Hello group
I want toknow more about the beneifits for newer solid state drives
for laptops.
if the C drive is SSDS ( Flash type) would the boot upspeed increase
dramatically if compared to the standard Disk type Hard drive.
This is my concern as I want to get a laptop with SSD drive and don't
know if the price for a laptop having that is worth it.

Aside from being shock proof( IIRC) what are the other advantages of
this so called Solid state drives versus their disk type counterpart?
t
How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already known
issues with these kind of storage facilties?
How about supposing a desktop replacement system is equipped with
three drives and one or two are SSD type, what are other benefits can
it confer. Could it still be configured to Raid 5 assuming the drives
have equal capacities?
TIA

Roy

In
news:118800f7-dc61-4538-9918-f64e8cfaf6e6@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
Roy typed on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT):
> Hello group
> I want toknow more about the beneifits for newer solid state drives
> for laptops.
> if the C drive is SSDS ( Flash type) would the boot upspeed increase
> dramatically if compared to the standard Disk type Hard drive.
> This is my concern as I want to get a laptop with SSD drive and don't
> know if the price for a laptop having that is worth it.

SSD are generally faster for random access and usually slower for
sequential access. And booting falls under random access.

> Aside from being shock proof( IIRC) what are the other advantages of
> this so called Solid state drives versus their disk type counterpart?

Well defragging is futile with a SSD. So no need to do that.

> How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already known
> issues with these kind of storage facilties?

Hard drives can fail in a couple of days (rare, but it happens) and SSD
can fail in a couple of days too (also rare, but can happen). The
important thing is SSD longevity is mostly govern by write cycles. A SLC
SSD lasts for 100,000 complete writes. Meaning if you overwrote the
whole SSD 24 times per day, it would take 11 years to burn it out.
Normal use though, it would take 227 years to get there.

The MLC SSD is a cheaper version and has far worse going for it. It only
last 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes. Worse it has an erase cycle and it
can take like 20 seconds to write 2kb if it needs to use the erase
cycle.

> How about supposing a desktop replacement system is equipped with
> three drives and one or two are SSD type, what are other benefits can
> it confer.

Boots faster, no need to defrag, and vibrations isn't a problem (they
use them for Space Shuttle launches).

> Could it still be configured to Raid 5 assuming the drives
> have equal capacities?
> TIA

Got me there Roy. I never tried that.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In
> news:118800f7-dc61-4538-9918-f64e8cfaf6e6@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
> Roy typed on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT):
>> How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already
>> known issues with these kind of storage facilties?
>
> Hard drives can fail in a couple of days (rare, but it happens) and
> SSD can fail in a couple of days too (also rare, but can happen). The
> important thing is SSD longevity is mostly govern by write cycles. A
> SLC SSD lasts for 100,000 complete writes. Meaning if you overwrote
> the whole SSD 24 times per day, it would take 11 years to burn it out.
> Normal use though, it would take 227 years to get there.

I am amazed at how much Windows (XP Pro in my case) actually reads and
writes to disk. I put a new Seagate 160GB 5400.3 HDD in my R51 ThinkPad at
the end of last year and also have Hard Disk Sentinel (HDS) installed. HDS
is an excellent disk monitoring utility that I highly recommend.

I've just checked it's logs and, bearing in mind that my boot and programmes
partitions are 10GB and 15GB respectively and that the rest is for data
storage and doesn't get written to or read all that often I was surprised to
find the following:

Power on time: 183 days 18 hours.

Average reads per day: 117.3GB
Average writes per day: 70.42GB

Total data read since installation: 25,271.25GB
Total data written since installation: 15,210.19GB

Considering that, as I said, most of the drive is storage, that data log is
essentially for a 25GB HDD!

