(02-29-2012, 07:43 PM)Gabriel Belmont Wrote: [ -> ]I sure haven't noticed any improvement when using Dolphin with an SSD, only OS wise like startup and shutdowns.
It's still a complete waste of money to buy a real big SSD. I'll not getting one until my next build in the future.
SSDs have one HUGE disadvantage - based on flash memory technology they have limited write cycles. While a million or 10 of writes is ok for something like drive where you store music - you just add more files until drive is full and read them many times, it's not that good for system drive with a lot of swapping with up to few thousand writes per second. We tried to use SSDs for swap-intensive system - 2 failed within a month, one worked for about a year.
Yeah for now I take an old school mechanical HDD over a SSD any day.
i love playing pc games on my ssd, but for dolphin there is no advantage
(02-29-2012, 08:02 PM)ShadowFlash Wrote: [ -> ] (02-29-2012, 07:43 PM)Gabriel Belmont Wrote: [ -> ]I sure haven't noticed any improvement when using Dolphin with an SSD, only OS wise like startup and shutdowns.
It's still a complete waste of money to buy a real big SSD. I'll not getting one until my next build in the future.
SSDs have one HUGE disadvantage - based on flash memory technology they have limited write cycles. While a million or 10 of writes is ok for something like drive where you store music - you just add more files until drive is full and read them many times, it's not that good for system drive with a lot of swapping with up to few thousand writes per second. We tried to use SSDs for swap-intensive system - 2 failed within a month, one worked for about a year.
Which computer on this world still uses swap? It's a legacy technology which is really, really rarely used. With 4GB of RAM, you will almost never need to use swap. For some reason, Windows sometimes seems to use swap although there's enough system memory available, don't ask me why.
SSDs are completely useless for storing music, why would you do that? A SSD is the device you want to install an operating system on, because it'll be noticeably faster. I also think that whole "they break after a year" stuff is -- at least partly -- a myth. It seems that many of the devices out there just have buggy firmware, and that seems to be a main reason for all the "my SSD broke" messages around. Oh, and also you have to configure them correctly (use 4k aligned writes, disable accesstime, ...).
Obviously, a SSD is no replacement for system memory. That's what RAM is for, and it's so cheap you should buy it for that purpose. But it's the perfect thing to install your applications and OS on.
(02-29-2012, 09:05 PM)Gabriel Belmont Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah for now I take an old school mechanical HDD over a SSD any day.
Did you actually *use* one for a while?
FWIW, according to this
article I read a couple of weeks ago, it looks like SSDs might encounter problems in the future as they shrink to increase capacity. Dunno how thorough the study was, but it seems possible that SSDs might not be so hot down the road.
If you want the SSD that could last long enough then get Intel SSD , don't even bother with OCZ,Samsung ,Crucial,Kington you'll get what you pay for...
I bought it as 24/7 OS boot drive about 1.5 years ago , it still has warranty till 2014
I would buy Intel 520 series for the future laptop (Fujitsu - Haswell CPU + Nvidia Kepler GPU)
(03-02-2012, 02:39 AM)scummos Wrote: [ -> ] (02-29-2012, 09:05 PM)Gabriel Belmont Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah for now I take an old school mechanical HDD over a SSD any day.
Did you actually *use* one for a while?
Yeah I used a Kingston SSD for a month or two, then I went back to my 500 GB Western Digital HDD.
The SSD was kinda small in size though, only 30 GB which is only sufficient for the OS basically.
So now I have everything on the HDD instead as I used to.
The SSD was expensive when I bought it, and it was clearly a waste of money buying a 30 GB one, I gained nothing but a few seconds faster startup and shutdown.
(03-02-2012, 03:03 AM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, according to this article I read a couple of weeks ago, it looks like SSDs might encounter problems in the future as they shrink to increase capacity. Dunno how thorough the study was, but it seems possible that SSDs might not be so hot down the road.
"The researchers took their empirical results and extrapolated them to the year 2024" yeah sure.
http://xkcd.com/1007/
If you ask me, that's nonsense. Those problems will be solved. "Expensive" is mostly just a question of "how many people want it", the more common a piece of technology is, the cheaper it gets.
Quote:The SSD was expensive when I bought it, and it was clearly a waste of money buying a 30 GB one, I gained nothing but a few seconds faster startup and shutdown.
Okay, for my use case it's a huge gain. I can finally start almost any application without waiting, Arch Linux boots in less than ten seconds, and the overall amount of drive-caused hangs is just about zero (with a normal hard disk, you'll usually run into problems if one application does an IO-intensive task, like copying a large file, and another application needs data from the hard disk too; this is not really noticeable any more with a SSD, which makes sense).
Also stuff like analyzing disk usage or searching files is several orders of magnitude faster than on ordinary disks.
Quote:Which computer on this world still uses swap? It's a legacy technology which is really, really rarely used. With 4GB of RAM, you will almost never need to use swap.
Many 3d apps, image processing apps, video apps, etc... are swap intensive because sometimes they work with huge files simultaneosly.
Quote:For some reason, Windows sometimes seems to use swap although there's enough system memory available, don't ask me why.
Virtual memory is enabled by default, but you can always disable it if you have enough ram (8 gb or more depending on the software you use)
(03-02-2012, 04:25 AM)scummos Wrote: [ -> ]If you ask me, that's nonsense. Those problems will be solved.
Or, it could be outright replaced by some other form of memory storage.
The report makes assumptions, chiefly that the tech we use now will continue to be the same, even as we shrink the circuitry. Still, I wouldn't assume that any technical problem can be solved simply because we've had enough time to look at the problem; there might be barriers that are insurmountable no matter what we've thrown at it.
That said, I wouldn't assume that the problem can't be solved period. If SSDs are going to encounter problems in the future, then someone better get on it to determine what can be done.