On 20/10/16 19:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/10/2016 18:06, pamela wrote:

I wonder if Turnip would also provide a list of what he's been
reading that supports his view. He wrote this:

"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."

MID:


Yup it would be nice if he could share some of this source material...


I did. He ignored it.



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

Mark Twain

On 21/10/2016 05:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/10/16 19:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/10/2016 18:06, pamela wrote:

I wonder if Turnip would also provide a list of what he's been
reading that supports his view. He wrote this:

"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."

MID:


Yup it would be nice if he could share some of this source material...


I did. He ignored it.

Post them again for me then...

All I have see so far are links to articles about wear levelling, and
about write amplification. Neither deal directly with the subject.

Although the write amplification one does link to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-...Page_alignment






--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:07:26 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 16:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:47:55 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:35:03 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

A very odd way to use a computer.

The only sensible way to use a computer used most of most days.

If I'm not going to use a program (note: not "app", that's a mobile
phone
word)

Wrong, as always.

for a while, I see no point in leaving it open.

Yes, you are that stupid.

The point is that it is vastly quicker to switch to an already
open app when you need to than it is to start it again.

Actually that's bull****. If you have plenty memory, the program code
stays in the disk cache when you close it. If you don't have enough
memory, keeping it open just uses swapfile.

Plus if you use an M.2 SSD system drive like I do , which is approx 4
times faster than a standard SSD and DDR 4 ram plus an i7 CPU, then
everything is even snappier.

Bull**** it is. Transcoding still takes just as long.

That's not what he meant.

--
7 wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paralympics after they tested positive for WD40.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:04:41 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:47:55 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:35:03 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

A very odd way to use a computer.

The only sensible way to use a computer used most of most days.

If I'm not going to use a program (note: not "app", that's a mobile
phone
word)

Wrong, as always.

for a while, I see no point in leaving it open.

Yes, you are that stupid.

The point is that it is vastly quicker to switch to an already
open app when you need to than it is to start it again.

Actually that's bull****.

We'll see...

If you have plenty memory,

You don't.

32GB holds loads of programs.

the program code stays in the disk cache when you close it.

Pig ignorantly mangled all over again.

WTF?

If you don't have enough memory,

You should add more memory instead of an SSD.

An SSD speeds up ALL disk access, not just the most recent.

--
7 wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paralympics after they tested positive for WD40.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20 open.

--
Why do MPs drive Volvos?
Because they have safe seats.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:07:26 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 16:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:47:55 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:35:03 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

A very odd way to use a computer.

The only sensible way to use a computer used most of most days.

If I'm not going to use a program (note: not "app", that's a mobile
phone
word)

Wrong, as always.

for a while, I see no point in leaving it open.

Yes, you are that stupid.

The point is that it is vastly quicker to switch to an already
open app when you need to than it is to start it again.

Actually that's bull****. If you have plenty memory, the program code
stays in the disk cache when you close it. If you don't have enough
memory, keeping it open just uses swapfile.

Plus if you use an M.2 SSD system drive like I do , which is approx 4
times faster than a standard SSD and DDR 4 ram plus an i7 CPU, then
everything is even snappier.

Bull**** it is. Transcoding still takes just as long.

That's not what he meant.

EVERYTHING has just one meaning.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:04:41 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:47:55 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:35:03 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

A very odd way to use a computer.

The only sensible way to use a computer used most of most days.

If I'm not going to use a program (note: not "app", that's a mobile
phone
word)

Wrong, as always.

for a while, I see no point in leaving it open.

Yes, you are that stupid.

The point is that it is vastly quicker to switch to an already
open app when you need to than it is to start it again.

Actually that's bull****.

We'll see...

If you have plenty memory,

You don't.

32GB holds loads of programs.

You don't have 32GB because you are too stupid to do that.

the program code stays in the disk cache when you close it.

Pig ignorantly mangled all over again.

WTF?

No OS does it like that, particularly when
the apps are processing lots of data.

If you don't have enough memory,

You should add more memory instead of an SSD.

An SSD speeds up ALL disk access, not just the most recent.

Yes, but most of what most do doesn't involve much disk access,
just when they stupidly turn their system off every night and when
they stupidly close apps when they have stopped using them.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

En el artículo , pamela
escribió:

There seems to be a delay in Turnip providing links to his
sources. I was looking forward to reading them.