Ok, I do use my laptop for bittorrents but I have a daily data cap with my
ISP of 1GB and I don't alwasy use it all by any means so I don't think that
it impacts hugely on the above figures.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

In news:h143jg$df$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:11:16 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In
>>
news:118800f7-dc61-4538-9918-f64e8cfaf6e6@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
>> Roy typed on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT):
>>> How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already
>>> known issues with these kind of storage facilties?
>>
>> Hard drives can fail in a couple of days (rare, but it happens) and
>> SSD can fail in a couple of days too (also rare, but can happen). The
>> important thing is SSD longevity is mostly govern by write cycles. A
>> SLC SSD lasts for 100,000 complete writes. Meaning if you overwrote
>> the whole SSD 24 times per day, it would take 11 years to burn it
>> out. Normal use though, it would take 227 years to get there.
>
> I am amazed at how much Windows (XP Pro in my case) actually reads and
> writes to disk. I put a new Seagate 160GB 5400.3 HDD in my R51
> ThinkPad at the end of last year and also have Hard Disk Sentinel
> (HDS) installed. HDS is an excellent disk monitoring utility that I
> highly recommend.

Hi Shaun! Odd, I am amazed how little my Windows XP systems actually
writes to the disk. As mine writes 100MB to 200MB a day. Using HDS shows
that Windows 2000 actually writes a tad bit more than XP does. Although
my XP versions are indeed tweaked to write less, while my Windows 2000
is not.

> I've just checked it's logs and, bearing in mind that my boot and
> programmes partitions are 10GB and 15GB respectively and that the
> rest is for data storage and doesn't get written to or read all that
> often I was surprised to find the following:

So you have three partitions? If so, how does that work out for you? I
find anything more than one partition per drive to be counterproductive.
As to use the free space effectively, you must resize the partitions all
of the time. Thus what's the point?

> Power on time: 183 days 18 hours.
>
> Average reads per day: 117.3GB
> Average writes per day: 70.42GB
>
> Total data read since installation: 25,271.25GB
> Total data written since installation: 15,210.19GB

Wow! That is like a thousand times more writing than I do on my systems.
I only get numbers like that when I am doing video or audio editing.

> Considering that, as I said, most of the drive is storage, that data
> log is essentially for a 25GB HDD!
>
> Ok, I do use my laptop for bittorrents but I have a daily data cap
> with my ISP of 1GB and I don't alwasy use it all by any means so I
> don't think that it impacts hugely on the above figures.
>
> Cheers,

I have no idea why you are writing so much on the OS and application
partitions. But say you had a 32GB SSD for the OS and applications. You
would use up two of those 100,000 lifetime writes per day. Double that
two to four for the worse case wear leveling. So that would mean if you
had a SSD, it would last for 25,000 days or for 70 years. Which still
beats most hard drives longevity. <grin>

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h143jg$df$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:11:16 +1200:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In
>>>
> news:118800f7-dc61-4538-9918-f64e8cfaf6e6@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
>>> Roy typed on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT):
>>>> How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already
>>>> known issues with these kind of storage facilties?
>>>
>>> Hard drives can fail in a couple of days (rare, but it happens) and
>>> SSD can fail in a couple of days too (also rare, but can happen).
>>> The important thing is SSD longevity is mostly govern by write
>>> cycles. A SLC SSD lasts for 100,000 complete writes. Meaning if you
>>> overwrote the whole SSD 24 times per day, it would take 11 years to
>>> burn it out. Normal use though, it would take 227 years to get
>>> there.
>>
>> I am amazed at how much Windows (XP Pro in my case) actually reads
>> and writes to disk. I put a new Seagate 160GB 5400.3 HDD in my R51
>> ThinkPad at the end of last year and also have Hard Disk Sentinel
>> (HDS) installed. HDS is an excellent disk monitoring utility that I
>> highly recommend.
>
> Hi Shaun! Odd, I am amazed how little my Windows XP systems actually
> writes to the disk. As mine writes 100MB to 200MB a day. Using HDS
> shows that Windows 2000 actually writes a tad bit more than XP does.
> Although my XP versions are indeed tweaked to write less, while my
> Windows 2000 is not.

That's interesting to know. Oh, I should have mentioned, I have swapfile
turned off too as I have 2GB of RAM I don't need it.

>> I've just checked it's logs and, bearing in mind that my boot and
>> programmes partitions are 10GB and 15GB respectively and that the
>> rest is for data storage and doesn't get written to or read all that
>> often I was surprised to find the following:
>
> So you have three partitions? If so, how does that work out for you? I
> find anything more than one partition per drive to be
> counterproductive. As to use the free space effectively, you must
> resize the partitions all of the time. Thus what's the point?


