On 16/10/2016 02:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:54, Bod wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old laptop with a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no overall
difference in speed.




Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several laptops to
SSDs and *everything* is much snappier.

Yup same here... In fact I find the improvement in responsiveness and
application start times is more impressive than the reduced boot time.

Indeed. Now that SSD prices have become more affordable, installing an
SSD for your system drive is probably the most cost effective method of
speeding up any computer.

On 15/10/16 21:52, David Paste wrote:
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 10:33:51 UTC+1, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

What (numerical) model laptop, CPU, Graphics, RAM?


Hello,

Thanks for your reply, this is what is reported:

Intel T2080 @ 1.73 GHz x 2
Intel 945GM x86/MMX/SSE2
32 bit OS
2 GB RAM


Should work OK.

I also have the option to use a different laptop:

Intel Celeron C900 @ 2.20 GHz
Integrated Intel Mobile 4 Series Express Chipset Family
32 bit OS, x64 based processor
3 GB RAM


I've booted up linux on something very like the latter. Nice kit and
well good enough for general use. Use x64 Linux.

Thanks!

I think the cutoff for SSD is when the motherboard don't do SATA.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 16/10/16 06:23, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 02:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:54, Bod wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old laptop with a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no overall
difference in speed.




Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several laptops to
SSDs and *everything* is much snappier.

Yup same here... In fact I find the improvement in responsiveness and
application start times is more impressive than the reduced boot time.

Indeed. Now that SSD prices have become more affordable, installing an
SSD for your system drive is probably the most cost effective method of
speeding up any computer.

Certainly was here.

Then the MB went and I got a brand new one - same budget range but 6
years on. It was only a couple of times faster.


But the SSD made everything to do with starting new appplications much
much faster.

Running the apps wasn't really affected as I had a lot of RAM and so it
never swapped.

Finally years too late, I have a personal computer that runs a windowed
GUI as fast as CP/M used to run a text screen, like I think a personal
computer should.



--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

Cheers, T i m

On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

Cheers, T i m


The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive. That size is now very affordable.
That's what I do.

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

Yup same here... In fact I find the improvement in responsiveness and
application start times is more impressive than the reduced boot time.

Alignment makes a big difference. This can be a problem with
imaging/cloning utilities that migrate the partitions on a hard drive to
an SSD without performing alignment.

Some years ago I used the Linux dd utility to migrate a hard drive to an
SSD. The first partition started at sector 63 (i.e. non-aligned). Some
time later I used GParted to re-align to sector 1024; the increase in
performance was very noticeable.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 16/10/16 09:57, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I
use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

Cheers, T i m


The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive. That size is now very affordable.
That's what I do.

fine for a desktop, but for a laptop, two disks is not always an option

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:57:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

Cheers, T i m


The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive.

Whilst that may be the best in a desktop it's not usually an option
for most laptops (and what I generally fit SSDs into).[1] The only
desktop here that has a SSD is the quad core Atom based machine I've
just built and used an SSD because I wanted to get the best out of it
and store most of my data on my server.

That size is now very affordable.

Whilst it's a lot better than it was, that only really applies to
drives that are still smaller than you typically get with conventional
drives.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Until SSD's are available at the same cost of conventional drives
for the same capacities, I mainly see their suitability to laptops (if
you are actually using your laptop portably, for both speed and
durability), tinkerers (people who want to try new stuff) or people
with plenty of money to spend on something that is probably idle for
99.9% of their day and wouldn't therefore make much difference ITRW.

On 16/10/16 10:23, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , John
Rumm escribió:

Yup same here... In fact I find the improvement in responsiveness and
application start times is more impressive than the reduced boot time.

Alignment makes a big difference. This can be a problem with
imaging/cloning utilities that migrate the partitions on a hard drive to
an SSD without performing alignment.

Some years ago I used the Linux dd utility to migrate a hard drive to an
SSD. The first partition started at sector 63 (i.e. non-aligned). Some
time later I used GParted to re-align to sector 1024; the increase in
performance was very noticeable.

ROFLMAO.

There is no relationship between 'sector' and any given bit of disk on
an SSD, indeed wear levelling means the relationship varies with time as
well.



--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Some years ago I used the Linux dd utility to migrate a hard drive to an
SSD. The first partition started at sector 63 (i.e. non-aligned). Some
time later I used GParted to re-align to sector 1024; the increase in
performance was very noticeable.

