En el artículo , pamela
escribió:

Even if Turnip pauses to read your information, I suspect his main
aim will be to win the argument despite being wrong.

aye. The sign of a very insecure personality with self-esteem issues.

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

En el artículo , pamela
escribió:

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

A bad workman blames his tools.

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

On 16/10/16 16:52, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

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


It may have been true 4 years ago for a crappy intel SSD on windows, but
that is not the case now

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.

I think you have been looking into a mirror again Wodney
:-)

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



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 16/10/16 16:53, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

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

A bad workman blames his tools.

A troll implies that no one else has the problem when its very common.



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think the cutoff for SSD is when the motherboard don't do SATA.

There are PATA-SATA adaptors, but it can get a bit mechanically messy. I
fitted an SSD to a 2004 laptop with one - had to select the adaptor
carefully to fit, and take the case off the SSD. It made a massive
difference.

There are also PATA SSDs, but that tends to be random-Chinese-brand-off-ebay
territory. Some of them used really terrible flash, but I hope they have now
improved. Price/GB is much worse than SATA typically.

Theo

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:27:45 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

Only with the laptops that dont have enough physical memory.

Bull****.

We'll see...

My desktop has 32GB and the SSD still makes an enormous difference.

Not to anything except the time to start from a full reboot and
with launching apps that are very disk intensive when starting.

Anyone with even half a clue only reboots every few months
and doesnt close apps at all.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:54:16 +0100, 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.

Agreed. I guess his day to day use is opening one word processor and
using it for hours.

Nope, just only rebooting ever few months and not closing apps.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.
My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram, but I don't use a swap
file. When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement
to everything.
My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram and an M.2 SSD
which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't use a swap file.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.
I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

On 16/10/2016 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

While it is true there is a fluid relationship between logical block
numbers which are visible to the OS, and physical flash pages, there is
no getting away from the fact that the flash devices themselves are
block or page oriented devices, and their page size is typically larger
than the logical allocation unit size used by the file system
(regardless of OS).

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.

The same situation exists with memory. Compilers understand that non
word sized aligned memory accesses (depending on CPU architecture) will
at best suffer a performance hit. So they will pad data structures to
avoid this.

So while in theory a CPU using paging / virtualised addressing could map
linear address spaces to physical addresses with an arbitrary alignment,
they don't - they stick to granularity sizes that allow direct mapping
to memory data path boundaries.

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.

That much is true...

In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

Not quite - there is not a one to one mapping of OS allocation units to
flash pages. For optimum performance you need to ensure that whichever
allocation unit you update, the SSD can do that update by operating on
one (and only one) page of flash. With the wrong alignment, you can end
up with the SSD needing to do two page updates for each OS allocation
unit update.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.

But only when you are stupid enough to turn the system off when you
arent using it, close apps when you stop using them, or dont have
anything like enough physical memory for what you are doing.

My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram,

Nothing even remotely like enough.

but I don't use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you arent using them.

When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement to
everything.

Because you stupidly close apps when you arent
using them or are running a 32 bit OS or both.

My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram

Nothing even remotely like enough.

and an M.2 SSD which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't use
a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you stop using them.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.

Wrong when you have enough of a clue to never
close apps when you stop using them for a while.

I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

But you are stupid enough to close apps
when you stop using them for a while.

On 17/10/2016 09:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.

But only when you are stupid enough to turn the system off when you
arent using it, close apps when you stop using them, or dont have
anything like enough physical memory for what you are doing.

My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram,

Nothing even remotely like enough.

but I don't use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you arent using them.

When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement to
everything.

Because you stupidly close apps when you arent
using them or are running a 32 bit OS or both.

My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram

Nothing even remotely like enough.

and an M.2 SSD which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't
use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you stop using them.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.

Wrong when you have enough of a clue to never
close apps when you stop using them for a while.

I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

But you are stupid enough to close apps
when you stop using them for a while.