I find that it works really well. One partition for the OS and (what I class
as essential) stuff like AV and Lenovo system tools and one for programmes.
I've found from experience that 10GB and 15GB suit me just fine, with the
rest of the drive being for data.

As I have a home server with more than 3TB of storage I don't need every
little bit of space on my laptop's 160GB drive so a little 'waste' doesn't
worry me. I find that I can defrag the OS prtition (I use PerfectDisk) every
few days and it only takes seconds and defrag the programmes partition every
couple of weeks, likewise it doesn't take long. It keeps my system tidy and
responsive.

I don't defrag the data partition at all. Also, having smallish essential
partitions I'm able to keep a goodly number of Acronis disk images as
they're quite small so that, if I develop problems, I can restore back to
the latest that isn't bad. (Not that I've had a problem for ages.)

>> Power on time: 183 days 18 hours.
>>
>> Average reads per day: 117.3GB
>> Average writes per day: 70.42GB
>>
>> Total data read since installation: 25,271.25GB
>> Total data written since installation: 15,210.19GB
>
> Wow! That is like a thousand times more writing than I do on my
> systems. I only get numbers like that when I am doing video or audio
> editing.

Odd. As I mentioned, I use bittorrent quite a lot but, as my data cap is 1GB
/ day I can't see that much of that is due to bittorrent.

>> Considering that, as I said, most of the drive is storage, that data
>> log is essentially for a 25GB HDD!
>>
>> Ok, I do use my laptop for bittorrents but I have a daily data cap
>> with my ISP of 1GB and I don't alwasy use it all by any means so I
>> don't think that it impacts hugely on the above figures.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> I have no idea why you are writing so much on the OS and application
> partitions. But say you had a 32GB SSD for the OS and applications.
> You would use up two of those 100,000 lifetime writes per day. Double
> that two to four for the worse case wear leveling. So that would mean
> if you had a SSD, it would last for 25,000 days or for 70 years.
> Which still beats most hard drives longevity. <grin>

LOL, it'd beat me too, unless I live to be 118!

I daresay I'll live long enough for SSDs to be mainstream and cheap.
However, the way prices are trending it'll be a good few years yet before I
swap from mechanical disks. I'm intending on using this R51 for a while yet
and, while a good SSD would probably benefit it (it's a bit 'bus bound'), I
can't afford a 'good' SSD of sufficient size. While I do have the server I
still like to carry the 160GB of data with me (actually, more would be
nice), without lugging external devices.

When good quality 250GB SSDs in 2.5" format are of a similar price to their
mechanical cousins I'll buy one. <g> Care to estimate when that'll be?

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

In news:h15gbj$m1o$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:55:11 +1200:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:h143jg$df$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:11:16 +1200:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In
>>>>
>>
news:118800f7-dc61-4538-9918-f64e8cfaf6e6@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com,
>>>> Roy typed on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT):
>>>>> How about durability and risk of drive failure are there already
>>>>> known issues with these kind of storage facilties?
>>>>
>>>> Hard drives can fail in a couple of days (rare, but it happens) and
>>>> SSD can fail in a couple of days too (also rare, but can happen).
>>>> The important thing is SSD longevity is mostly govern by write
>>>> cycles. A SLC SSD lasts for 100,000 complete writes. Meaning if you
>>>> overwrote the whole SSD 24 times per day, it would take 11 years to
>>>> burn it out. Normal use though, it would take 227 years to get
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> I am amazed at how much Windows (XP Pro in my case) actually reads
>>> and writes to disk. I put a new Seagate 160GB 5400.3 HDD in my R51
>>> ThinkPad at the end of last year and also have Hard Disk Sentinel
>>> (HDS) installed. HDS is an excellent disk monitoring utility that I
>>> highly recommend.
>>
>> Hi Shaun! Odd, I am amazed how little my Windows XP systems actually
>> writes to the disk. As mine writes 100MB to 200MB a day. Using HDS
>> shows that Windows 2000 actually writes a tad bit more than XP does.
>> Although my XP versions are indeed tweaked to write less, while my
>> Windows 2000 is not.
>
> That's interesting to know. Oh, I should have mentioned, I have
> swapfile turned off too as I have 2GB of RAM I don't need it.

