Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #61674 > unrolled thread

Old Mac, New Speed

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Old Mac, New Speed Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-01 23:22 -0400
    Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 04:20 +0000
      Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-02 08:27 -0400
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 13:30 +0000
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-07-04 19:07 +1200
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed (OT) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-04 06:28 -0700
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-04 14:08 -0700
            Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-05 08:09 -0400
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2014-07-04 12:34 -0700
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed (OT) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-04 17:03 -0700
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-05 08:17 -0400
            Re: Old Mac, New Speed Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-05 12:10 -0400
              Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-05 18:27 -0400
                Re: Old Mac, New Speed Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-06 01:37 -0400
                  Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-06 07:59 -0400
                    Re: Old Mac, New Speed Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-06 14:00 +0100
                    Re: Old Mac, New Speed Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-06 06:50 -0700
                      Re: Old Mac, New Speed Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2014-07-07 10:40 -0400
                        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-07 07:52 -0700
                  Re: Old Mac, New Speed John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-07-06 11:24 -0400
      Re: Old Mac, New Speed Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-02 09:41 -0400
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 13:48 +0000
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-04 07:21 -0400
    Re: Old Mac, New Speed Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-02 09:39 -0400
    Re: Old Mac, New Speed Suze <replytome@thenewsgroup.com> - 2014-07-03 21:09 -0600
      Re: Old Mac, New Speed Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-04 06:29 -0700
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-07-04 06:44 -0700
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-04 07:07 -0700
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-04 16:04 +0000
            Re: Old Mac, New Speed Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-07-04 21:42 -0700
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-04 14:08 +0000
          Re: Old Mac, New Speed Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-07-10 17:21 +1000
            Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 14:27 +0000
      Re: Old Mac, New Speed Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-07-10 17:17 +1000
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 14:26 +0000
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-10 12:30 -0400
        Re: Old Mac, New Speed Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-10 10:30 -0700
    Re: Old Mac, New Speed jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-07-04 19:10 +1200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#61693

On 2014.07.02, 00:20 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-07-02, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>>
>> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
>> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>>
>> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
>> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>>
>> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
>> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
>> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
>> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
>> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
>> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>>
>> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
>> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.
>
> Well, yes, upgrading from a traditional spindle hard drive to a solid
> state drive will dramatically increase the general speed of any
> computer.

Perhaps a hearty cheer for him giving new life, speed and purpose to the 
computer would be more in order?

"Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle".
          =====  ======


-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61694

On 2014-07-02, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.07.02, 00:20 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-07-02, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>>> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>>>
>>> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
>>> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>>>
>>> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
>>> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>>>
>>> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
>>> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
>>> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
>>> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
>>> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
>>> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
>>> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.
>>
>> Well, yes, upgrading from a traditional spindle hard drive to a solid
>> state drive will dramatically increase the general speed of any
>> computer.
>
> Perhaps a hearty cheer for him giving new life, speed and purpose to the 
> computer would be more in order?
>
> "Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle".
>           =====  ======

I'm pleased he is getting more life out of his computer by upgrading
from a HD to an SSD. Good enough?  : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61735

On 2014.07.02, 09:48 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-07-02, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.07.02, 00:20 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2014-07-02, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>>>> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>>>>
>>>> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
>>>> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>>>>
>>>> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
>>>> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>>>>
>>>> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
>>>> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
>>>> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
>>>> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
>>>> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
>>>> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
>>>> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, upgrading from a traditional spindle hard drive to a solid
>>> state drive will dramatically increase the general speed of any
>>> computer.
>>
>> Perhaps a hearty cheer for him giving new life, speed and purpose to the
>> computer would be more in order?
>>
>> "Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle".
>>            =====  ======
>
> I'm pleased he is getting more life out of his computer by upgrading
> from a HD to an SSD. Good enough?  : )

Passable.

Perhaps I should add "revamp" to the "R"s above to cover boosting the 
performance of a computer by replacing parts for higher performance parts.


-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61692

On 2014.07.01, 23:22 , Davoud wrote:
> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>
> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>
> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>
> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>
> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.

It was one option for my 2007 iMac (24") but I also needed faster 
processing.  27" iMac 2012 i7 was bought.

The 2007 iMac?  Sold for just under $1000 last year which offset the 
cost of the new iMac by a good stretch.

-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61730

In article <010720142322387235%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Holy hard drive, Batman!
> 
> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
> 
> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
> 
> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
> much faster than I would have dared hope.
> 
> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.

Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration 
the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space, 
which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics 
programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger 
contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
-- 
Good judgment results from experience, and experience results from bad judgment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61737

On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
> Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
> the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
> which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
> programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
> contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e

Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?
-- 
Happy Independence Day, AmericANTS! :)
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61738

In article <_LudnQGudpmkMSvOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
> > Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
> > the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
> > which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
> > programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
> > contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
> 
> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?

They do, but not that an older version of the OS will use effectively.

