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

Groups > sci.physics > #891859 > unrolled thread

Re: Linux 6.13.7

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Linux 6.13.7 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 16:26 -0500
    Re: Linux 6.13.7 Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-03-15 10:53 +0000
    Re: Linux 6.13.7 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-15 11:30 -0700
      Re: Linux 6.13.7 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 18:14 -0400
        Re: Linux 6.13.7 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-15 17:33 -0700
        Re: Linux 6.13.7 Scott Doty <s.doty@ewing.con> - 2025-03-16 03:50 -0400

#891859 — Re: Linux 6.13.7

On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
> 
>>
>> Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
>> your spinning rust archaisms.
>>
> 
> That is quite irrelevant.
> 
> All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
> of whatever kind, play no role.  Even heavy disk I/O is always
> buffered in RAM.
> 
> Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
> fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
> 
> 


Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with 
HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the 
other.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#891863

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:26:28 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:

> 
> Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with 
> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the 
> other.
>

Only for file loading/saving.  On my machines the Iron browser, which
is based on the severely bloated Chrome, takes almost 10 seconds to load
and start.  With SSD this would be a lot faster.

But for program execution and computation overall, SSDs have no effect.

As I stated many times before, I do not use SSDs because the available
consumer technology is garbage.  Consumer SSDs degrade very rapidly and
require technical "tricks" to give an illusion of durability.

Ironically, to keep a record of failed and useless storage bits, consumer
SSDs will incorporate a very small amount of high-grade and essentially
permanent memory cells.  Only when the entire SSD is composed of such
permanent memory will I make the switch.





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

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

#891869

Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
> On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
> >> your spinning rust archaisms.
> >>
> >
> > That is quite irrelevant.
> >
> > All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
> > of whatever kind, play no role.  Even heavy disk I/O is always
> > buffered in RAM.
> >
> > Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
> > fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
> >
> >
> 
> Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
> other.


SSD Sucks!


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#891871

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
>> >
>> >> Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
>> >> your spinning rust archaisms.
>> >
>> > That is quite irrelevant.
>> >
>> > All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
>> > of whatever kind, play no role.  Even heavy disk I/O is always
>> > buffered in RAM.
>> >
>> > Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
>> > fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
>> 
>> Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
>> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
>> other.
>
>SSD Sucks!


BS.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

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

#891875

Joel wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Physfitfreak wrote:
> >> On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
> >> >> your spinning rust archaisms.
> >> >
> >> > That is quite irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
> >> > of whatever kind, play no role.  Even heavy disk I/O is always
> >> > buffered in RAM.
> >> >
> >> > Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
> >> > fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
> >>
> >> Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
> >> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
> >> other.
> >
> >SSD Sucks!
> 
> BS.


you plug in the ssd and error reads; cannot find ssd.



it's unstable.

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

#891881

In article <bsubtj10e057j40tpngchovgjeki24vqkp@4ax.com>, joelcrump@gmail.com says...
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Physfitfreak wrote:
> >> On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
> >> >> your spinning rust archaisms.
> >> >
> >> > That is quite irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
> >> > of whatever kind, play no role.  Even heavy disk I/O is always
> >> > buffered in RAM.
> >> >
> >> > Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
> >> > fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
> >> 
> >> Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
> >> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
> >> other.
> >
> >SSD Sucks!
> 
> 
> BS.
>
>
Did you hear about the herpes program for Linux?

It's open sores.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web