I'm sure the entire internet is waiting with bated breath. Micron,
Samsung and Intel in particular will be waiting with pencils poised
above notebooks to discover what nuggets of wisdom he deigns to impart
from on high.

I wonder if any credible sources for his point of view actually
exist.

The Ladybird Book of SSDs?

Perhaps he was blustering

*gasp* No! Surely not!

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

On 22/10/16 16:33, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

There seems to be a delay in Turnip providing links to his
sources. I was looking forward to reading them.

I'm sure the entire internet is waiting with bated breath. Micron,
Samsung and Intel in particular will be waiting with pencils poised
above notebooks to discover what nuggets of wisdom he deigns to impart
from on high.

I wonder if any credible sources for his point of view actually
exist.

The Ladybird Book of SSDs?

Perhaps he was blustering

*gasp* No! Surely not!

I told you and pointed links to the salient facts

1/. That all SSDS use advanced wear levelling algorithms that utterly
break the correspondence between logical sectors and physical sector.

2/. There is no reason why they should even preserve page size in the
translation, and there are very good reasons why they should not - to
solve the problem you insist exists, being one.

3/. All your links with the exception of the INTEL one apply to hard
drives, not SSDS and intel make hard drives...

4/. The Intel link is years out of date,

5/. No manufacturer who makes nothing BUT SSDS mentions this issue is
something to be looked into.

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:11:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

He sees the SSD presenting itself through a logical representation
behind which all essential activities take place hidden and without any
user influence.

It does, but not to the extent of recognising partitions are mis-aligned
and fixing it. For that to happen, the firmware on the SSD would have
to be partition table and filesystem aware, one level up from being a
block device (looking to the host machine like a box of LBAs labelled
from 0 to n, where n is the last available block.)

I see he's getting a beating on another thread about, of all things,
rocket science.

JOOI, which newsgroup? :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On 23/10/2016 01:56, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:11:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

He sees the SSD presenting itself through a logical representation
behind which all essential activities take place hidden and without any
user influence.

It does, but not to the extent of recognising partitions are mis-aligned
and fixing it. For that to happen, the firmware on the SSD would have
to be partition table and filesystem aware, one level up from being a
block device (looking to the host machine like a box of LBAs labelled
from 0 to n, where n is the last available block.)

I see he's getting a beating on another thread about, of all things,
rocket science.

JOOI, which newsgroup? :-)

Took me a while to find it as well... its in this one hanging off the
bottom of one of harry's threads called "OT Solar energy generated in
the UK.overtook coal last Summer"


--
Cheers,

John.

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

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

Took me a while to find it as well... its in this one hanging off the
bottom of one of harry's threads called "OT Solar energy generated in
the UK.overtook coal last Summer"

That's the one. It's almost expired off my local spool, so took me a
moment to find too.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...437-413b-abdc-

it's the subthread between Turnip and 'Vir Campestris'. So much cat-
belling going on, the poor thing must have strangled by now.

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

On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When pressed
for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 07:09:54 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 01:56, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:11:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , pamela
escribió:

He sees the SSD presenting itself through a logical representation
behind which all essential activities take place hidden and without
any user influence.

It does, but not to the extent of recognising partitions are
mis-aligned and fixing it. For that to happen, the firmware on the
SSD would have to be partition table and filesystem aware, one level
up from being a block device (looking to the host machine like a box
of LBAs labelled from 0 to n, where n is the last available block.)

I see he's getting a beating on another thread about, of all things,
rocket science.

JOOI, which newsgroup? :-)

Took me a while to find it as well... its in this one hanging off the
bottom of one of harry's threads called "OT Solar energy generated in
the UK.overtook coal last Summer"

That was one of the many threads I set to "ignore" (with 300 odd post a
day to this NG being typical, you have to be pretty discerning about what
threads to follow.

Thanks to Mike's link to the google group's copy, I did manage to find
the sub-thread. I didn't see much of an interchange, possibly on account
of the way google groups represents the threading. However, what I did
see was enough to show TNP's complete lack of understanding of rocketry
so basically on a par with his knowledge of the theory and practice of
telecommunications then.

--
Johnny B Good

En el artículo , Johnny B Good
escribió:

the theory and practice of
telecommunications

Oh, another subject in which he's an armchair expert.

Is there no beginning to his talents?

