"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 21:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 20:38, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 19:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 18:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 16:06, Clive George wrote:
On 17/10/2016 15:12, Bod wrote:
"Afford the luxury"??

If your system is running into swap, it will be slower than
it
needs to
be. It's not so much affording the luxury, as affording the
basics.

TNP might be happy running gridwatch on a cheese-pared setup,
but
memory
is really very cheap these days, so anybody doing this sort
of
thing for
a living will do it properly - which for most servers means
running in
memory. (there are probably exceptions, I've just not hit
them
yet,
but
I do have a fairly wide experience of servers...)

The price depends on what type of memory. 32GB of DDR4 2600
mhz
for my
laptop is £171. I wouldn't call that cheap.

If you're doing this for a living and running something which
needs
32GB
of memory, 171 quid is cheap. You're neither doing it for a
living nor
do you need anything like that, so you think it's expensive.

You probably also think over 500 quid for a laptop is expensive
:-)

(basic reasoning is pretty much that if you're doing it for a
living,
other costs will dwarf it, and if you need it you'll either be
making
rather more than that or saving enough time to make it worth
it.)

Has TNP posted how much his gridwatch server has? For
comparison, I
think the cheapest lowest spec Azure VM is 3.5GB, and that will
all be
available as full speed memory if you use it.


My latest laptop cost £900.

So it was stupid to not have more than 8GB of ram
in it and to close apps when you stop using them.

Because that's the amount that was in it when I bought it.
I'm gonna get another 24GB of ram anyway.

So you ****ed your money against the wall on the SSD
and will get no advantage from it once you have 32GB
of ram, dont close apps when you stop using them and
dont stupidly turn the system off every day.

Tell me how fast you can load a pagefull of, say, photos from a
mechanical drive?

Fast enough to not bother to **** any money against
the wall on an SSD. I do that on the smartphone I took
the photos with anyway, not stupid enough to do that
on the desktop or laptop and its instant on the smartphone.


"Hard drives win on price, capacity, and availability. SSDs work best
if speed, ruggedness, form factor, noise, or fragmentation
(technically part of speed) are important factors to you. If it
weren't for the price and capacity issues, SSDs would be the winner
hands down".

http://uk.pcmag.com/storage-devices-...the-difference



Irrelevant to what is being discussed.


You were on about speed. SSDs beat mechanical drives hands down.

Not when you have enough of a clue to not close apps when
you have stopped using them for a bit, and arent actually stupid
enough to turn your system off every night and have enough of
a clue to have enough physical memory so it doesnt swap.

Stupid is your favourite word.

I call a spade a spade and stupid stupid.

If you dont like that, stop being stupid.