ROFLMAO.

There is no relationship between 'sector' and any given bit of disk on
an SSD, indeed wear levelling means the relationship varies with time as
well.

The internal blocks of an SSD are larger than sectors and file system
clusters, this will make little difference for reads, but for writes it
can mean cluster-straddling where a single write causes re-writing two
blocks and subsequent erasing of them, that in turn will be increased by
the drive's write-amplification. So yes, alignment can make a
difference (as SAN owners learned somewhat earlier) and it will be more
noticeable on cheaper SSDs with fewer memory channels.

On 16/10/16 09:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 06:23, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 02:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:54, Bod wrote:
On 15/10/2016 09:44, alan_m wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:23, David Paste wrote:
am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)


When I replaced a traditional hard disk in my 5 year old laptop with a
SSD I noticed a faster start up but for day to day use no overall
difference in speed.




Hmm! that hasn't been my experience. I've changed several laptops to
SSDs and *everything* is much snappier.

Yup same here... In fact I find the improvement in responsiveness and
application start times is more impressive than the reduced boot time.

Indeed. Now that SSD prices have become more affordable, installing an
SSD for your system drive is probably the most cost effective method of
speeding up any computer.

Certainly was here.

Then the MB went and I got a brand new one - same budget range but 6
years on. It was only a couple of times faster.


But the SSD made everything to do with starting new appplications much
much faster.

Running the apps wasn't really affected as I had a lot of RAM and so it
never swapped.

Finally years too late, I have a personal computer that runs a windowed
GUI as fast as CP/M used to run a text screen, like I think a personal
computer should.




The main thing with SSDs is effectively zero seek time which is great
for random access (most OS boots and app startups). Even if the SSD
cannot shovel raw data any faster than a disc, it's a massive win.

The only time I got bitten was a crap Crucial SSD drive that died in
short order. Stuck with Sandisk and Plextor and have not been disappointed.

On 16/10/2016 10:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 09:57, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up
the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I
use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a
different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

Cheers, T i m


The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive. That size is now very affordable.
That's what I do.

fine for a desktop, but for a laptop, two disks is not always an option

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

ROFLMAO.

As usual, you display your swivel-eyed ignorance for all to see, and
make yourself look a complete ****. You've come back with a knee-jerk
reply about wear-levelling, which is something completely different.

Read these and learn.

http://lifehacker.com/5837769/make-s...are-correctly-
aligned-for-optimal-solid-state-drive-performance

http://www.macrium.com/help/v5/Partition_Alignment.htm

You respond to many threads on this group with incorrect or irrelevant
information on subjects about which you know nothing. What are you
trying to prove? Calm down and take a minute to think before posting.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...

On 16/10/16 11:04, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

ROFLMAO.

As usual, you display your swivel-eyed ignorance for all to see, and
make yourself look a complete ****. You've come back with a knee-jerk
reply about wear-levelling, which is something completely different.

Read these and learn.

http://lifehacker.com/5837769/make-s...are-correctly-
aligned-for-optimal-solid-state-drive-performance

http://www.macrium.com/help/v5/Partition_Alignment.htm

You respond to many threads on this group with incorrect or irrelevant
information on subjects about which you know nothing. What are you
trying to prove? Calm down and take a minute to think before posting.

Reading drivel from people who have a partial understanding and
reposting it doesn't make it true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in that
case ;-)


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Reading drivel from people who have a partial understanding and
reposting it doesn't make it true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

No one is saying wear-levelling doesn't exist, but you seem to be saying
alignment problems don't exist either.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I use
for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive.

Not if you hardly ever start the system and don’t close
apps, leave them running until you do a full reboot.

That size is now very affordable.

Irrelevant to whether its worth doing.

That's what I do.

More fool you.

On 16/10/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in that
case ;-)


You could always use a 128GB pen drive for about £20 and then
periodiacally transfer the data onto an ext drive.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:02:38 +0100, Bod wrote:

snip

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.

As others have mentioned, it would be if you use your laptop as a
'laptop' and not a desktop. I don't have sufficient space on my 'PC
desk' to place a keyboard, let alone a laptop so laptops are used on
my lap!

You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

See above.

