| Author |
Message |
finotti
|
|
Post subject: SSD configuration
 Posted: 17.03.2011, 20:08
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 240
Status: Offline
|
|
Dear all,
I've just ordered a SSD for my Thinkpad T510. It's a 128GB Crucial. (This one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148348.)
I will start doing my research now for best file system and configuration. If anyone has already done similar research and is willing to share his/her experience and point of view, I'd greatly appreciate. (Of course, I will install aptosid in it.)
Best to all,
Luis |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
slh
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 17.03.2011, 20:36
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-25
Posts: 585
Status: Offline
|
|
| SSDs shouldn't need any special configuration, even aligning the partitions to the erase block size (recommended, especially for older SSDs - but this is the same story for modern HDDs with 4 KB block size) is losing importance for current SSD generations. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
finotti
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 17.03.2011, 20:49
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 240
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks, slh for the response!
slh wrote:
SSDs shouldn't need any special configuration, even aligning the partitions to the erase block size (recommended, especially for older SSDs - but this is the same story for modern HDDs with 4 KB block size) is losing importance for current SSD generations.
That was exactly one of the things I heard being mentioned. So, can I just use aptosid's partitioner with default parameters? Ext4 FS?
No swap, though, correct?
Thanks again,
Luis |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
devil
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 17.03.2011, 20:52
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 491
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
|
|
i also ordered a SSD (it will hit the shops next week) it is a OCZ Vertex 3 128 GB.
i cant share any experiences with it, but maybe i can make you rethink your choice (if still possible)
the difference between mine and yours is the controller. yours is Marvell, mine is SandForce 22xx series. there is quite some difference in transfer rates. the SandForce controller enbables the OCZ Vertex 3 to shove more than 500 MB/s read and write. it costs maybe 50 $ more (it would in DE).
anandtech reviewed it at: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4186/ocz- ... sed-sf2200
performance graphs of Crucical and OCZ on http://www.anandtech.com/show/4186/ocz- ... d-sf2200/3 ff. speaks for itself.
SandForce controllers cant be beat at the moment, and on top of that OCZ squeezes another ~ 30 MB/s out of the firmware.
so, at the moment, Vertex 3 is hard to beat in the consumer market.
edit: all this is only relevant for you if your TP sports a Sata 6 GB link. if not, ayou are probably even spending too much.
edit2: just checked: Main drive bay in TP T510 is SATA 3.0Gbps, the graphs in the review also compare those.
greetz
devil |
Last edited by devil on 17.03.2011, 22:31; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
slh
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 17.03.2011, 20:59
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-25
Posts: 585
Status: Offline
|
|
Unfortunately all partitioning programs are still lagging behind (and lacking) in regards to "ideal" alignment, because erase block sizes can't be queried in a generic way (especially as everything is already "lost", if windows started with a 'wrong' alignment) - and especially modern HDDs lie about their block size to retain compatibility with old window versions. However fortunately perfect alignment is losing importance with modern devices.
Regarding swap, you've always lost, if you actually need to use it - but swap is still important for suspend to disk and as emergency fallback in case you really temporarily run out of RAM... For modern SSDs, swap and its rewrite count shouldn't be a problem.
Disclaimer: I don't have any personal hands-on experiences with SSDs yet. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
cid-baba
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 17.03.2011, 21:29
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 24
Status: Offline
|
|
i've got a ssd (intel 80gb, bit older) - ext4 works perfectly. swap on the ssd is a good idea - if you get out of ram, the faster the drive, the faster you'll work 
if you're not a video-cutter or something like that you will seldom have to swap, so the rewritecount won't matter. (i've seen calculations, that even first generation ssds would run more than 3 jears if you write 10gb on them daily(!). rewritecount really doesn't matter for desktop users ) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dibl
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 17.03.2011, 22:42
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 302
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
I have aptosid installed and running very successfully on 3 SSDs:
- EEE PC 701/4G (ouranos) (wife's netbook) -- the SSD is formatted ext2, and running the original slh 2.6.32 kernel for EEE PCs
- Toshiba NB205 netbook (keres) -- this has an OCZ Vertex 2, 40GB SSD. aptosid keres is in a 4.5GB ext4 partition.