As it is, Mac OS doesn't properly delete SSD files which is a 
performance hit for non-Apple SSDs.  You can override this with a 3rd 
party utility called Trim Enabler.  I don't think there's anything 
equivalent for a hybrid drive.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61739

On 7/4/2014 6:44 AM PT, Michael Vilain typed:
>> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?
>
> They do, but not that an older version of the OS will use effectively.
>
> As it is, Mac OS doesn't properly delete SSD files which is a
> performance hit for non-Apple SSDs.  You can override this with a 3rd
> party utility called Trim Enabler.  I don't think there's anything
> equivalent for a hybrid drive.

Interesting and thanks. :)
-- 
Happy Independence Day, AmericANTS! :)
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61741

On 2014-07-04, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <_LudnQGudpmkMSvOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
>> > Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
>> > the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
>> > which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
>> > programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
>> > contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
>> 
>> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?
>
> They do, but not that an older version of the OS will use effectively.
>
> As it is, Mac OS doesn't properly delete SSD files which is a 
> performance hit for non-Apple SSDs.

That's very outdated information.

Many mainstream SSD manufacturers have evolved their design to include
garbage collection and optimizations that do not require TRIM. Enabling
TRIM on such SSDs actually *increases* wear on the drive, because it
causes data to be moved around unnecessarily. Also, keep in mind that
TRIM is an ATA command that cannot be sent to SSDs connected with
Thunderbolt, Firewire, USB, or PCIe (as in new Mac Pro models). In those
situations, enabling TRIM is effectively useless anyway, and as I said,
manufacturers have implemented other ways of doing garbage collection
and optimization that do not depend on the TRIM command.

> You can override this with a 3rd party utility called Trim Enabler.  I
> don't think there's anything equivalent for a hybrid drive.

Do so at your own risk. Best of luck with that. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61913

In article <c1o1l6Foii9U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-07-04, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > In article <_LudnQGudpmkMSvOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >  Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
> >> > Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
> >> > the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
> >> > which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
> >> > programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
> >> > contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
> >> 
> >> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?
> >
> > They do, but not that an older version of the OS will use effectively.
> >
> > As it is, Mac OS doesn't properly delete SSD files which is a 
> > performance hit for non-Apple SSDs.
> 
> That's very outdated information.
> 
> Many mainstream SSD manufacturers have evolved their design to include
> garbage collection and optimizations that do not require TRIM. Enabling
> TRIM on such SSDs actually *increases* wear on the drive, because it
> causes data to be moved around unnecessarily. Also, keep in mind that
> TRIM is an ATA command that cannot be sent to SSDs connected with
> Thunderbolt, Firewire, USB, or PCIe (as in new Mac Pro models). In those
> situations, enabling TRIM is effectively useless anyway, and as I said,
> manufacturers have implemented other ways of doing garbage collection
> and optimization that do not depend on the TRIM command.
> 
> > You can override this with a 3rd party utility called Trim Enabler.  I
> > don't think there's anything equivalent for a hybrid drive.
> 
> Do so at your own risk. Best of luck with that.

I've had a CRUCIAL SSD for a couple years now.  It makes my MacPro 
running 10.8.5 zippier and I notice the difference when I boot off the 
original 640GB drive into 10.6.8.

The SSDs we use on production servers at work are just plug and play, 
even with Fedora 17 which is slightly over 2 years old.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61740

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> was all, like: 
 --> 	 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:29:29 -0700 <_LudnQGudpmkMSvOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
> On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
>> Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
>> the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
>> which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
>> programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
>> contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e

> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?

Seagate had the "Momentus" drives. I bought a 500GB one for a laptop.
The results were good initially, but it quickly was just another hard
drive. Any speed benefits seemed to evaporate very quickly.

The trouble with a  hybrid is you really need to manage what goes on the
fast part of the disc.

Apple fusion drives (a spinning disc and an SSD bonded into a logical
volume) is a lot better, but still falls far short of a true SSD.

My next iMac is going to have a large SSD in it. I think I'm done
booting off a spinning disc.

-- 
He wasn't good or evil or cruel or extreme in any way but one, which was
that he had elevated greyness to the status of a fine art and cultivated
a mind that was as bleak and pitiless and logical as the slopes of Hell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62136

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:08:28 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> was all, like: 
> --> 	 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:29:29 -0700 <_LudnQGudpmkMSvOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
>> On 7/3/2014 8:09 PM PT, Suze typed:
>>> Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
>>> the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
>>> which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
>>> programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
>>> contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
>
>> Don't they sell hybird drives that combine both HDDs and SSDs?
>
>Seagate had the "Momentus" drives. I bought a 500GB one for a laptop.
>The results were good initially, but it quickly was just another hard
>drive. Any speed benefits seemed to evaporate very quickly.
>
>The trouble with a  hybrid is you really need to manage what goes on the
>fast part of the disc.
>
>Apple fusion drives (a spinning disc and an SSD bonded into a logical
>volume) is a lot better, but still falls far short of a true SSD.
>
>My next iMac is going to have a large SSD in it. I think I'm done
>booting off a spinning disc.

Just be aware you will need to accept much slower write speeds and
having to replace your SSD frequently.
Make plenty of backups!

