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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #238055 > unrolled thread

ISO to external SSD

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  ISO to external SSD Gunnar Gervin <dofeelok@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 21:40 +0200
    Re: ISO to external SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-08-02 21:50 +0200
      Re: ISO to external SSD Gunnar Gervin <dofeelok@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 14:20 +0200
        Re: ISO to external SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-08-03 17:10 +0200
          Re: ISO to external SSD Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-08-03 17:20 +0200
            Re: ISO to external SSD Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-08-03 17:30 +0200
              [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to  external SSD) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-08-03 19:40 +0200
                Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to  external SSD) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-08-03 20:00 +0200
                Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to          external SSD) Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2021-08-03 21:00 +0200
                Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to  external SSD) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-03 21:20 +0200
                  Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-08-03 23:30 +0200
            Re: ISO to external SSD Gunnar Gervin <dofeelok@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 18:30 +0200
        Re: ISO to external SSD Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-03 17:20 +0200
    Re: ISO to external SSD Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-02 23:40 +0200

#238055 — ISO to external SSD

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi again.
This is an unusual question &/or project, maybe utterly stupid, maybe
temporary:
I bought a 1 TB external SSD (Intenso) for later commercial use -in my
company.
Meanwhile I want to use it for something else: To burn an entire Debian
distro on it.
I guess it`ll be more than enough space to let it stay afterwards. Points
of doing it:
1. After the Big job is done, less time to lose each time a program is
needed.
2. More security that necessary software is available, even if software is
off internet

Any advice, suggestions, or thoughts in this matter? Is it not new at all,
just trivial?
BR,
Geg.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#238056

Gunnar Gervin wrote: 
> Hi again.
> This is an unusual question &/or project, maybe utterly stupid, maybe
> temporary:
> I bought a 1 TB external SSD (Intenso) for later commercial use -in my
> company.
> Meanwhile I want to use it for something else: To burn an entire Debian
> distro on it.
> I guess it`ll be more than enough space to let it stay afterwards. Points
> of doing it:
> 1. After the Big job is done, less time to lose each time a program is
> needed.
> 2. More security that necessary software is available, even if software is
> off internet
> 
> Any advice, suggestions, or thoughts in this matter? Is it not new at all,
> just trivial?

By distro, do you mean the complete package repository?

https://www.debian.org/mirror/size

-dsr-

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

#238083

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Dan,
40-50% of my ssd, is that correct
For i386 or amd64? If I take both
I'll still have 149gb. Interesting. I can do it, because the original need
of the ssd evaporated. Thus it's possible to try both into the old
mac(hine). But in that list you linked to, are a lot more than those two
ISO images. Would I need a virtual Pile of 1TB SSD's?
Geg

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, 22:43 Dan Ritter, <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

> Gunnar Gervin wrote:
> > Hi again.
> > This is an unusual question &/or project, maybe utterly stupid, maybe
> > temporary:
> > I bought a 1 TB external SSD (Intenso) for later commercial use -in my
> > company.
> > Meanwhile I want to use it for something else: To burn an entire Debian
> > distro on it.
> > I guess it`ll be more than enough space to let it stay afterwards. Points
> > of doing it:
> > 1. After the Big job is done, less time to lose each time a program is
> > needed.
> > 2. More security that necessary software is available, even if software
> is
> > off internet
> >
> > Any advice, suggestions, or thoughts in this matter? Is it not new at
> all,
> > just trivial?
>
> By distro, do you mean the complete package repository?
>
> https://www.debian.org/mirror/size
>
> -dsr-
>

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

#238087

Gunnar Gervin wrote: 
> Dan,
> 40-50% of my ssd, is that correct
> For i386 or amd64? If I take both
> I'll still have 149gb. Interesting. I can do it, because the original need
> of the ssd evaporated. Thus it's possible to try both into the old
> mac(hine). But in that list you linked to, are a lot more than those two
> ISO images. Would I need a virtual Pile of 1TB SSD's?

First off, most people don't want every version in the archive,
nor every architecture.

Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.
Package installs are generally dominated by random write speeds,
not bulk read speeds on the source media.

-dsr-

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

#238088

> Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
> sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
> and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.