I bet you are the sort of person who goes to a Indian takeaway to get
a pancake roll or a Fish and Chips shop to get a kebab. Or get a
bicycle and fit an engine on it rather than buying a moped. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't use a laptop as a
desktop and many do of course, now laptops are powerful enough and
people only really use any of these devices as they do tablets and
phones and that is as 'web terminals'.

On 16/10/2016 11:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up
the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I
use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a
different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive.

Not if you hardly ever start the system and don’t close
apps, leave them running until you do a full reboot.

That size is now very affordable.

Irrelevant to whether its worth doing.

That's what I do.

More fool you.

Explain why!

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2016 11:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2016 09:40, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:24:49 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up
the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I
use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a
different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

+1

I've probably done 10 SSD 'upgrades' now and the improvement in
general performance ranges from 'remarkable to 'not sure it was worth
it' (especially if you also consider the wasted time, cost and
capacity loss).

The best idea is to just use a small 60 or 120GB SSD only for your
*system* drive.

Not if you hardly ever start the system and don’t close
apps, leave them running until you do a full reboot.

That size is now very affordable.

Irrelevant to whether its worth doing.

That's what I do.

More fool you.

Explain why!

Because if you don’t do a full start more often than every month
or so, and don’t close apps so the only time you start them is
when you do a full start of the entire system, and you have
enough physical ram so the system isnt swapping, there is
no point in farting around with an SSD.

On 16/10/16 11:25, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Reading drivel from people who have a partial understanding and
reposting it doesn't make it true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

No one is saying wear-levelling doesn't exist, but you seem to be saying
alignment problems don't exist either.


No, what I am saying is that the later SSDS with decent wear levelling
set their own block sizes and boundaries so that what you do at OS level
is utterly irrelevant.

Its like pretending that any given memory address actually corresponds
top a particular cell in a particular chip, at application level. Memory
management is all about mapping logical virtual to physical.

And with a modern SSD, its the same. You call for sector 99, and what
you get is a random part of the disk that happens at that instant to be
mapped to sector 99. In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

I am sure there are also articles out there telling you how to defrag an
SSD too, and people who believe in then....

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 16/10/16 11:36, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you
just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a
USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in that
case ;-)


You could always use a 128GB pen drive for about £20 and then
periodiacally transfer the data onto an ext drive.

I've already broke one USB socket through having summat stuck in it all
the time.


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 16/10/16 11:25, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Reading drivel from people who have a partial understanding and
reposting it doesn't make it true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

No one is saying wear-levelling doesn't exist, but you seem to be saying
alignment problems don't exist either.

http://superuser.com/questions/80883...tioning-an-ssd

I think that discussion sums it all up. There is absolutely *no
correlation whatsoever* between what 'track and sector' is requested by
the operating system and what physical block of the SSD the data
actually resides upon.


Its perfectly possible that 'sector 33' is next door to sector 4569 on
the actual disk. And part of the same block which will need to be erased
when there are no free blocks left to write data too.



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

No, what I am saying

.... is a load of irrelevant bull****. Stop wriggling. We're talking
about partition alignment as it applies to SSDs. You're moving the
goalposts (as usual).

You really do not have a clue. Read up on flash memory erase block
sizes, then you will see why you're full of ****. You postill-informed
opinion, not facts, and expect people to take it as gospel.

Here's a link to get you started.

https://flashdba.com/2014/06/20/unde...cks-pages-and-
program-erases/

As usual, you're right and firms like Intel and the major SSD
manufacturers are wrong.

http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/u...te-drives/ssd-
partition-alignment-tech-brief.html

You need to have a read of this too:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/24/how-it-works-the-com.html

* awaits swivel-eyed loony response *

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://superuser.com/questions/80883...tioning-an-ssd

There is absolutely *no correlation whatsoever* between what 'track
and sector' is requested by the operating system and what physical
block of the SSD the data actually resides upon.

That is true, but if you get the alignment wrong then the data from a
single file system cluster may reside in *two* physical blocks, do you
not see that?

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

Why not just stop responding to him? By feeding the troll, you're a
troll yourself.

Aye, you're right. He's shown he's clue-repellent. Back in the
twitlist he goes.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 16/10/16 12:04, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://superuser.com/questions/80883...tioning-an-ssd


There is absolutely *no correlation whatsoever* between what 'track
and sector' is requested by the operating system and what physical
block of the SSD the data actually resides upon.