-- 
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would
have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62140

On 2014-07-10, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>Seagate had the "Momentus" drives. I bought a 500GB one for a laptop.
>>The results were good initially, but it quickly was just another hard
>>drive. Any speed benefits seemed to evaporate very quickly.
>>
>>The trouble with a  hybrid is you really need to manage what goes on the
>>fast part of the disc.
>>
>>Apple fusion drives (a spinning disc and an SSD bonded into a logical
>>volume) is a lot better, but still falls far short of a true SSD.
>>
>>My next iMac is going to have a large SSD in it. I think I'm done
>>booting off a spinning disc.
>
> Just be aware you will need to accept much slower write speeds and
> having to replace your SSD frequently.

No more frequently than a spindle hard drive, no.

> Make plenty of backups!

You should do that regardless of the type of drive you use.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62135

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 21:09:07 -0600, Suze <replytome@thenewsgroup.com>
wrote:

>In article <010720142322387235%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
>wrote:
>
>> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>> 
>> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
>> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>> 
>> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
>> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>> 
>> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
>> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
>> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
>> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
>> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
>> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>> 
>> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
>> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.
>
>Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration 
>the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space, 
>which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics 
>programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger 
>contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e

Write speed to SSD is very much slower than to a hard drive.
The slower write speed and the fact that SSDs wear out is why they
are not used in servers.

You might want to investigate the experiment
to recover worn out SSDs using high temperatures.

-- 
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would
have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62139

On 2014-07-10, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Write speed to SSD is very much slower than to a hard drive.

I get plenty fast reads and writes from mine:

With compression:
Read: 556MB/s
Write: 523MB/s

Without compression:
Read: 208MB/s
Write: 235MB/s

> The slower write speed and the fact that SSDs wear out is why they
> are not used in servers.

Of course SSDs are used for various things in various types of server
scenarios. Here's a recent write-up from AnandTech about server grade
SSD performance and longevity:

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/5518/a-look-at-enterprise-performance-of-intel-ssds>

> You might want to investigate the experiment
> to recover worn out SSDs using high temperatures.

Why? There is no replacement for a solid backup strategy.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62147

In article <48fsr9do5vjo59b8234cgsfhredg74sq0k@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
<atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Write speed to SSD is very much slower than to a hard drive.

completely wrong. ssd is much, much faster. the difference is
staggering.

> The slower write speed and the fact that SSDs wear out is why they
> are not used in servers.

no, they're not used in servers because the network is often the
bottleneck and the extra speed from an ssd won't matter all that much.

another reason is that servers generally have a *lot* of storage and
that can get very expensive with ssd.

hard drives also wear out. nothing lasts forever. however, ssd will
outlast a hard drive.

> You might want to investigate the experiment
> to recover worn out SSDs using high temperatures.

nonsense.

if an ssd (or hard drive) has failed for whatever reason and there is
no backup, send it to a recovery company.

however, it's much better and a *lot* cheaper to make backups, whether
it's a hard drive or ssd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62148

On 2014-07-10 07:17:20 +0000, Barry OGrady said:

> On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 21:09:07 -0600, Suze <replytome@thenewsgroup.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> In article <010720142322387235%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Holy hard drive, Batman!
>>> 
>>> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
>>> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
>>> 
>>> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
>>> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
>>> 
>>> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
>>> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
>>> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
>>> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
>>> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
>>> much faster than I would have dared hope.
>>> 
>>> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
>>> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.
>> 
>> Obviously the SSD drive was much faster but also take into consideration
>> the SSD drive was nearly twice as large, giving more free disk space,
>> which also provided some speed benefit, especially with graphics
>> programs. And I would think, the free space should be in larger
>> contiguous chunks since you wrote a fresh disk.e
> 
> Write speed to SSD is very much slower than to a hard drive.
> The slower write speed and the fact that SSDs wear out is why they
> are not used in servers.

You are incorrect about SSD write speed.

> 
> You might want to investigate the experiment
> to recover worn out SSDs using high temperatures.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61732

Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> Holy hard drive, Batman!
> 
> The 500GB HD on this "17-inch, Early 2008" MB Pro failed two weeks ago.
> This machine, one of two 17-inch MBPs that I own, is important to me.
> 
> I ran it from the SuperDuper external backup drive for a bit while I
> decided what to do. I decided to buy a Crucial 960GB SSD from Amazon.
> 
> I did that this evening, then cloned the SuperDuper backup to the new
> SSD. I was expecting a little speed bump on this 6-year-old machine, as
> I am accustomed to the speed of my 15" MBP Retina SSD, but this far
> exceeds my expectations. Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro,
> and astronomy software with huge databases, all load in a flash and run
> much faster than I would have dared hope.
> 
> Bottom line, at $400-and-something this is a great choice if you're
> looking to give new life to an old Mac that is irreplaceable.

Yep, it's quite the speed bump especially on those older machines with
less RAM. Heck, even upgrading my slow 7200rpm HD in my mid-2007 24"
iMac to a 10,000rpm HD was a modest speed boost. I wish I could have
afforded an SSD for it :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web