You seem to assume a 3½" form factor which either requires a "large"
desktop or an external enclosure.
Personally I consider this form factor dead every since I bought my
first 2TB 2½" disk.
[ For reference, the last 3½" disk I bought was a 1TB WD Green, which
  I fitted into my ASUS WL-700gE.  ]


        Stefan

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

#238090

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On August 3, 2021 8:17:58 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
>> sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
>> and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.
>
> You seem to assume a 3½" form factor which either requires a "large"
> desktop or an external enclosure.
Not really. My HP z620 work station ain't huge.
> Personally I consider this form factor dead every since I bought my
> first 2TB 2½" disk.
If you use Lots of drives (4tb), and are on a limited budget, like me... 
The 3.5 form factor is more cost effective.
> [ For reference, the last 3½" disk I bought was a 1TB WD Green, which
>  I fitted into my ASUS WL-700gE.  ]
>
>
>        Stefan

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

#238099 — [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to external SSD)

Peter Ehlert [2021-08-03 08:27:26] wrote:
> On August 3, 2021 8:17:58 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>> Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
>>> sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
>>> and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.
>> You seem to assume a 3½" form factor which either requires a "large"
>> desktop or an external enclosure.
> Not really. My HP z620 work station ain't huge.

Clearly "large" is smaller than "huge", so we don't disagree.  FWIW of
my three desktops only one can accommodate 3½" disks (a Streacom F8
case) [ the other two are a 2006 Mac mini and a Librem mini.  ]

>> Personally I consider this form factor dead every since I bought my
>> first 2TB 2½" disk.
> If you use Lots of drives (4tb), and are on a limited budget, like me... The
> 3.5 form factor is more cost effective.

That's why I wrote "personally".  AFAIK the proportion of computer users
which "use lots of drives" is quite small.  Maybe it's higher among
Debian users, admittedly, but still your original statement above lacks
a qualification like "AFAIC" or "IMO" ;-)

OK, to add actual info to this message, here's a quick look at today's
lowest prices in my "usual" store:

   2TB $ 64 3½  HDD             32 $/TB
   3TB $ 65 3½" HDD             22 $/TB
   4TB $104 3½" HDD             26 $/TB
   6TB $139 3½" HDD (external)  23 $/TB
   8TB $199 3½" HDD             25 $/TB
  10TB $323 3½" HDD (external)  32 $/TB
  12TB $339 3½" HDD (external)  28 $/TB

I'm surprised at how stable the price per TB is over the 2-12 range.
It used to be the case that HDD price's curve was not nearly as linear
(which reflected the fact that production costs aren't (weren't?)
proportional to the drive's capacity).
I suspect that the profit margin varies widely over this spectrum.

   2TB $ 60 2½" HDD (external)  30 $/TB
   3TB $125 2½" HDD (external)  42 $/TB  (only "recertified" available)
   4TB $114 2½" HDD (external)  29 $/TB
   5TB $139 2½" HDD (external)  28 $/TB

It's also interesting to see that the price per TB is about the same for
2½" HDD as for 3½" HDD, whereas it used to be significantly higher.
[ And also that in the 2½" space, your best bet in $/GB is to buy
  a drive+enclosure, which implies you don't really know what you're
  getting other than the capacity of the drive.  :-(  ]

That makes 3½" form factor even more dead than I thought (two 4TB 2½"
drives should offer better performance than one 8GB 3½" drive and use
less space, not sure about power consumption).

I wonder what kind of drives are used nowadays in big datacenters (and
whether the prices they pay for them looks anything like the ones
above).

For completeness, here's the list for SSDs:

   ½TB $ 60 2½" SSD            120 $/TB
   1TB $100 2½" SSD            100 $/TB
   2TB $244 2½" SSD            122 $/TB
   4TB $540 2½" SSD            135 $/TB

so about 4x the price per TB (and here the linear price curve makes
a lot more sense).


        Stefan

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

#238100 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to external SSD)

Stefan Monnier wrote: 
> 
> That makes 3½" form factor even more dead than I thought (two 4TB 2½"
> drives should offer better performance than one 8GB 3½" drive and use
> less space, not sure about power consumption).

Erm. You just doubled your failure rate. There are times when
that's worthwhile, but if you want performance, SSDs are a
better way of getting to it.

> I wonder what kind of drives are used nowadays in big datacenters (and
> whether the prices they pay for them looks anything like the ones
> above).

I think my company is in the medium-sized datacenter group. We
use 8-14TB 3.5" spinning disks at prices pretty similar to what
you've got above, and 0.5-8TB SSDs at prices... above what
you've got below, but not breathtakingly more expensive.

ext4 on MD RAID1 and 10, ZFS in equivalents.