That is true, but if you get the alignment wrong then the data from a
single file system cluster may reside in *two* physical blocks, do you
not see that?

Sigh. You still haven't got it, have you?

*You have no control over that process*. The SSD is fully in charge of
making *whatever decisions it sees fit* vis a vis physical page and
block alignment.

It doesn't matter whether you place a partition on some arbitrary
boundary or not. The SSD will see a lot of activity in e.g. the
partition's inode and filename metadata areas and align that on a
physical boundary and move it around a lot, to take account of the fact
its a busy piece of disk.


http://codecapsule.com/2014/02/12/co...slation-layer/

is a decent read.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 16/10/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:36, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you
just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a
USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in that
case ;-)


You could always use a 128GB pen drive for about £20 and then
periodiacally transfer the data onto an ext drive.

I've already broke one USB socket through having summat stuck in it all
the time.


Oh dear, careless.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 15/10/2016 11:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Paste wrote:
(It'll be replacing a 5200 rpm drive in a new-to-me laptop running
Ubuntu for the shed, currently is is a bit creaky, am I barking up the
wrong tree to assume an SSD will improve the snappiness of the user
interface?)

Dunno. Bought a new laptop and changed to an SSD. Which totally
transformed the start up time.

Decided to do the same with an older smaller and more basic one I use for
car stuff, and it made little or no difference.

Sometimes its like fixing a congestion point on a road - that traffic
jam just moves to the next slowest junction. Old machines may be disk
limited, but you may find the CPU is not far behind - so you clear the
first problem, and then find that its still slow but now for a different
reason (i.e. not have the CPU grunt).

Yes - the conclusion I came to. The small ACER is otherwise just fine for
the things I use it for - mainly MegaSquirt based - but was hoping to
speed up the boot time. Which takes forever - especially when waiting for
it in the car. ;-)

--
*A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Sigh. You still haven't got it, have you?

You think you have superior knowledge, in reality you have superior
ignorance; you don't know what you don't know.

Instead of listening to/learning from what people are telling you,
please feel free to reply in any fashion you choose, I won't see it ...

On 16/10/16 12:04, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

No, what I am saying

.... is a load of irrelevant bull****. Stop wriggling. We're talking
about partition alignment as it applies to SSDs. You're moving the
goalposts (as usual).



Stop wriggling.


You really do not have a clue. Read up on flash memory erase block
sizes, then you will see why you're full of ****. You postill-informed
opinion, not facts, and expect people to take it as gospel.


You really do not have a clue.


Here's a link to get you started.

https://flashdba.com/2014/06/20/unde...cks-pages-and-
program-erases/

Yes, have you READ that?

Do you not realise that NONE of that is relevant to the operating
system, its all handled by the SSD processor and firmware, so it makes
NO DIFFERENCE to how you partition the disk.

Thats as stupid as saying that if you use a filename starting with 'a'
it will be stored 'at the front of the disk drive'.


As usual, you're right and firms like Intel and the major SSD
manufacturers are wrong.


Sigh. Have you actually READ that stuff?

http://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/u...te-drives/ssd-
partition-alignment-tech-brief.html


2014, Obsolete early Intel drives only and very Windows specific.


I repeat. modern drives have wear levelling algos that simply make
nonsense of that

You need to have a read of this too:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/24/how-it-works-the-com.html

* awaits swivel-eyed loony response *

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear. I realise to people with a little knowledge, someone
with a lot appears to have less than they do, but that is a mistake.


I spent several weeks researching SSDs before I installed one. The
consensus was that with modern drives, partition alignment was meaningless.


And the people who said that seemed to understand SSDS far far more than
those who regurgitated simplistic myths and results from early drives
with poor block mapping algorithms.

Which is why I saw fit to correct the misinformation you were spreading.

But there is no accounting for a big dick and a small brain.

Those capable of reading the links I have provided and understanding
what they say will form their own conclusions.




--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 16/10/16 12:14, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

Why not just stop responding to him? By feeding the troll, you're a
troll yourself.

Aye, you're right. He's shown he's clue-repellent. Back in the
twitlist he goes.

Poor old Mike. Lost the argument again.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 16/10/16 12:19, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:36, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you
just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a
USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in
that
case ;-)


You could always use a 128GB pen drive for about £20 and then
periodiacally transfer the data onto an ext drive.

I've already broke one USB socket through having summat stuck in it all
the time.


