Ubuntu and SSD? Will it make a differance?
Tags:
-
SSD
- Ubuntu
Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Kelly2601
November 6, 2013 10:59:46 AM
dmroeder
November 6, 2013 11:07:52 AM
It definitely makes a difference for bootup times. I'm not sure if there is much other benefit. I suppose there are theoretical benefits of faster loading times of programs but I suspect that the differences would only be noticable through benchmarks. Here is a guide about SSD's and Linux.
I don't think the distribution really matters, maybe only the file system used.
I have Mint installed on a SSD, then I have a traditional 2TB drive for storage.
I don't think the distribution really matters, maybe only the file system used.
I have Mint installed on a SSD, then I have a traditional 2TB drive for storage.
m
0
l
Chainzsaw
November 6, 2013 11:08:19 AM
Hmm Linux is generally fast anyways, however SSD's would give that much more of a boost in terms of responsiveness. It would probably give your system a "snappier" feel to it.
I know I can't go back to a regular old HDD after using SSD's for a few years now. Restarts, opening programs, encoding are all real fast.
Of course it's all subjective. Do you really need an SSD? no. Are they nice to have for the reasons above? Yes.
So really - it's all dependent on your situation with $, and if you want to put the effort into installing one (not that it's hard).
I know I can't go back to a regular old HDD after using SSD's for a few years now. Restarts, opening programs, encoding are all real fast.
Of course it's all subjective. Do you really need an SSD? no. Are they nice to have for the reasons above? Yes.
So really - it's all dependent on your situation with $, and if you want to put the effort into installing one (not that it's hard).
m
0
l
Related resources
- How much of a difference will an SSD make - Forum
- Will upgrading my laptop's 1 TB 5400 RPM HDD to an SSD make a difference in performance - Forum
- Adding a 2nd SSD - Different Make & Model - Forum
- Storage upgrade-will an SSD/Hybrid drive make a difference? - Forum
- Ram speed make a difference with SSD? - Forum
BigBoss91
November 6, 2013 11:19:35 AM
Ijack
November 6, 2013 11:44:15 AM
BigBoss91 said:
One very good advantage is that in Linux OS there's no fragmentation. The ext4 is a lot smarter file system than the ntfs. SDD's are not good with the defragmentation procedure, it decreases their life.That's not correct. Fragmentation doesn't affect SSDs as it only slows mechanical hard disks down because of the increased head movement necessary to read a file. An SSD can access a file just as fast if it is fragmented as if it is not. It is standard procedure not to defragment an SSD.
m
0
l
skittle
November 6, 2013 11:46:45 AM
Ijack said:
BigBoss91 said:
One very good advantage is that in Linux OS there's no fragmentation. The ext4 is a lot smarter file system than the ntfs. SDD's are not good with the defragmentation procedure, it decreases their life.That's not correct. Fragmentation doesn't affect SSDs as it only slows mechanical hard disks down because of the increased head movement necessary to read a file. An SSD can access a file just as fast if it is fragmented as if it is not. It is standard procedure not to defragment an SSD.
defragmentation is indeed meaningless on SSD however TRIM support is necessary to keep SSD quick.
m
0
l
Ijack
November 6, 2013 11:55:50 AM
Oh yeah, you want TRIM. I don't bother with using my SSD for my Linux installations. They are plenty fast enough for my needs as is, what with disk caching and the like. Another big advantage of SSDs (if I could afford one big enough) is that they are silent (and use less power). They are certainly the future of storage but can't completely replace mechanical disks just yet.
m
0
l
BigBoss91
November 6, 2013 12:02:23 PM
I will post that from another site "Zero mechanical seek time certainly does not mean zero I/O time. No matter how fast an SSD can be, its I/O time can never be zero. File system fragmentation affects I/O time in an SSD even when the mechanical seek time is zero. To put it another way, the misconception that SSD does not suffer from file fragmentation derives from seeing the performance degradation as a problem of the storage device alone, a problem of whether there is mechanical moving part or not, but not as a problem concerning the system as a whole. The question at issue here is I/O time, not seek time."
m
0
l
skittle
November 6, 2013 12:13:09 PM
BigBoss91 said:
I will post that from another site "Zero mechanical seek time certainly does not mean zero I/O time. No matter how fast an SSD can be, its I/O time can never be zero. File system fragmentation affects I/O time in an SSD even when the mechanical seek time is zero. To put it another way, the misconception that SSD does not suffer from file fragmentation derives from seeing the performance degradation as a problem of the storage device alone, a problem of whether there is mechanical moving part or not, but not as a problem concerning the system as a whole. The question at issue here is I/O time, not seek time."I think you do not understand how NAND works...
In reality the only thing defrag accomplishes on an SSD is to decrease the life of your drive by increasing number of writes.
m
0
l
Ijack
November 6, 2013 12:14:18 PM
Chainzsaw
November 6, 2013 12:22:04 PM
BigBoss91
November 6, 2013 12:28:19 PM
skittle said:
BigBoss91 said:
I will post that from another site "Zero mechanical seek time certainly does not mean zero I/O time. No matter how fast an SSD can be, its I/O time can never be zero. File system fragmentation affects I/O time in an SSD even when the mechanical seek time is zero. To put it another way, the misconception that SSD does not suffer from file fragmentation derives from seeing the performance degradation as a problem of the storage device alone, a problem of whether there is mechanical moving part or not, but not as a problem concerning the system as a whole. The question at issue here is I/O time, not seek time."I think you do not understand how NAND works...
