Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 96 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-02 23:08 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:51 +0100
On the on-topicness of tape drives (was: Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:47 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 04:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 17:29 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:52 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 19:11 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-06 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 22:31 -0500
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:51 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:41 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:39 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:30 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 15:26 -0800
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:15 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 11:28 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 18:14 +0000
Re: On the on-topicness of tape drives Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-06 05:59 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 06:18 +0000
Re: Tape Drives Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-07 18:40 +0800
Re: Tape Drives Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 13:12 -0500
Re: Tape Drives "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:32 +0000
Re: Tape Drives c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:31 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:08 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:26 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-11-04 09:55 +0800
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-03 22:14 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-11-04 03:54 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-04 06:21 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-11-05 20:40 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-06 14:28 +0100
My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-06 18:37 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 00:51 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:38 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 02:47 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-08 04:23 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-08 05:00 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 20:50 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 03:53 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:06 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-10 15:01 +0100
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-07 07:31 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-07 06:52 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 20:09 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-08 08:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:24 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-08 18:34 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 22:54 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-09 04:39 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:08 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:25 +0000
Re: My Computer History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-10 02:32 +0000
Re: My Computer History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 23:07 -0500
Re: My Computer History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 22:49 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-11-10 06:03 -0800
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:36 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 15:08 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 07:29 -0700
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-09 16:11 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:19 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-10 14:31 +0000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-11-09 07:48 -1000
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:55 -0500
Re: My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-09 21:35 -0700
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-09 16:56 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-09 21:46 -0500
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-10 18:06 +0000
Re: spooling, My Computer History (Re: Is This An Old Folks Home?) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-10 18:45 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-11-04 19:15 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-04 20:38 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 23:51 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-11-05 17:48 +0100
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-05 16:56 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-05 20:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 12:23 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-11-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> - 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500
Re: Is This An Old Folks Home? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11clf3j$2sudm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95246 |
On 11/6/2026 2:25 PM, Farley Flud wrote: >>> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid >>> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens? >>> >>> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers. >> >> So why no SSD? > > The reasons were explicitly stated many times already. > > Perhaps the surge of endorphins that you experience with each > dildo that slides up your ass has caused you to forget. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Degenerate sodomite. > >> Any OS benefits from an SSD. > > None whatsoever. > > Unless, for you, SSD = Self-Satisfying Dildo. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Degenerate sodomite. I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl7i0dFpkshU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95254 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:59:30 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote: > I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a > six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, > it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. The most noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk intensive stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't think even the best HDDs could. It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 09:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cmphi$38ra2$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95272 |
On 2026-11-07, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:59:30 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote: > >> I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a >> six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, >> it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. > > I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. The most > noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk intensive > stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs > allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't think > even the best HDDs could. > > It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper. I guess in a decent OS without anything hogging all memory (I see you, Webapp Platform which calls itself "Browser"), the visible improvement is expected to be on first load of something, unless you're really accessing a *lot* of stuff. RAM-cached filesystem data are probably faster than SSDs or NVMe? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl97bmF6ec9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95289 |