I shut them when I've finished using them. Now why would I want to keep
something open that I am no longer using and can reopen instantly when
needed?

On 17/10/16 09:37, John Rumm wrote:
In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

Not quite - there is not a one to one mapping of OS allocation units to
flash pages. For optimum performance you need to ensure that whichever
allocation unit you update, the SSD can do that update by operating on
one (and only one) page of flash. With the wrong alignment, you can end
up with the SSD needing to do two page updates for each OS allocation
unit update.


However all that may be true, but its not under user level control via
partioning, and its handled internally by the SSD.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 09:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.

But only when you are stupid enough to turn the system off when you
arent using it, close apps when you stop using them, or dont have
anything like enough physical memory for what you are doing.

My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram,

Nothing even remotely like enough.

but I don't use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you arent using them.

When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement to
everything.

Because you stupidly close apps when you arent
using them or are running a 32 bit OS or both.

My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram

Nothing even remotely like enough.

and an M.2 SSD which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't
use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you stop using them.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.

Wrong when you have enough of a clue to never
close apps when you stop using them for a while.

I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

But you are stupid enough to close apps
when you stop using them for a while.

I shut them when I've finished using them.

More fool you.

Now why would I want to keep something open that I am no longer using

Because it will always be quicker to switch to an already
open app than it will ever be to start it again.

and can reopen instantly when needed?

Because it can never be instantly.

On 17/10/16 10:08, Bod wrote:
Now why would I want to keep something open that I am no longer using
and can reopen instantly when needed

For some values of 'instantly'

Certainly I close Windows ion its VM when not in use. Its only a second
to 'reboot it' from a disk image.

Oddly in that case it will always write to a disk image when closed by
'saving machine state' which is probably bad for the SSD. ;-)




--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 17/10/2016 10:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 09:37, John Rumm wrote:
In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

Not quite - there is not a one to one mapping of OS allocation units to
flash pages. For optimum performance you need to ensure that whichever
allocation unit you update, the SSD can do that update by operating on
one (and only one) page of flash. With the wrong alignment, you can end
up with the SSD needing to do two page updates for each OS allocation
unit update.


However all that may be true, but its not under user level control via
partioning, and its handled internally by the SSD.

There is no obvious way a SSD could make a sensible choice to internally
remap alignment if it turns out you have managed to install an OS
partition with a start LBA offset from the ideal. Especially as one
physical drive can host more than one partition, and if you really
tried, you could end up with several partitions each with different
alignments.

It makes far more sense to ensure the partitions are aligned so that the
OS allocation unit is on a 4K boundary (which is the default action on a
modern OS anyway)




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/10/2016 10:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 09:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.

But only when you are stupid enough to turn the system off when you
arent using it, close apps when you stop using them, or dont have
anything like enough physical memory for what you are doing.

My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram,

Nothing even remotely like enough.

but I don't use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you arent using them.

When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement to
everything.

Because you stupidly close apps when you arent
using them or are running a 32 bit OS or both.

My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram

Nothing even remotely like enough.

and an M.2 SSD which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't
use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you stop using them.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.

Wrong when you have enough of a clue to never
close apps when you stop using them for a while.

I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

But you are stupid enough to close apps
when you stop using them for a while.

I shut them when I've finished using them.

More fool you.

Now why would I want to keep something open that I am no longer using

Because it will always be quicker to switch to an already
open app than it will ever be to start it again.

and can reopen instantly when needed?

Because it can never be instantly.

Pedant.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:31:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 17/10/2016 10:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 09:37, John Rumm wrote:
In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

Not quite - there is not a one to one mapping of OS allocation units to
flash pages. For optimum performance you need to ensure that whichever
allocation unit you update, the SSD can do that update by operating on
one (and only one) page of flash. With the wrong alignment, you can end
up with the SSD needing to do two page updates for each OS allocation
unit update.


However all that may be true, but its not under user level control via
partioning, and its handled internally by the SSD.