Oh dear, careless.
No, very poor design.

Constant wiggling has made the center bit fall out.

Its a cheap lappy. Very cheap.

But it runs Linux :-)


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 16/10/2016 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 12:19, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:36, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/10/16 11:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Bod wrote:

My laptop has got two hard drives, but on a single drive laptop you
just
save your data to external drives, so it's not a problem.
You can also leave an external drive connected semi permanently to a
USB
socket and use that as a second drive.

That's OK for laptops that stay tethered to a desk, not so good for
laptops that actually get moved around ...


Well exactly. Lying in bed watching TV on me lappy with a bloody great
USB drive hanging off - the answer is of course NAS of some sort in
that
case ;-)


You could always use a 128GB pen drive for about £20 and then
periodiacally transfer the data onto an ext drive.

I've already broke one USB socket through having summat stuck in it all
the time.


Oh dear, careless.
No, very poor design.

Constant wiggling has made the center bit fall out.

Its a cheap lappy. Very cheap.

But it runs Linux :-)


Ok.

On 16/10/16 12:28, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Sigh. You still haven't got it, have you?

You think you have superior knowledge, in reality you have superior
ignorance; you don't know what you don't know.

Read the links pointed to.

And learn to think for yourself, or be forever condemn3ed to receive
knowledge with no way to ever judge if its true.

I've been an electronic engineer and a comoputer systems professional
for bloody years. I try to do my research and take a view on what I
read, and present that. I happen to have done a lot of research on SSDS
beyond reading some urban legend on the net, and that is what forms the
basis for what I say. If I don't have good knowledge I generally don't
respond at all.



Instead of listening to/learning from what people are telling you,
please feel free to reply in any fashion you choose, I won't see it ...


Your loss.

I repeat, with modern drives there is absolutely NO direct
correspondence between what you do at the operating system partitioning
level and what happens on the disk. Why would there be?

Wear levelling means a constantly changing set of maps between logical
and physical. The disks are designed so that quirks of the host OS wont
**** them up as well.

IN other words they are SMART.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:22:22 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Yes - the conclusion I came to. The small ACER is otherwise just fine for
the things I use it for - mainly MegaSquirt based - but was hoping to
speed up the boot time. Which takes forever - especially when waiting for
it in the car. ;-)

Doesn't it ... like anything you are waiting for (printing off that
map or addresses just before you go out / catch the train).

That's why I'm keen to try this Toughbook in the 'field' / ITRW to see
if the (new) battery is still holding power and I'm still happy to sit
there while it boots when in a car in the winter.

I hope to be able to try the VAG-Com on the Seat Ibiza with the fault
light to see what it can (or can't see).

When I had the AA guy out to the 'dead' SL63 the other day his
'remote' OBD box required a firmware upgrade (or the BT tablet he was
using on it) and it wouldn't proceed without ... nor did the OTA
firmware update work (even over a USB cable). I'm guessing it would
have been pretty quick to boot and easy to hold / use, had it actually
worked. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 16/10/2016 14:02, pamela wrote:
On 12:33 16 Oct 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 16/10/16 12:19, Bod wrote:
On 16/10/2016 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


I've already broke one USB socket through having summat stuck
in it all the time.


Oh dear, careless.

No, very poor design.

It's not your fault when you damage something that no one else
does; it's the fault of the design.

Classic.

ROFL.

Constant wiggling has made the center bit fall out.

Its a cheap lappy. Very cheap.

But it runs Linux :-)

g

On 12:46 16 Oct 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I've been an electronic engineer and a comoputer systems
professional for bloody years.

And you still manage to know **** all. Impressive. You're a proto-
Wodney.

I happen to have done a
lot of research on SSDS

bull****.

beyond reading some urban legend on the
net

what Intel says is urban legend?

http://www.intel.co.uk/content/dam/w...ents/technolog
y-briefs/ssd-partition-alignment-tech-brief.pdf

Prick.

, and that is what forms the basis for what I say. If I don't
have good knowledge I generally don't respond at all.

Bull****. You're all over this NG like a rash with your uninformed
opinions which are mostly wrong, a lot of hand-waving about how clever
you think you are.

You post a lot; there is the occasional nugget but most of it is the
nuggets that drop out of your arse.

This was drawn with idiots like you in mind: https://xkcd.com/386/

plonk

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")