> For completeness, here's the list for SSDs:
> 
>    ½TB $ 60 2½" SSD            120 $/TB
>    1TB $100 2½" SSD            100 $/TB
>    2TB $244 2½" SSD            122 $/TB
>    4TB $540 2½" SSD            135 $/TB
> 
> so about 4x the price per TB (and here the linear price curve makes
> a lot more sense).

-dsr-

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

#238102 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to external SSD)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Stefan Monnier writes:

> Peter Ehlert [2021-08-03 08:27:26] wrote:
> > On August 3, 2021 8:17:58 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>  
> wrote:
> >>> Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
> >>> sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
> >>> and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.
> >> You seem to assume a 3½" form factor which either requires a "large"
> >> desktop or an external enclosure.
> > Not really. My HP z620 work station ain't huge.

[...]

> >> Personally I consider this form factor dead every since I bought my
> >> first 2TB 2½" disk.
> > If you use Lots of drives (4tb), and are on a limited budget, like me...  
> > The 3.5 form factor is more cost effective.
>
> That's why I wrote "personally".  AFAIK the proportion of computer users
> which "use lots of drives" is quite small.  Maybe it's higher among

Four internal drives here (2x3.5" HDD, 2x2.5" SSD), not sure if that counts  
as a lot.

> Debian users, admittedly, but still your original statement above lacks
> a qualification like "AFAIC" or "IMO" ;-)
>
> OK, to add actual info to this message, here's a quick look at today's
> lowest prices in my "usual" store:
>
>    2TB $ 64 3½  HDD             32 $/TB
>    3TB $ 65 3½" HDD             22 $/TB
>    4TB $104 3½" HDD             26 $/TB
>    6TB $139 3½" HDD (external)  23 $/TB
>    8TB $199 3½" HDD             25 $/TB
>   10TB $323 3½" HDD (external)  32 $/TB
>   12TB $339 3½" HDD (external)  28 $/TB
>
> I'm surprised at how stable the price per TB is over the 2-12 range.
> It used to be the case that HDD price's curve was not nearly as linear
> (which reflected the fact that production costs aren't (weren't?)
> proportional to the drive's capacity).
> I suspect that the profit margin varies widely over this spectrum.

Thank you for putting the numbers together. It is always nice to see some  
current statistics about it. From memory, 6-8T used to be the sweet spot.

>    2TB $ 60 2½" HDD (external)  30 $/TB
>    3TB $125 2½" HDD (external)  42 $/TB  (only "recertified" available)
>    4TB $114 2½" HDD (external)  29 $/TB
>    5TB $139 2½" HDD (external)  28 $/TB
>
> It's also interesting to see that the price per TB is about the same for
> 2½" HDD as for 3½" HDD, whereas it used to be significantly higher.
> [ And also that in the 2½" space, your best bet in $/GB is to buy
>   a drive+enclosure, which implies you don't really know what you're
>   getting other than the capacity of the drive.  :-(  ]
>
> That makes 3½" form factor even more dead than I thought (two 4TB 2½"
> drives should offer better performance than one 8GB 3½" drive and use
> less space, not sure about power consumption).

[...]

I still use and like the 3.5" drives mostly due to the following  
considerations:

 * It is easier to get 3.5" at 7200 rpm than 2.5".
   Faster rotation means faster access and this is usually where HDDs
   are very slow hence I do not want them to be even slower.

 * 3.5" drives are available with CMR even at high capacities like
   6T oder 8T. With 2.5" a limited and expensive selection of
   server drives offer 2T or 4T with CMR, whereas AFAIK all
   consumer-grade 2.5" hard drives above 1T are SMR drives. I am not
   sure if there are any 2.5" CMR hard drives (server or not) above 4T?

This means in terms of performance, it is quite possible for a single 3.5"  
drive to outperform two 2.5" ones (unless you are only doing sequential  
reads from two drives in parallel).

YMMV
Linux-Fan

--
öö

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

#238103 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor (was: ISO to external SSD)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:11:16PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

[...]

Nice line up.

> I wonder what kind of drives are used nowadays in big datacenters (and
> whether the prices they pay for them looks anything like the ones
> above).

One cloud storage provider, Backblaze, regularly publishes reports on
harddisk reliability (they obviously have a lot of data on that :-)

AFAICR, they make a point on using "consumer" hardware.

Here [1] is their 2020 report, for the pathologically curious :)

(Note: I neither work for them nor am I their customer),

Cheers

[1] https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-for-2020/

 - t

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

#238104 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] Mass storage prices and form factor

> One cloud storage provider, Backblaze, regularly publishes reports on
> harddisk reliability (they obviously have a lot of data on that :-)

All of them seem to be 3½" as well.
Interesting.