There is no obvious way a SSD could make a sensible choice to internally
remap alignment if it turns out you have managed to install an OS
partition with a start LBA offset from the ideal. Especially as one
physical drive can host more than one partition, and if you really
tried, you could end up with several partitions each with different
alignments.

It makes far more sense to ensure the partitions are aligned so that the
OS allocation unit is on a 4K boundary (which is the default action on a
modern OS anyway)

So and irrespective of any performance impact ITRW, if some software
(Gparted) can see and display that these alignments aren't made *and*
can set them, is Gparted actually then *actually / physically*
resetting said alignments or just indicating it is?

What would be a good (valid) way of checking for such things
(increased performance hopefully) pre and post adjustment?

It all sounds like re-numbering sector to reduce latency with Optune
all those years ago. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 17/10/16 11:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/10/2016 10:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 09:37, John Rumm wrote:
In reality it could be anywhere on any boundary the
SSD firmware and processor puts it.

Not quite - there is not a one to one mapping of OS allocation units to
flash pages. For optimum performance you need to ensure that whichever
allocation unit you update, the SSD can do that update by operating on
one (and only one) page of flash. With the wrong alignment, you can end
up with the SSD needing to do two page updates for each OS allocation
unit update.


However all that may be true, but its not under user level control via
partioning, and its handled internally by the SSD.

There is no obvious way

Actually, I can think of several


a SSD could make a sensible choice to internally
remap alignment if it turns out you have managed to install an OS
partition with a start LBA offset from the ideal. Especially as one
physical drive can host more than one partition, and if you really
tried, you could end up with several partitions each with different
alignments.

In logical space. There is no reason for the SSD not to have enough
sense to map some odd 512 byte sector starting point to the start of a
physical page.

Especially if it understands partition information, which is not exactly
rocket science.


It makes far more sense to ensure the partitions are aligned so that the
OS allocation unit is on a 4K boundary (which is the default action on a
modern OS anyway)

My point is that that is what the SSD firmware will in fact do.

No matter where the partition boundary is.








--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.

On 17/10/16 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.


Nice if you can afford the luxury....

Guess how much RAM gridwatch runs on, and how much swap it has?


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 17/10/2016 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.

I disable the swap and never run out of ram for what I do and I only use
8GB of ram.

On 17/10/2016 13:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear
out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.


Nice if you can afford the luxury....

Guess how much RAM gridwatch runs on, and how much swap it has?


How much?

On 17/10/2016 14:12, Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2016 13:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear
out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have
the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.


Nice if you can afford the luxury....

Guess how much RAM gridwatch runs on, and how much swap it has?


How much?

"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...)

On 17/10/2016 14:57, Clive George wrote:
On 17/10/2016 14:12, Bod wrote:
On 17/10/2016 13:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/10/16 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear
out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have
the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.


Nice if you can afford the luxury....

Guess how much RAM gridwatch runs on, and how much swap it has?


How much?

"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.

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.

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.

On 17/10/2016 16:14, Bod wrote:
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.

And you're claiming 171 quid for a significant upgrade isn't cheap?

On 17/10/2016 17:29, Clive George wrote:
On 17/10/2016 16:14, Bod wrote:
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.

And you're claiming 171 quid for a significant upgrade isn't cheap?

It's subjective. I could've got a much cheaper i7 laptop for about £550.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 10:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 09:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 07:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not convinced when you only reboot every few months, never close
any app, have enough physical ram on a 64bit system so it never swaps
and have a decent high performance cpu like an i5 etc.

I *know* it makes a big difference.

But only when you are stupid enough to turn the system off when you
arent using it, close apps when you stop using them, or dont have
anything like enough physical memory for what you are doing.

My desktop pooter has an i7 CPU and only 8GB ram,

Nothing even remotely like enough.

but I don't use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you arent using them.

When I installed an SSD it made a dramatic speed improvement to
everything.