In reality the only thing defrag accomplishes on an SSD is to decrease the life of your drive by increasing number of writes.
I didn't say that defragmenting an ssd is a good idea. Indeed it decreases its lifespan. I just said that ext4 is far better than having an SSD with ntfs. Ext4 has a smarter way of allocating files and it's less likely that fragmentation will occur.
m
0
l
Ijack
November 6, 2013 12:56:57 PM
Your answer would be relevant if file fragmentation affected the speed of access of an SSD. It doesn't. You may be getting confused with free space fragmentation (or possibly you are reading articles from the very early days of SSDs?). I would say that free space fragmentation is probably more of a problem with extx file systems because of the way they divide the disk into a number of groups. Although this is a very good way of reducing the distance that heads tend to move when accessing individual files it does mean that free space is more fragmented.
Fragmentation really isn't a problem with good, modern SSDs.
Fragmentation really isn't a problem with good, modern SSDs.
m
0
l
nss000
November 6, 2013 4:21:13 PM
Haha your spare change model; briefly and well-spoken I think.
When I recently built-out a Xeon workstation I bought two (2), 7200 1-T HHDs one of which was an **enterprise** class unit. Cost an extra $40, but I'll drop-dead before it does.
I emphasis robust local storage behavior (crap-on-the-cloud) , and local teks warned me away from SSDs . Besides, my still-testing Xeon system has 24-G RAM: what program(s) can't load into that?
Do you have spare cash laying around burning a hole? Do you want slightly more responsiveness from your computer?
Or can you do without it, sparing that extra cash for something else?
This upgrade is not needed, but is nice to have.
When I recently built-out a Xeon workstation I bought two (2), 7200 1-T HHDs one of which was an **enterprise** class unit. Cost an extra $40, but I'll drop-dead before it does.
I emphasis robust local storage behavior (crap-on-the-cloud) , and local teks warned me away from SSDs . Besides, my still-testing Xeon system has 24-G RAM: what program(s) can't load into that?
Chainzsaw said:
It all comes down to this:Do you have spare cash laying around burning a hole? Do you want slightly more responsiveness from your computer?
Or can you do without it, sparing that extra cash for something else?
This upgrade is not needed, but is nice to have.
m
0
l
jasonditz
November 6, 2013 8:39:41 PM
nss000
November 6, 2013 9:30:32 PM
I note you use the word **HUGE** describing the database files making SSD worthwhile. HUGE = so big no casual home computer usr would ever run into such a file ..?
jasonditz said:
It really depends what you're doing with the Ubuntu system. If you're using it as a simple desktop, you'll notice at boot and that's about it. If you're dealing with huge database files or some other application that is accessing the disk a lot, you'll notice a big difference.
m
0
l
jasonditz
November 6, 2013 11:28:46 PM
That's about the size of it. I hate to say never because sometimes huge data manipulation crops up in places you don't expect, but generally speaking if you're doing something like that, you know about it.
nss000 said:
I note you use the word **HUGE** describing the database files making SSD worthwhile. HUGE = so big no casual home computer usr would ever run into such a file ..? jasonditz said:
It really depends what you're doing with the Ubuntu system. If you're using it as a simple desktop, you'll notice at boot and that's about it. If you're dealing with huge database files or some other application that is accessing the disk a lot, you'll notice a big difference.
m
0
l
Herbert Matthews
November 26, 2013 4:11:46 AM
Kelly2601 said:
Hi,I am running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and i was wondering if a SSD would really make a differance or will it be just a little faster? I know it makes a massive differance in speed in Windows but how about in Ubuntu or any Linux distro?
Thanks
Speed test with hdparm (get/set ATA/SATA drive parameters under Linux)
# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
Output:
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 4476 MB in 1.99 seconds = 2244.15 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 714 MB in 3.00 seconds = 237.77 MB/sec
Disk I/O test
# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
Output:
16384+0 records in
16384+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.69718 s, 229 MB/s
http://namhuy.net/1541/intel-520-ssd-180gb-dell-1121-ub...
m
0
l
Related resources
- Solvedhow to make a flash drive boot ubuntu 12.04 32bit Forum
- Will upgrading my SSD make much of a speed difference to me? Forum
- SolvedDual boot Win 8.1 and Linux Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on SSD Forum
- Make Ubuntu Recognize and Clear Windows Recovery USB Drive Forum
- SolvedCan someone please explain to me what makes an msata ssd different than a normal ssd? Forum
- SolvedNot able to recognize 2nd SSD that contains Ubuntu Forum
- Installing Ubuntu on SSD Forum
- Solvednew ssd with ubuntu Forum
- SolvedInstalling ubuntu on different drive - Dual boot Forum
- SolvedDual Boot (W7 & Ubuntu) from seperate SSD's? Or should I go mSATA? Forum
- SolvedCan I make windows update install on my hard drive even though windows 7 is on my SSD? Forum
- SolvedJust got a new SSD, trying to make it my primary disk... Forum
- what is the differance in the way the ssd is set up for use please help Forum
- SolvedMaking switch from Ubuntu 13.10 to OS X 10.9 Forum
- GTX 460 will it make a differance ? Forum
- More resources
!