On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 09:03:46 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > I guess in a decent OS without anything hogging all memory (I see you, > Webapp Platform which calls itself "Browser"), the visible improvement > is expected to be on first load of something, unless you're really > accessing a *lot* of stuff. I would need better timing but on the Fedora box with a SATA SSD and the Ubuntu with a NMVe applications launch in about 3 seconds. Snaps are a little slower. The Ubuntu box is a AMD Ryzen 7 4700U from 2020, the Fedora box is a Core i5-4590 from 2014. I can't pinpoint an exact date but there was a watershed where PCs went from painfully slow to acceptable and unless you're doing CPU or drive intense tasks the UX has changed very little.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11co6pc$3r41p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95318 |
On 07/11/2026 18:01, rbowman wrote: > I can't pinpoint an exact date but there was a watershed where PCs went > from painfully slow to acceptable For me, that was when I installed Linux :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 01:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl9vueF6ec9U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95330 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 21:55:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/11/2026 18:01, rbowman wrote: >> I can't pinpoint an exact date but there was a watershed where PCs went >> from painfully slow to acceptable > For me, that was when I installed Linux :-) Linux certainly helped but it went from start a build and go to lunch around 2000 to start a build and answer a couple of emails somewhere along the way. Meanwhile Windows was still start a Patch Tuesday update and go to lunch on good days. On bad days it was start the update and hope the machine would be usable the next morning. I still haven't done last month's patch on the Win 11 laptop. I wonder how screwed I'll be next week?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18e5d6dd0cb08283$16452$2945853$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #95289 |
On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 09:03:46 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > > I guess in a decent OS without anything hogging all memory (I see you, > Webapp Platform which calls itself "Browser"), the visible improvement > is expected to be on first load of something, unless you're really > accessing a *lot* of stuff. > Joel, the degenerate sodomite, only has a paltry 2G of RAM and therefore his system must be swapping intensively. In such a case, an SSD could be beneficial. But with a normal 32/64G of RAM, swapping will be nonexistent and essentially all I/O will be buffered in RAM. In such a case, an HDD drive is more than sufficient and it possesses a much greater longevity to boot. SSDs are for ignorant losers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11cnr9q$3mru0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95322 |
On 11/7/2026 1:31 PM, L Thorpe wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2026 09:03:46 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> I guess in a decent OS without anything hogging all memory (I see you, >> Webapp Platform which calls itself "Browser"), the visible improvement >> is expected to be on first load of something, unless you're really >> accessing a *lot* of stuff. > > Joel, the degenerate sodomite, What I like in my ass is irrelevant. > only has a paltry 2G of RAM and > therefore his system must be swapping intensively. In such a > case, an SSD could be beneficial. I have 16 GB with about 13 available after the GPU takes some. > But with a normal 32/64G of RAM, swapping will be nonexistent > and essentially all I/O will be buffered in RAM. In such a > case, an HDD drive is more than sufficient and it possesses > a much greater longevity to boot. > > SSDs are for ignorant losers. You just project weirdness onto others. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | L Thorpe <lt666@sixsixsix.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18e5d8d2436b7e97$6662$3105571$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #95323 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 13:39:54 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote: > > What I like in my ass is irrelevant. > If it is so fucking "irrelevant" then why have you repeatedly decided to self-confess your despicable perversion to the world on Usenet? Huh? Why? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a stupid fucking loser! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11cnu9h$3o1bg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95325 |
On 11/7/2026 2:07 PM, L Thorpe wrote: >> What I like [trans women's cocks] in my ass is irrelevant. > > If it is so fucking "irrelevant" then why have you repeatedly > decided to self-confess your despicable perversion to the world > on Usenet? > > Huh? Why? > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > What a stupid fucking loser! > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You're just being transphobic. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11cnp17$3luf8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95272 |
On 11/6/2026 9:50 PM, rbowman wrote: >> I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a >> six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, >> it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. > > I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. The most > noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk intensive > stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs > allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't think > even the best HDDs could. > > It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper. Larry gets performance from an HDD because there's barely anything being loaded/swapped. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SBadnSurkcuGDXL3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95317 |
On 11/7/26 13:01, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 11/6/2026 9:50 PM, rbowman wrote: > >>> I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a >>> six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, >>> it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. >> >> I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. The >> most >> noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk intensive >> stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs >> allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't think >> even the best HDDs could. >> >> It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper. > > > Larry gets performance from an HDD because there's barely anything being > loaded/swapped. Yet another case of "What Do YOU Need ?" I much appreciated what the Samsung did for a slightly older lap (had a WD Blue originally) especially for the boot-up. Fatter apps start up a bit quicker too. But my uses are all "home" now and I don't do much you'd really call "disk intensive". My "NAS" is an external 4-dr USB unit linked with NFS - the wifi/USB latency negates any speed advantage of SSDs. So, I can save money with magnetic drives. Now for an office server with a bunch of cat-6 wires going everywhere, NOW you may feel the need for speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 00:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11cp1jk$2ph0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95328 |