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

On 23/10/2016 21:21, pamela wrote:
He's not so hot on SSDs either.

The silly thing is I know a fair bit about SSDs, but have no practical
experience with rocketry beyond fireworks... I should have been
following this thread.

Andy

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When pressed
for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source of
information that would be educational, or even a recommendation of a SSD
that does this hypothetical on the fly realignment.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:24 23 Oct 2016, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by
people who don't understand how SSDS actually work , and
carried over from hard drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not
actually found any documentation that explicitly supports your
position, and its one based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When
pressed for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be
kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source
of information that would be educational, or even a
recommendation of a SSD that does this hypothetical on the fly
realignment.

Turnip's got a degree in something called Electrical Sciences which
turns out to be a more general degree than one in Electrical or
Electronic Engineering. Explains a lot.

Maybe he knows a bit about electrical power distribution and
generation but his knowledge doesn't really extend as far as
semiconductor storage.

That assumes he doesn’t know anything about anything except
what his degree was about. Mad assumption. My degrees never
had anything to do with computers, house building cars etc etc
etc and I do fine in those areas anyway.

He makes the right noises which fooled
me for a while but not any longer.

He does have a pretty solid grasp of what
makes sense power generation wise.

En el artículo , John
Rumm escribió:

or even a recommendation of a SSD
that does this hypothetical on the fly realignment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
mythical

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

On 23/10/2016 21:21, pamela wrote:
On 21:07 23 Oct 2016, Johnny B Good wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 07:09:54 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 01:56, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 07:11:19 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo ,
pamela escribió:

He sees the SSD presenting itself through a logical
representation behind which all essential activities take
place hidden and without any user influence.

It does, but not to the extent of recognising partitions are
mis-aligned and fixing it. For that to happen, the firmware
on the SSD would have to be partition table and filesystem
aware, one level up from being a block device (looking to the
host machine like a box of LBAs labelled from 0 to n, where n
is the last available block.)

I see he's getting a beating on another thread about, of all
things, rocket science.

JOOI, which newsgroup? :-)

Took me a while to find it as well... its in this one hanging
off the bottom of one of harry's threads called "OT Solar
energy generated in the UK.overtook coal last Summer"

That was one of the many threads I set to "ignore" (with 300 odd
post a day to this NG being typical, you have to be pretty
discerning about what threads to follow.

Thanks to Mike's link to the google group's copy, I did manage
to find the sub-thread. I didn't see much of an interchange,
possibly on account of the way google groups represents the
threading. However, what I did see was enough to show TNP's
complete lack of understanding of rocketry so basically on a par
with his knowledge of the theory and practice of
telecommunications then.

He's not so hot on SSDs either.

The intriguing thing about narcissists like Turnip is that despite
all the evidence against them they come away from a discussion
absolutely 100% certain that their interpretation is right and that
everyone else's in wrong.

Its probably worth allowing for the reality that in a very fast and ever
changing technological landscape, the existing orthodoxy is subject to
change. Hence why I was keen to get to the bottom of if there actually
was some information that he had found that suggested some radical new
approach to solid state storage that mitigated the performance hit from
misalignment, or whether this was simply conjecture based on reading
other documentation that does not directly address the topic but could
potentially have an influence on it. Unfortunately some people don't
allow for there being a difference between fact and opinion (when its
their opinion anyway!)

The argument that wear levelling algorithms present a solution I don't
find convincing, however I would be more open to the idea that modern
controllers that implement on the fly data compression (whether you ask
for it or not) *could* have more of an effect (perhaps in effect slowing
all accesses to a lower common denominator, but trading that off against
some other performance gain that makes the trade off worthwhile overall)

He will doubtless read that as the poor deluded misunderstanding of a
reader jealous of his sheer brilliance.

I've noticed that whenever I've met specialists at the top of their
field they are usually so modest that you have to pinch yourself to
remind you they are a world-class authority in their field. I'm
currently having an email exchange with someone like this in medical
sciences who is the world authority in his field. Yet he's so
helpful, so pleased to explain concepts, so happy to explain his
presentations at international symposia, etc that it's a delight.

Personality will influence that a a fair bit, but also the realisation
that if you are an authority in a broad and/or deep field, you will
usually be well aware that there is always more to learn, and hence its
worth always remaining open to new ideas.