Hi Shaun! Well there are utilities out there that will tell you what is
doing all of that writing. AnVir Task Manager has both a free version
and a commercial version. The free one shows you in real time what
applications and services are using the drive while the commercial
version does this and keeps a running tally. I have both.

>>> I've just checked it's logs and, bearing in mind that my boot and
>>> programmes partitions are 10GB and 15GB respectively and that the
>>> rest is for data storage and doesn't get written to or read all that
>>> often I was surprised to find the following:
>>
>> So you have three partitions? If so, how does that work out for you?
>> I find anything more than one partition per drive to be
>> counterproductive. As to use the free space effectively, you must
>> resize the partitions all of the time. Thus what's the point?
>
>
> I find that it works really well. One partition for the OS and (what
> I class as essential) stuff like AV and Lenovo system tools and one
> for programmes. I've found from experience that 10GB and 15GB suit me
> just fine, with the rest of the drive being for data.
>
> As I have a home server with more than 3TB of storage I don't need
> every little bit of space on my laptop's 160GB drive so a little
> 'waste' doesn't worry me. I find that I can defrag the OS prtition (I
> use PerfectDisk) every few days and it only takes seconds and defrag
> the programmes partition every couple of weeks, likewise it doesn't
> take long. It keeps my system tidy and responsive.
>
> I don't defrag the data partition at all. Also, having smallish
> essential partitions I'm able to keep a goodly number of Acronis disk
> images as they're quite small so that, if I develop problems, I can
> restore back to the latest that isn't bad. (Not that I've had a
> problem for ages.)

Okay that makes sense. Although do you really see an improvement with
all of that defragging? I wait a couple of years before I do it and I
haven't seen any performance increase since the old MFM hard drive days.
I always suspected the real bottleneck is the bus, not the seek time.

>>> Power on time: 183 days 18 hours.
>>>
>>> Average reads per day: 117.3GB
>>> Average writes per day: 70.42GB
>>>
>>> Total data read since installation: 25,271.25GB
>>> Total data written since installation: 15,210.19GB
>>
>> Wow! That is like a thousand times more writing than I do on my
>> systems. I only get numbers like that when I am doing video or audio
>> editing.
>
> Odd. As I mentioned, I use bittorrent quite a lot but, as my data cap
> is 1GB / day I can't see that much of that is due to bittorrent.

Yeah that 70GB a day is a lot. I would be really curious what is doing
all of that writing. That AnVir Task Manager is one utility that would
tell you what it is.

>>> Considering that, as I said, most of the drive is storage, that data
>>> log is essentially for a 25GB HDD!
>>>
>>> Ok, I do use my laptop for bittorrents but I have a daily data cap
>>> with my ISP of 1GB and I don't alwasy use it all by any means so I
>>> don't think that it impacts hugely on the above figures.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>
>> I have no idea why you are writing so much on the OS and application
>> partitions. But say you had a 32GB SSD for the OS and applications.
>> You would use up two of those 100,000 lifetime writes per day. Double
>> that two to four for the worse case wear leveling. So that would mean
>> if you had a SSD, it would last for 25,000 days or for 70 years.
>> Which still beats most hard drives longevity. <grin>
>
> LOL, it'd beat me too, unless I live to be 118!
>
> I daresay I'll live long enough for SSDs to be mainstream and cheap.
> However, the way prices are trending it'll be a good few years yet
> before I swap from mechanical disks. I'm intending on using this R51
> for a while yet and, while a good SSD would probably benefit it (it's
> a bit 'bus bound'), I can't afford a 'good' SSD of sufficient size.
> While I do have the server I still like to carry the 160GB of data
> with me (actually, more would be nice), without lugging external
> devices.
>
> When good quality 250GB SSDs in 2.5" format are of a similar price to
> their mechanical cousins I'll buy one. <g> Care to estimate when
> that'll be?
>
> Cheers,

Fair enough Shaun. And that is just a few years away. ;-)

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:h15gbj$m1o$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:55:11 +1200:


[Big Snips]

>> I find that I can defrag the OS prtition (I
>> use PerfectDisk) every few days and it only takes seconds and defrag
>> the programmes partition every couple of weeks, likewise it doesn't
>> take long. It keeps my system tidy and responsive.
>
> Okay that makes sense. Although do you really see an improvement with
> all of that defragging? I wait a couple of years before I do it and I
> haven't seen any performance increase since the old MFM hard drive
> days. I always suspected the real bottleneck is the bus, not the seek
> time.