It actually looks like the 2½" HDD market has been abandoned: 5 years
ago, the largest HDD were 5TB for 2½" and 10TB for 3½".

Since then, it seems like nothing new happened in the 2½" space, whereas
the 3½" drives kept growing (tho only about 15% per year).

Based on what I've heard, I suspect that to be competitive in the
datacenter, 2½" drives would need to offer about half the capacity of
3½" drives (of course, that also presumes manufacturers going through
the trouble of producing CMR drives in 2½" form factor).

OTOH for an end user who doesn't need more than 8TB of disk space, 2½"
drives can often be a better option (assuming you have enough SATA
ports).


        Stefan

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

#238093

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

For me, testing distros in an old Mac is way more than enough; I'll burn
ISO Images; netinstalls.
I agree that it's better to learn fewer things thorough than many quite
shallow, good advice
Gunnar
.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, 18:18 Stefan Monnier, <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> > Second, the price of spinning disks is such that it makes no
> > sense to buy anything smaller than 4TB, which will fit all this,
> > and 6-8 TB are often a reasonable idea even for single users.
>
> You seem to assume a 3½" form factor which either requires a "large"
> desktop or an external enclosure.
> Personally I consider this form factor dead every since I bought my
> first 2TB 2½" disk.
> [ For reference, the last 3½" disk I bought was a 1TB WD Green, which
>   I fitted into my ASUS WL-700gE.  ]
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>

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

#238089

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On 2021-08-03 8:18 a.m., Gunnar Gervin wrote:
> Dan,
> 40-50% of my ssd, is that correct
> For i386 or amd64? If I take both
> I'll still have 149gb. Interesting. I can do it, because the original
> need of the ssd evaporated. Thus it's possible to try both into the old
> mac(hine). But in that list you linked to, are a lot more than those two
> ISO images. Would I need a virtual Pile of 1TB SSD's?
> Geg
> 
I've sent you the instruction on how to get the mirror on your disk.
You already have the links to the space needed.
Modify the command so you choose your architectures (i386,x64) and
distribution (buster/bullseye/backports, etc). Plus if you want sources.

Maybe go one thing at a time.
Trying to learn everything may give result but won't master much.
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, 22:43 Dan Ritter, <dsr@randomstring.org
> <mailto:dsr@randomstring.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Gunnar Gervin wrote:
>     > Hi again.
>     > This is an unusual question &/or project, maybe utterly stupid, maybe
>     > temporary:
>     > I bought a 1 TB external SSD (Intenso) for later commercial use -in my
>     > company.
>     > Meanwhile I want to use it for something else: To burn an entire
>     Debian
>     > distro on it.
>     > I guess it`ll be more than enough space to let it stay afterwards.
>     Points
>     > of doing it:
>     > 1. After the Big job is done, less time to lose each time a program is
>     > needed.
>     > 2. More security that necessary software is available, even if
>     software is
>     > off internet
>     >
>     > Any advice, suggestions, or thoughts in this matter? Is it not new
>     at all,
>     > just trivial?
> 
>     By distro, do you mean the complete package repository?
> 
>     https://www.debian.org/mirror/size <https://www.debian.org/mirror/size>
> 
>     -dsr-
> 

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

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

#238064

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On 2021-08-02 3:35 p.m., Gunnar Gervin wrote:
> Hi again.
> This is an unusual question &/or project, maybe utterly stupid, maybe
> temporary:
> I bought a 1 TB external SSD (Intenso) for later commercial use -in my
> company.
> Meanwhile I want to use it for something else: To burn an entire Debian
> distro on it.
> I guess it`ll be more than enough space to let it stay afterwards.
> Points of doing it:
> 1. After the Big job is done, less time to lose each time a program is
> needed.
true
> 2. More security that necessary software is available, even if software
> is off internet
> 
not so true
will still be needing to contact the security updates repository to keep
yourself up to date.
> Any advice, suggestions, or thoughts in this matter? Is it not new at
> all, just trivial?
plain trivial
will need to use the command line

debmirror --all --getcontents --progress --verbose --method=http
--dist=buster,buster-updates,buster-backports
--section=main,contrib,non-free --arch=amd64,i386 --rsync-extra=none
--source --i18n --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-keyring.gpg
--root=debian --diff=mirror --host=debian.mirror.iweb.ca /mnt/mirror/debian


replace /mnt/mirror/debian with the folder of destination
replace debian.mirror.iweb.ca with your local mirror

> BR,
> Geg.

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web