On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 13:53, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
This is one of those conflicts of information I see. Some people say it's a default so no worries.. then the next says.. no way, you have to set this option or... the world will end... or your SSD will fail... whichever comes first.
The world will end - the question is just "when?" :)
Or, it's already ended and no one noticed :-)
There is no harm in using the noatime setting; I've been using noatime on all my production servers and my own laptop/workstation for years with no problem. No modern application cares about atime and it isn't even useful for auditing.
Hmmm I think it's time for me to read up more on atime. I need to understand it better.
Really? I've seen demonstrations of that and not been impressed. You could get, IMNSHO, a bigger performance boost by spending that same amount of money on a lot more RAM. I've got spinning disks and 6GB of RAM and apps start pretty close to instantly. An order-of-magnitude difference I doubt would even be noticeable.
That's the bit that is confusing me. I've seen uber fast startup, and application launch times and seen people chatting about exactly that on forums (granted the majority were Windows users, but some Linux too). Then I go somewhere else in my random searches, and the next discussion or comment is essentially the same as yours.... benchmarks show there is essentially zero difference. I wonder, are those benchmarks on the cheapy drives (which are def slower) or the higher priced and faster drives?
If you believe that is true then it makes sense to use SSD.
I want to believe... oh wait, that's X-Files. I'm still undecided about the SSD performance... the comments here have been... interesting. I still have time to research it :-) C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org