Hi Bill.

I find that, using PerfectDisk set to 'Smart Defrag', it makes a big
difference. Smart Defrag puts all the files needed for booting at the
fastest part of the drive, then categorises the remaining files into three
groups, depending on when the were last altered. 'Rarely Modified' are put
next, "Occasionally Modified' follows with 'Freqently Modified' left at the
end of the data on the drive so that, when it is modified, it's not squeezed
into little gaps left where, for instance, you may have deleted a file that
had been on the drive since the begining.

The times for the different groups are user-adjustable but I find that the
defaults work well. The bus isn't the bottleneck. For instance this R51 has
an ATA100 IDE interface that is theoretically capable of moving
100MB/second. The HDD, even though it's been upgraded from the original
4,200rpm to a 5,400rpm, would be hard-pressed to hit 40MB/second on a
sustained read and far less that that when seeking all over the disk for
scattered (fragmented) files. Therefore, IMO, the bus isn't the bottleneck.

>> When good quality 250GB SSDs in 2.5" format are of a similar price to
>> their mechanical cousins I'll buy one. <g> Care to estimate when
>> that'll be?
>
> Fair enough Shaun. And that is just a few years away. ;-)

Cool! Thanks for the estimate. I *do* hope that they make them
backwards-compatible (or a small enough adapter) so that I can fit an SSD
into my R51 that *is* capable of saturating the bus at 100MB/second. That
would be a massive improvement over the current set-up.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

In news:h17gtj$ekk$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:17:04 +1200:
> Hi Bill.

Hi Shaun!

> I find that, using PerfectDisk set to 'Smart Defrag', it makes a big
> difference. Smart Defrag puts all the files needed for booting at the
> fastest part of the drive, then categorises the remaining files into
> three groups, depending on when the were last altered. 'Rarely
> Modified' are put next, "Occasionally Modified' follows with
> 'Freqently Modified' left at the end of the data on the drive so
> that, when it is modified, it's not squeezed into little gaps left
> where, for instance, you may have deleted a file that had been on the
> drive since the begining.
>
> The times for the different groups are user-adjustable but I find
> that the defaults work well. The bus isn't the bottleneck. For
> instance this R51 has an ATA100 IDE interface that is theoretically
> capable of moving 100MB/second. The HDD, even though it's been
> upgraded from the original 4,200rpm to a 5,400rpm, would be
> hard-pressed to hit 40MB/second on a sustained read and far less that
> that when seeking all over the disk for scattered (fragmented) files.
> Therefore, IMO, the bus isn't the bottleneck...

Well if the I/O isn't a bottleneck, then why do they put buffers on hard
drives for? As there is no need for buffers. Remember the I/O chips has
to handle other things too. So the hard drive has to time share with
other devices. Thus makes the I/O the bottleneck in most cases IMHO.

I'll try defragging my Gateway laptop again, but I swear I never see any
speed improvements. So I don't know what the big deal is all about. On
old MFM drives, they were so slow, it *did* make a huge difference
there. But I never seen any improvement on IDE drives yet.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

BillW50 wrote:

snip
>
> I'll try defragging my Gateway laptop again, but I swear I never see any
> speed improvements. So I don't know what the big deal is all about. On
> old MFM drives, they were so slow, it *did* make a huge difference
> there. But I never seen any improvement on IDE drives yet.
>

Me neither. Defragging is very satisfying for the mind, but its actual
advantages are non perceptible and the risks are non negligible. I have
gradually stop defraging my machines.

The only thing which actually seems to make it beneficial might be in
case of a file crash. It is probably easier to recover one continuous
file than one spread all over the place.
--
John Doue

In news:h15gbj$m1o$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:55:11 +1200:
>>> Power on time: 183 days 18 hours.
>>>
>>> Average reads per day: 117.3GB
>>> Average writes per day: 70.42GB
>>>
>>> Total data read since installation: 25,271.25GB
>>> Total data written since installation: 15,210.19GB
>>
>> Wow! That is like a thousand times more writing than I do on my
>> systems. I only get numbers like that when I am doing video or audio
>> editing.
>
> Odd. As I mentioned, I use bittorrent quite a lot but, as my data cap
> is 1GB / day I can't see that much of that is due to bittorrent.