Meanwhile surly Turnip behaves quite differently.

....but consistent with past performance


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Saturday, 22 October 2016 00:11:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I disagree. It is very sensible to shut down programs that are
not being actively used. Most notebook and desktop computers do
not have ECC memory, so occasionally there will be single-bit
errors from cosmic rays or alpha particles emitted by
contamination in the encapsulation of the memory chips. These
errors will accumulate over time and may eventually cause the
programs to misbehave in ways that are not necessarily easy to
detect.

See: "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"

research.google.com/pubs/archive/35162.pdf

John

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 00:11:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I disagree. It is very sensible to shut down programs that are
not being actively used.

We'll see...

Most notebook and desktop computers do not have
ECC memory, so occasionally there will be single-bit
errors from cosmic rays or alpha particles emitted by
contamination in the encapsulation of the memory chips.

And the most that will do is see the app crash in the unlikely
event that that particular byte gets corrupted like that.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it any time soon.

These errors will accumulate over time and may eventually cause the
programs to misbehave in ways that are not necessarily easy to detect.

If you dont detect it in the document or
whatever its responsible for, it doesnt matter.

See: "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"
research.google.com/pubs/archive/35162.pdf

See above.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:24:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When pressed
for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source of
information that would be educational, or even a recommendation of a SSD
that does this hypothetical on the fly realignment.

Are you sure that is what he was suggesting as a straight 'thing' but
more that the physical / electronic alignment can be different in a
real world sense in comparison (even) than with what the tools we
generally use for such things offer / report? eg, There is no
*re-alignment on the fly* (as in making it actually align with the 4k
block boundaries) but that the whole alignment thing is hidden by the
electronics *and* data (or more importantly it's storage structure)
could / can be moved in any case for various reasons?

I would think that any SSD manufacturer would like to 'hide' the
actual electronics (block sizes and actual addresses) so as to make it
unnecessary for anyone (or utility) to have to consider them. I'm not
suggesting that this is the case, just that I'm still willing to be
'open to' such thoughts.

Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 24 October 2016 12:03:49 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 00:11:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I disagree. It is very sensible to shut down programs that are
not being actively used.

We'll see...

Most notebook and desktop computers do not have
ECC memory, so occasionally there will be single-bit
errors from cosmic rays or alpha particles emitted by
contamination in the encapsulation of the memory chips.

And the most that will do is see the app crash in the unlikely
event that that particular byte gets corrupted like that.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it any time soon.

These errors will accumulate over time and may eventually cause the
programs to misbehave in ways that are not necessarily easy to detect.

If you dont detect it in the document or
whatever its responsible for, it doesnt matter.

See: "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"
research.google.com/pubs/archive/35162.pdf

See above.

That is an interesting approach to data integrity. A brave approach
perhaps.

John

On 24/10/2016 12:05, T i m wrote:



Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

You don't see HDD geometry translation with linux as it doesn't know
what the actual hardware does. Unless you have a very old system where
the heads/sectors/tracks actually were physical. But I doubt it as you
probably have more than ~30M bytes on a disk.

Its quite interesting to see a system optimising where its putting files
when it doesn't know where the files are actually being put on the disk.

On 24/10/2016 12:05, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:24:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by people who
don't understand how SSDS actually work , and carried over from hard
drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not actually found
any documentation that explicitly supports your position, and its one
based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When pressed
for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source of
information that would be educational, or even a recommendation of a SSD
that does this hypothetical on the fly realignment.

Are you sure that is what he was suggesting as a straight 'thing' but
more that the physical / electronic alignment can be different in a
real world sense in comparison (even) than with what the tools we
generally use for such things offer / report? eg, There is no
*re-alignment on the fly* (as in making it actually align with the 4k
block boundaries) but that the whole alignment thing is hidden by the
electronics *and* data (or more importantly it's storage structure)
could / can be moved in any case for various reasons?

That's one heck of a sentence ;-)

I think the answer is yes - since the difference in performance with
differing alignments on otherwise identical drives would not show up so
dramatically otherwise.

I would think that any SSD manufacturer would like to 'hide' the
actual electronics (block sizes and actual addresses) so as to make it
unnecessary for anyone (or utility) to have to consider them. I'm not
suggesting that this is the case, just that I'm still willing to be
'open to' such thoughts.