- Desktop rig (apate) -- Asus P6X58D-E motherboard, Intel i7 950 CPU, 6GB memory, and an OCZ RevoDrive 120GB PCI bus SSD.
To partition the Vertex 2 and the RevoDrive, I used fdisk and set heads=32, sectors=32, and then aligned to 512K erase blocks, according to this guide:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum ... post373226
I am not knowlegeable enough on the SSD controller designs to know whether it is important to let the journals run in tmp filesystems, so I did set them up that way, to be cautious. I saw slh's comment several weeks ago about "1 million erase cycles" -- it certainly may not be necessary to change the /var and ext4 defaults. Regardless, aptosid is performing very well on these SSDs. I will be happy to share the /etc/fstab and /etc/sysctl.conf configuration settings if anyone is interested. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
devil
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 17.03.2011, 23:02
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 491
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
|
|
|
Quote:
nd an OCZ RevoDrive 120GB PCI bus SSD.
thats a hot one 
greetz
devil |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dibl
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 17.03.2011, 23:07
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 302
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Grub menu to KDE greeter = 11 seconds.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
devil
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 17.03.2011, 23:37
|
|
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 491
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
|
|
i will let you know what the Vertex 3 can do, once i get it. (hopefuly next week, all other parts are waiting already for a new box)
greetz
devil |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DeepDayze
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 18.03.2011, 01:13
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 609
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
|
|
slh wrote:
SSDs shouldn't need any special configuration, even aligning the partitions to the erase block size (recommended, especially for older SSDs - but this is the same story for modern HDDs with 4 KB block size) is losing importance for current SSD generations.
So you are saying that the current partitioning tools are safe to use on the more recent SSD's in the same way as used on traditional HDD's?
cid-baba wrote:
i've got a ssd (intel 80gb, bit older) - ext4 works perfectly. swap on the ssd is a good idea - if you get out of ram, the faster the drive, the faster you'll work
if you're not a video-cutter or something like that you will seldom have to swap, so the rewritecount won't matter. (i've seen calculations, that even first generation ssds would run more than 3 jears if you write 10gb on them daily(!). rewritecount really doesn't matter for desktop users )
That's about what the average conventional HDD lasts nowadays with heavy usage, but SSD reliability is improving so someday they'll last far longer than regular HDD's |
Last edited by DeepDayze on 18.03.2011, 01:16; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
se7en
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 18.03.2011, 01:15
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 164
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeepDayze
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 18.03.2011, 01:24
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 609
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
|
|
se7en wrote:
An interesting article, bookmarked for reference. It's a good idea to get some of the specs for the SSD you want to purchase so you can decide if it will meet your needs with respect to partitioning and usage |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
clivesay
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 18.03.2011, 03:28
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 14
Status: Offline
|
|
I have a crucial 64gb SSD running aptosid. It is consistently at 7.8 seconds from grub boot to login. I recently upgraded this machine to a hex core with 16gb ram (yes this is my workhorse and the components were part of a great sale). I keep my OS on the SSD and all my file storage on a separate drive. I am really happy with performance and stability.
Chris |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
finotti
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: SSD configuration
Posted: 18.03.2011, 08:35
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 240
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks devil and all for the replies and insight!
devil wrote:
i also ordered a SSD (it will hit the shops next week) it is a OCZ Vertex 3 128 GB.
i cant share any experiences with it, but maybe i can make you rethink your choice (if still possible)
It seems that they will still take a while to get to the US. The only
place I've found was Amazon, but it says "ships in 1 or 2 months".
Quote:
Thanks for the informative article.
Quote:
edit: all this is only relevant for you if your TP sports a
Sata 6 GB link. if not, ayou are probably even spending too much.
edit2: just checked: Main drive bay in TP T510 is SATA 3.0Gbps, the graphs in the review also compare those.
Thanks for looking it up! So, I gather that the Crucial should be
fine for me...
The graphs surprise me a bit, though. If the Crucial is too fast to
3Gbps, how come it seems that other drives in 3Gbps are faster? (I'm
assuming the if there is no mention of 6Gbps, the test was made with a
3Gbps SATA controller... Am I wrong?)
Thanks again,
Luis |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