Hi Shaun! I found something wrong with Hard Disk Sentinel. As I was
averaging under 400MB writes per day under Windows 2000 until a cloned
one of my 16GB SDHC cards yesterday. Now it reports my SSD is
experiencing 1.5GB worth of writes per day. Although it is dropping
again down to 1.2GB so far. And as far as I know, cloning a SDHC to a
backup USB hard drive doesn't write anything on the SSD (drive C). So I
have no idea why it added a bunch of extra writes when I don't believe
they occurred.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:qr6_l.91$ZL3.40@read4.inet.fi,
John Doue typed on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:44:54 GMT:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>> I'll try defragging my Gateway laptop again, but I swear I never see
>> any speed improvements. So I don't know what the big deal is all
>> about. On old MFM drives, they were so slow, it *did* make a huge
>> difference there. But I never seen any improvement on IDE drives yet.
>>
>
> Me neither. Defragging is very satisfying for the mind, but its actual
> advantages are non perceptible and the risks are non negligible. I
> have gradually stop defraging my machines.
>
> The only thing which actually seems to make it beneficial might be in
> case of a file crash. It is probably easier to recover one continuous
> file than one spread all over the place.

Hi John! Yes I agree.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

"John Doue" <notwobe******.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:qr6_l.91$ZL3.40@read4.inet.fi...
> The only thing which actually seems to make it beneficial might be in case
> of a file crash. It is probably easier to recover one continuous file than
> one spread all over the place.

Oh yes, regular defragging most likely did help a lot in recovering files
after I had lost the partition with all my study papers and other documents
a few years ago (Hey, what happened to my documents partition? What, it was
_not_ OK to delete the unnecessary partition between my OS partition and
documents partition? Gaah!).


P.V.

On Jun 11, 8:39*am, "BillW50" <bill...@aol.kom> wrote:

>
> Got me there Roy. I never tried that.
>
> --
> Bill
> Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Sorry Bill, just my keen interest to know how far with the SSD could
go with regards to performance.
Anyway I am looking forward in getting a core i7 run, triple
channel RAM ,desktop replacement system by the end of the year with
one SSD among the hard drives.....
Regards
Roy

In
news:d2e54351-eee5-49ff-b1ca-6168514fa4af@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com,
Roy typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:42:48 -0700 (PDT):
> On Jun 11, 8:39 am, "BillW50" <bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
>> Got me there Roy. I never tried that.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Sorry Bill, just my keen interest to know how far with the SSD could
> go with regards to performance.
> Anyway I am looking forward in getting a core i7 run, triple
> channel RAM ,desktop replacement system by the end of the year with
> one SSD among the hard drives.....
> Regards
> Roy

Remember there are fast SSDs and slow SSDs, just like HDD Roy. So choose
carefully. I am also thinking of upgrading one of my 702G8 with a 16G
SSD. I don't need one that big yet, but I am curious to play with one.
Although it seems the SLC types are quickly being replaced with the MLC
types.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

On Jun 20, 2:09*am, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:d2e54351-eee5-49ff-b1ca-6168514fa4af@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com,
> Roy typed on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:42:48 -0700 (PDT):
>
> > On Jun 11, 8:39 am, "BillW50" <bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> >> Got me there Roy. I never tried that.
>
> >> Bill
>
> > Sorry Bill, just my keen interest to know how far with the SSD could
> > go with regards to performance.
> > Anyway I am looking forward in getting a *core i7 *run, triple
> > channel *RAM ,desktop replacement system by the end of the year with
> > one SSD among the hard drives.....
> > Regards
> > Roy
>
> Remember there are fast SSDs and slow SSDs, just like HDD Roy. So choose
> carefully. I am also thinking of upgrading one of my 702G8 with a 16G
> SSD. I don't need one that big yet, but I am curious to play with one.
> Although it seems the SLC types are quickly being replaced with the MLC
> types.
>
> --
> Bill
> Windows 2000 SP4
> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Huh? really...could you please tell me about it...
I thought that in solid state structure everything is simplified<grin>
Never did thought about the SLC and MLC, .....
Could you please elaborate .....