Because you stupidly close apps when you arent
using them or are running a 32 bit OS or both.

My gaming laptop has the latest i7 with 8GB DDR4 ram

Nothing even remotely like enough.

and an M.2 SSD which is even faster than standard SSDs. Again, I don't
use a swap file.

Then you must be stupidly closing apps when you stop using them.

Unless you're doing intensive video editing etc, 8GB of ram is plenty.

Wrong when you have enough of a clue to never
close apps when you stop using them for a while.

I never run out of ram headroom to need a swap file.

But you are stupid enough to close apps
when you stop using them for a while.

I shut them when I've finished using them.

More fool you.

Now why would I want to keep something open that I am no longer using

Because it will always be quicker to switch to an already
open app than it will ever be to start it again.

and can reopen instantly when needed?

Because it can never be instantly.

Pedant.

Pendant.

En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

TNP might be happy running gridwatch on a cheese-pared setup

He's running it on a cheapo hosted setup via Paragon Internet.

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

En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

And you're claiming 171 quid for a significant upgrade isn't cheap?

Memory prices have risen recently, and still are. Brexit (falling
pound) isn't helping as it's traded in dollars.

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

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear out
an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.

I disable the swap and never run out of ram for what I do and I only use
8GB of ram.

And you stupidly close apps when you stop using them for a bit,
and that is why you see a better result with an SSD. If you werent
that stupid, you wouldnt see any better result with an SSD if you have
enough of a clue to not turn the system off when you arent using it.

"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.

On 17/10/2016 18:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear
out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have
the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.

I disable the swap and never run out of ram for what I do and I only
use 8GB of ram.

And you stupidly close apps when you stop using them for a bit,
and that is why you see a better result with an SSD. If you werent
that stupid, you wouldnt see any better result with an SSD if you have
enough of a clue to not turn the system off when you arent using it.

It's left on all day. Only gets switched off at bedtime, like most
people do.
Why would I leave it turned on all night when it's not being used.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 17:29, Clive George wrote:
On 17/10/2016 16:14, Bod wrote:
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.

And you're claiming 171 quid for a significant upgrade isn't cheap?

It's subjective. I could've got a much cheaper i7 laptop for about £550.

So it was stupid to have just 8GB of ram and to close apps when you stop
using them.

And you ****ed more against the wall on the SSD than you would
have spent on the right amount of physical ram in that laptop too.

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.

On 17/10/2016 18:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 17:29, Clive George wrote:
On 17/10/2016 16:14, Bod wrote:
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.

And you're claiming 171 quid for a significant upgrade isn't cheap?

It's subjective. I could've got a much cheaper i7 laptop for about £550.

So it was stupid to have just 8GB of ram and to close apps when you stop
using them.

And you ****ed more against the wall on the SSD than you would
have spent on the right amount of physical ram in that laptop too.

Lol.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 18:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 13:37, Clive George wrote:
On 15/10/2016 15:03, David wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:51:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/10/16 10:33, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
snip

Faster booting, faster program load and, if memory is short faster
access to swap if that's on the SSD (although if you want to wear
out an
SSD, using it for swap is one of the best ways).
snip

Just pondering on SSDs and Swap.

If you have a system with just an SSD then what do you use as swap?

Assuming that you don't (as in most laptops and older desktops) have
the
space for masses of memory?

"Most laptops"? 8G and 16G on the laptops in use here :-)

For some years now I've made sure no system I have anything to do with
is running into swap.

I disable the swap and never run out of ram for what I do and I only
use 8GB of ram.

And you stupidly close apps when you stop using them for a bit,
and that is why you see a better result with an SSD. If you werent
that stupid, you wouldnt see any better result with an SSD if you have
enough of a clue to not turn the system off when you arent using it.

It's left on all day. Only gets switched off at bedtime,

And doing that is stupid.

Why would I leave it turned on all night when it's not being used.

Because it starts instantly next day, stupid.

"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.