The SSD (and any block level drive for that matter) does hide many
physical details from the OS. However there is no requirement to make
all considerations of alignment etc "go away" if you know that the OS is
on your side and will do sensible stuff to make sure this does not cause
a problem.

Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

Indeed, and that is just one example of the "hiding" - the physical
addressing on a hard drive needs cylinder, head and sector (CHS)
information to reach a physical address, but will typically be dealing
with SCSI style logical block addresses (LBA) instead.

Now in the case of a HDD there *may* be a relatively close mapping of
LBAs to physical sectors, such that as you step through sequential LBAs
it maps that to a physical address efficiently - addressing adjacent
sectors first, then heads, and finally cylinders. However even here
there is scope for redirection since the drives support bad sector
remapping etc. So two sequential LBAs may actually be stored in
completely different areas of the disk even with a HDD.

Block level misalignment started being a issue when 4K sector (i.e. so
called "Advanced Format" or AF) drives became the norm, because the
interface still retains the ability to address individual 512 byte
sectors. If the OS attempts to do a non aligned 4K write operation, then
then the drive can be forced to do a read - modify - write operation on
two physical sectors to complete the write - hence more latency and
slower performance.

With a SSD the mapping from LBAs to physical pages of flash is even more
arbitrary; due to the need for wear levelling, and extraction of maximum
performance from multiple parallel IO channels etc. However the drive
designers know in advance that IO will be done by the OS in 4K lumps, so
it makes lots of sense to optimise for the most likely operation, and
keep 4K writes contained in as few physical flash pages as possible.

Any OS less than a dozen years old has been updated to make sure that
any partition it creates does line up with physical sector boundaries[1].

(there may be a secondary alignment issue on SSDs as well since there
will also be a minimum size of erasable block that typically spans many
pages of flash - so not writing individual blocks that span those
boundaries any more often than required also helps[2]).

[1] e.g. https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimizat..._and_Alignment

[2] http://tytso.livejournal.com/2009/02/20/

(That last link will no doubt be dismissed by some as its "too old" and
the guy is a Linux kernel file system developer, so obviously not
qualified to comment ;-))


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already - if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed the program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway, and still open fast. I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program after the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk access.

--
Love is complicated machinery.
But sometimes all you need is a good screw to fix it.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 24 October 2016 12:03:49 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 00:11:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave
all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I disagree. It is very sensible to shut down programs that are
not being actively used.

We'll see...

Most notebook and desktop computers do not have
ECC memory, so occasionally there will be single-bit
errors from cosmic rays or alpha particles emitted by
contamination in the encapsulation of the memory chips.

And the most that will do is see the app crash in the unlikely
event that that particular byte gets corrupted like that.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it any time soon.

These errors will accumulate over time and may eventually cause the
programs to misbehave in ways that are not necessarily easy to detect.

If you dont detect it in the document or
whatever its responsible for, it doesnt matter.

See: "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"
research.google.com/pubs/archive/35162.pdf

See above.

That is an interesting approach to data integrity.

Dont need anything more than that with most data.

A brave approach perhaps.

Nothing brave about not being completely anal.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program after
the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act of
closing
it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is instant.

In article , pamela
scribeth thus
On 22:24 23 Oct 2016, John Rumm wrote:

On 23/10/2016 08:35, RJH wrote:
On 23/10/2016 07:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/10/2016 16:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I conclude that it is therefore an urban myth believed in by
people who don't understand how SSDS actually work , and
carried over from hard drives, where the problem does exist.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that you have not
actually found any documentation that explicitly supports your
position, and its one based entirely on supposition?

Still it should be an easy enough proposition to test.


I've been round this particular house a couple of times. When
pressed for evidence he'll have an enormous strop and you'll be
kill-filed.

Makes it all worthwhile :-)

Well there was a slim possibility that he actually had a source
of information that would be educational, or even a
recommendation of a SSD that does this hypothetical on the fly
realignment.

Turnip's got a degree in something called Electrical Sciences which
turns out to be a more general degree than one in Electrical or
Electronic Engineering. Explains a lot.

Maybe he knows a bit about electrical power distribution and
generation but his knowledge doesn't really extend as far as
semiconductor storage.

He makes the right noises which fooled me for a while but not any
longer.