On 11/7/2026 3:54 PM, c186282 wrote: > On 11/7/26 13:01, Joel W. Crump wrote: >> On 11/6/2026 9:50 PM, rbowman wrote: >> >>>> I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a >>>> six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, >>>> it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. >>> >>> I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. The >>> most >>> noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk intensive >>> stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs >>> allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't think >>> even the best HDDs could. >>> >>> It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper. >> >> Larry gets performance from an HDD because there's barely anything >> being loaded/swapped. > > Yet another case of "What Do YOU Need ?" > > I much appreciated what the Samsung did for a > slightly older lap (had a WD Blue originally) > especially for the boot-up. Fatter apps start > up a bit quicker too. But my uses are > all "home" now and I don't do much you'd > really call "disk intensive". My "NAS" is > an external 4-dr USB unit linked with NFS - the > wifi/USB latency negates any speed advantage > of SSDs. > > So, I can save money with magnetic drives. > > Now for an office server with a bunch of cat-6 > wires going everywhere, NOW you may feel the > need for speed. From my point of view, certain things have simply become obsolete. Making a Mini PC replace my huge-by-comparison self-assembled system means that they are serious gear. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 21:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9vacnQpgN4znt2z3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95345 |
On 11/8/26 00:33, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 11/7/2026 3:54 PM, c186282 wrote: >> On 11/7/26 13:01, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 11/6/2026 9:50 PM, rbowman wrote: >>> >>>>> I saw Linux on a four-core machine with a SATA SSD, and on a >>>>> six-core/12-thread and a four-core/four-thread both with NVMe storage, >>>>> it matters plenty if one wants more than your unserviceable rig. >>>> >>>> I replaced the HDDs on a couple of older machines with SATA SSDs. >>>> The most >>>> noticeable improvement was on reboot since I don't do any disk >>>> intensive >>>> stuff. Starting individual programs wasn't appreciably faster. SSDs >>>> allowed SATA to achieve its maximum performance, something I don't >>>> think >>>> even the best HDDs could. >>>> >>>> It's still slower than NVMe but not a show stopper. >>> >>> Larry gets performance from an HDD because there's barely anything >>> being loaded/swapped. >> >> Yet another case of "What Do YOU Need ?" >> >> I much appreciated what the Samsung did for a >> slightly older lap (had a WD Blue originally) >> especially for the boot-up. Fatter apps start >> up a bit quicker too. But my uses are >> all "home" now and I don't do much you'd >> really call "disk intensive". My "NAS" is >> an external 4-dr USB unit linked with NFS - the >> wifi/USB latency negates any speed advantage >> of SSDs. >> >> So, I can save money with magnetic drives. >> >> Now for an office server with a bunch of cat-6 >> wires going everywhere, NOW you may feel the >> need for speed. > > > From my point of view, certain things have simply become obsolete. > Making a Mini PC replace my huge-by-comparison self-assembled system > means that they are serious gear. The mini-PCs ... BMax and BeeLink of note ... are VERY nice units, esp for Linux. Have four of the 'cheap-laptop' power ones. MORE than enough for Linux, speedy, WERE cheap before the tariff wars and AI memory grab. Versions with more CPU are (were?) to be had. I do have a high-end i5 with plenty of mem and a SSD. Assembled it ... but it's still sitting in the back room doing nothing. Laptops, with Linux, perform Well Enough for everything I'm doing now. IF you are doing lots of GIS or engineering/physics or cutting-edge games then you DO need a super- powerful PC. But for MOST stuff ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-10 05:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11curnb$227bq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95366 |
On 11/8/2026 9:05 PM, c186282 wrote: >> From my point of view, certain things have simply become obsolete. >> Making a Mini PC replace my huge-by-comparison self-assembled system >> means that they are serious gear. > > The mini-PCs ... BMax and BeeLink of note ... are VERY > nice units, esp for Linux. Have four of the 'cheap-laptop' > power ones. MORE than enough for Linux, speedy, WERE > cheap before the tariff wars and AI memory grab. Versions > with more CPU are (were?) to be had. > > I do have a high-end i5 with plenty of mem and a SSD. > Assembled it ... but it's still sitting in the back > room doing nothing. Laptops, with Linux, perform Well > Enough for everything I'm doing now. > > IF you are doing lots of GIS or engineering/physics > or cutting-edge games then you DO need a super- > powerful PC. But for MOST stuff .... Linux can run on all of them, yes, but I'm even getting perfectly adequate performance from Win11, eight-thread CPU with 13 GB usable RAM, seems a good realistic minimum and all I really need. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 23:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t7-cnVtwXMHxP3P3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #95246 |
On 11/6/26 14:25, Farley Flud wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 12:23:08 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote: > >> On 11/2/2026 6:08 PM, Farley Flud wrote: >> >>> Is this group an actual GNU/Linux discussion forum or a sordid >>> home for decrepit old folks and faltering has-beens? >>> >>> I don't want no useless info on pre-historic tape readers. >> >> >> So why no SSD? >> > > The reasons were explicitly stated many times already. > > Perhaps the surge of endorphins that you experience with each > dildo that slides up your ass has caused you to forget. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Degenerate sodomite. Well THIS conversation has gone down the toilet ........ SSDs are good, but the price-per-TB is still not so good - even worse now that AI has been sucking up all the memory chips in the world. Have some SSDs, and like 'em, but the last drive I bought was a magnetic ... more cap for the $$$ by a good margin and fast enough for MY need. Tape, as said, still has a place. USB disk units with magnetics are better though these days. Tape will fade away, but it's not gone yet. Linux "gets" tape - good thing. Hmm ... ".tar' ... means "TAPE Archive" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web