 1878.86 | 190660 | Wagner_Moura | 1562.9 | 188001 | Goomba | 1859.75 | 182677 | z0rn | 1608.41 | 181016 | Mad | 1803.76 | 179124 | [dswp]PLZ | 1847.85 | 178516 | Graf_ZahlIII | 1835.73 | 167407 | Zohan | 1611.07 | 159737 | ubercunt | 1634.93 | 159240 | Yarrr! | 1917.33 | 156233 | I_am_nOOb | 1909.64 | 151268 | Pandageddon | 1891.75 | 148319 | Pirat | 1664.08 | 145798 |
|
|
|