God Pam what have you done thats so wonderful?, this is getting a tad
boring now;(...
--
Tony Sayer

On 24/10/2016 19:49, John Rumm wrote:
SNIP
Now in the case of a HDD there *may* be a relatively close mapping of
LBAs to physical sectors, such that as you step through sequential LBAs
it maps that to a physical address efficiently - addressing adjacent
sectors first, then heads, and finally cylinders. However even here
there is scope for redirection since the drives support bad sector
remapping etc. So two sequential LBAs may actually be stored in
completely different areas of the disk even with a HDD.
/SNIP
While logically adjacent sectors may be away off in the spares they're
not likely to be. I don't think I've ever seen as many as 1% faulty
disc. You can assume that most of the time they'll be next to each other.

Way back in the 1980s we had a report from QA that the new faster disc
drives were running slower than the old ones. On closer examination this
turned out to be one of the machines only. And it had a spare track in
the middle of the directory... which with CP/M is the _only_ directory...

Modern systems have lost the stuff we used to do, where we'd fiddle with
the interleave for performance, not have sector 1 in the same place on
each track, or skew the sectors across cylinders so a seek took you to
the new track just at the right place to sync up and read.

(not all at once!)

Andy

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all 20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program after
the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act of
closing
it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is instant.

It tidies your taskbar so you can find what you need. And know what you're working on.

--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold the vegetables while you chop.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:16 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 24/10/2016 12:05, T i m wrote:



Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

You don't see HDD geometry translation with linux as it doesn't know
what the actual hardware does.

I do see a message suggesting such flash up as I boot Linux?

"Initialize variable space...
Starting cmain() ...
!! number of heads for drive 80 restored from 255 to 254.
!! sectors-per-track for drive 80 restored from 63 to 19."

May well be to do with how I dual boot between Linux and Windows, just
that Windows seems to start cleanly?

Unless you have a very old system where
the heads/sectors/tracks actually were physical. But I doubt it as you
probably have more than ~30M bytes on a disk.

It's a low power Intel board and a 500G SATA drive if I remember
rightly.

Its quite interesting to see a system optimising where its putting files
when it doesn't know where the files are actually being put on the disk.

Like defrag you mean?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:49:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Are you sure that is what he was suggesting as a straight 'thing' but
more that the physical / electronic alignment can be different in a
real world sense in comparison (even) than with what the tools we
generally use for such things offer / report? eg, There is no
*re-alignment on the fly* (as in making it actually align with the 4k
block boundaries) but that the whole alignment thing is hidden by the
electronics *and* data (or more importantly it's storage structure)
could / can be moved in any case for various reasons?

That's one heck of a sentence ;-)

Which one? ;-)

I think the answer is yes - since the difference in performance with
differing alignments on otherwise identical drives would not show up so
dramatically otherwise.

I've not actually tried testing / moving / testing one yet to see for
myself. I have an SSD in a laptop that I feel runs slower than the std
HDD it replaced and I noticed the partitions were aligned ... and
another one is very fast and they aren't, but that might just be
coincidence?

I would think that any SSD manufacturer would like to 'hide' the
actual electronics (block sizes and actual addresses) so as to make it
unnecessary for anyone (or utility) to have to consider them. I'm not
suggesting that this is the case, just that I'm still willing to be
'open to' such thoughts.

The SSD (and any block level drive for that matter) does hide many
physical details from the OS. However there is no requirement to make
all considerations of alignment etc "go away" if you know that the OS is
on your side and will do sensible stuff to make sure this does not cause
a problem.

Ok.

Just as we see with HDD geometry translation (something I see every
time I boot into Linux on my other PC).

Indeed, and that is just one example of the "hiding" - the physical
addressing on a hard drive needs cylinder, head and sector (CHS)
information to reach a physical address, but will typically be dealing
with SCSI style logical block addresses (LBA) instead.

Exactly.

Now in the case of a HDD there *may* be a relatively close mapping of
LBAs to physical sectors, such that as you step through sequential LBAs
it maps that to a physical address efficiently - addressing adjacent
sectors first, then heads, and finally cylinders. However even here
there is scope for redirection since the drives support bad sector
remapping etc. So two sequential LBAs may actually be stored in
completely different areas of the disk even with a HDD.

Yup.

Block level misalignment started being a issue when 4K sector (i.e. so
called "Advanced Format" or AF) drives became the norm, because the
interface still retains the ability to address individual 512 byte
sectors. If the OS attempts to do a non aligned 4K write operation, then
then the drive can be forced to do a read - modify - write operation on
two physical sectors to complete the write - hence more latency and
slower performance.

Yes, I understand the concept.

With a SSD the mapping from LBAs to physical pages of flash is even more
arbitrary; due to the need for wear levelling, and extraction of maximum
performance from multiple parallel IO channels etc.

Ok.

However the drive
designers know in advance that IO will be done by the OS in 4K lumps, so
it makes lots of sense to optimise for the most likely operation, and
keep 4K writes contained in as few physical flash pages as possible.

Yes, *if* it's typically advantageous overall for it to do so.

Any OS less than a dozen years old has been updated to make sure that
any partition it creates does line up with physical sector boundaries[1].

Yes, I (still) hear what you are saying and suggesting 'those who
know' would also be saying but may I remain unconvinced that it is
always the case or that it will always make the OS faster till I test
it for myself and find it so (given that no one has offered any
conclusive way to prove that *IS* what is actually happening (and I'm
not saying it isn't)).

(there may be a secondary alignment issue on SSDs as well since there
will also be a minimum size of erasable block that typically spans many
pages of flash - so not writing individual blocks that span those
boundaries any more often than required also helps[2]).

[1] e.g. https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimizat..._and_Alignment

[2] http://tytso.livejournal.com/2009/02/20/

(That last link will no doubt be dismissed by some as its "too old" and
the guy is a Linux kernel file system developer, so obviously not
qualified to comment ;-))

I don't dismiss it but can't comment because it (playing devils
advocate), only suggests what should / can happen but not that it
actually does on all drives (and yes, possibly 'today').

I'm not even sure that testing, aligning and re-testing and
potentially seeing a (write) performance under test conditions is any
real proof of this partition alignment 'change' being the cause.

Again, I'm not suggesting it isn't but like many things (and for many
people) I think I'd like some proof, even if only imperial.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/10/2016 00:32, T i m wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting it isn't but like many things (and for many
people) I think I'd like some proof, even if only imperial.

John's giving you imperial proof - he's telling you how it is, you will
believe him or be executed :-)

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:42:13 +0100, Clive George wrote:

On 25/10/2016 00:32, T i m wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting it isn't but like many things (and for many
people) I think I'd like some proof, even if only imperial.

John's giving you imperial proof - he's telling you how it is, you will
believe him or be executed :-)

I do believe the intended word was *empirical*!

--
Johnny B Good

On 25/10/2016 00:42, Clive George wrote:
On 25/10/2016 00:32, T i m wrote:

Again, I'm not suggesting it isn't but like many things (and for many
people) I think I'd like some proof, even if only imperial.

John's giving you imperial proof - he's telling you how it is, you will
believe him or be executed :-)

My storm troopers are on their way with a bag of mints ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:14:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:11:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:38:11 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:02:15 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"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.

Or when in use.

There are **** all of those that most use much.

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

I only have open the apps I'm using.

More fool you.

It's tidier.

Its stupid.

Why have more clutter on the taskbar?

Makes no difference what so ever to the taskbar when you use
that properly as where you start apps that you use much.

I use about 20 programs, and about 5 in one day. Stupid to leave all
20
open.

Not when you have enough physical memory so the system doesnt swap.

Only a fool like you closes them so it has to wait for them
to open again, particularly with the slowest opening apps.

I've explained this already

Nope.

- if you have enough physical memory not to swap, then if you closed the
program, it would be in the disk cache in memory anyway,

Wrong when you have done anything useful with your
data like watch some movies or recorded TV etc.

and still open fast.

Doesnt work like that with the slowest opening **** like firefox.

With my SSD, that's fast the first time anyway.

Still slower than not closing it, just switching to it.

I have 32GB RAM, and the 2nd and subsequent times I open any program
after
the last reboot, they appear instantaneously, with zero disk access.

Still no point in closing apps you wont be using for a while. The act of
closing
it and opening it again is completely pointless even if it is instant.

It tidies your taskbar so you can find what you need.

Wrong, as always. Anyone with even half a ****ing clue launches the
apps they use much at all from the pinned icon on the taskbar, so
closing it has no effect what so ever on what icons are on the taskbar.

And know what you're working on.

Even sillier than you usually manage.