Why are you not using a SSD yet? | Hacker News Reader

Why are you not using a SSD yet?

debuggable.com

49 pointstrustfundbaby95 comments

My SSD has been the single biggest win for hardware for me in the last decade. Dell quoted me $600 on putting one in my new laptop. It would be cheap at twice the price.

In addition to my perhaps unprofessional weakness for playing games, the huge win for me is that it slashes boot times for hefty programs, most noticeably the VMs that I do all my development in and, of course, browsers. Chrome boots practically instantaneously -- I often have to wait for my wireless to come up so that it has something to do right after a system boot.

My other suggestion, which combos well with SSDs and is ridiculously cheap to implement these days: get more memory. I have 8 GBs. If there were a convenient option for getting 16, I'd be all over it -- I never find myself thinking "Dang it all, I have too much stuff in memory, why don't I page out some to disk".

Chrome opens fast on slow hard drives too.

$600? Wow. You can get them for under $100 now, I got one for my dad for 60 GBP and it's made my 5-year-old macbook faster than my brand new macbook pro.

Seriously, if you don't have an SSD yet, go now and order one. Otherwise you're just wasting your time.

Because it costs an outrageous amount of money. I'm waiting for further development of hybrid drives, which are SSDs combined with a traditional hard drive for mass storage, but seen as one drive by the OS. The SSD is basically used a huge read cache. Current models of hybrid drives from Seagate have only 4 GB of SSD cache, which I don't feel is large enough.

Since when is $200 an outrageous amount of money for a seriously significant performance increase?

It's more than $ 200. It's more around $ 300 per computer and in a laptop it's an incredible amount of money ($800+ if I'm correct) if you have a Sony or an Apple one.

Additionally the performance increase is important, but doesn't matter for everything network related.

In other words I'd say it's almost worth what you pay for it.

I installed one in my Macbook Pro a few weeks ago for ~$300, but bought the 120 GB SSD vs. 80 GB. Considering I'm only using 60GB of it, I certainly could have bought the 80 GB and had everything shipped for right around $200.

It's easily the most noticeable upgrade I've ever done.

A vertex 2 is around $200 from what I can see: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227...

If you buy a sony or apple laptop, replace the drive yourself. I just bought a 13" MBP and bought a $25 caddy to put my Vertex 2 in the DVD bay. That way I have Windows 7 booting from that SSD, OSX on the normal HDD with extra storage available there. Of course you could just replace the HDD with an SSD and not void your warranty.

Wouldn't that void the warranty?

replacing the HDD with an SSD doesn't void the warranty, however replacing the DVD drive with one (like I did) does.

It is $200 or so for a decent 2.5" 128gb SSD that you can install into a laptop or a desktop (see http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE...).

The only real problem with that solution is that 128gb isn't enough for some people, but it is not difficult to offload the data to another storage device, either internally or externally. I've been keeping under 128gb on my main laptops (MacBook Pro and Air) for a year and a half now (when I first switched over to using SSDs) without a problem.

Actually it's around $200 for a 100gig drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227...

But you can always have more than 1 hard drive. Buy a 500gig one for all your large file content and use the smaller one for the OS. Pretty much all SSDs come in laptop drive format so I don't know where this $800 number is coming from. They might have been $800 last year, but transistor prices drop pretty fast.

I have 2 drives in my macbook pro -- 120gig vertex 2 ssd, and a 500gig samsung "old style" hard drive.

Since when it's a "serious" performance increase when "it boots faster"? Or if the first grep after the boot is faster (others must be fast since the file cache kicks in for every next one, unless you have, say, 128 MB RAM). Really not worth to mention.

Applications start faster, loading any files from disk start faster. It depends on your usage scenario, but for .NET development in Windows I can vouch for it's value.

$200 for an SSD is a far better use of money for the average programmer than say the upgrade from I5 to I7 on a 13" MBP. There are many parts of your computer which you'd spend $200 on that get you less of a general every day performance boost than a SSD.

> It depends on your usage scenario, but for .NET development in Windows I can vouch for it's value.

The reality is that it significantly increases performances for all workloads but streaming videos (huge sequential reads).

Most of computer usage is random access to small files, and that's a field where SSDs utterly annihilate rotating platters (not that rotas have any advantage but storage capacity, mind you, SSDs are also superior in seq read and write, but on random we're talking 2MB/s on 4k random write for a VelociRaptor to >200MB/s for a Vertex 3; 0.68MB 4k random read for a VR to >90MB for a Vertex 3, for sequential performances the difference will be a factor of 2 or 3 tops between a VR and a top-of-the-line SSD)

The difference is, of course, even more impressive for laptop drives: most laptops don't house 10k, 10W monsters like the VRs

Spoken like someone who has never used a machine with an SSD. My SSD is by far the best performance investment I've made in recent years.

A fast CPU is worthless if you're burning 30% of your cycles waiting for the HDD to deliver your data. Relying on file cache is not good enough.

I just upgraded my MBP and opted for the slowest 2.0 Ghz CPU and spent the savings on 8Gb RAM and a Vertex 3. Absolutely worth it.

Just to give a rough idea - 4k random writes:

  Vertex 3 - 214 MB/s
  WD VelociRaptor - 1.9 MB/s

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4256/36481.png

Every application I launch, launches in a fraction of the time. I don't like to leave every application I use (some of which are horrendous memory hogs, such as Illustrator and Photoshop) running perpetually, so having next to no load time is an amazing benefit.

Textmate is another excellent example. Search in project is completely usable with an SSD. I had temporarily switched to AckMate because of how unbearably this feature was, now it's instant again.

Booting faster is the least of my cares as my laptop is only rebooted when updates force me to.

Try doing a fgrep in 500 files. It's almost 20 times faster than my hard disk. I think it's funny how all these people spend money on a faster cpu when they could really just use a faster disk.

So we have people who upgraded their hard disk to a ssd and say it resulted in a "serious performance increase" and we have people who still use traditional hard disks (why on earth would somebody want to do something like that?) who say it isn't. Maybe the judgment is based on experience?

I wonder if the non-owners think that it's merely a case of those who did buy one trying to justify their purchase.

Those of us with one know that really isn't the case, but of course it's hard to convince someone to spend that much money on something they don't think will make a difference.

Since I put one in my late-2008 MBP at Christmas, I've not seen a single beach ball. Best upgrade ever.

> I wonder if the non-owners think that it's merely a case of those who did buy one trying to justify their purchase.

Either that, or a case of blub.

SSDs are one of those pieces of hardware closest to magic you can find, the differences between HDD and (modern) SSD are so big it's hard to understand them until you've experienced them. I know I didn't before I got mine, but Anand's writing on the subject convinced me there was something to it (anand being a person whose opinion I respect greatly, and one of those who dived early into understanding SSDs, he didn't hesitate crucifying early crappy SSD, and his SSD series are fantastic in their breadth and depth)

I was such a huge skeptic prior to upgrading. I was in the "why should I care about boot times; I never reboot" camp. Then I started thinking about whether or not I could use fast application boot times, but I rationalized that away with 4 GB of RAM and the fact that I pretty much leave all my important apps running all the time.

Then the Crucial RealSSD C300 (256 GB) went on sale prior to xmas 2010, and my girlfriend ordered one for me surreptitiously, after overhearing conversations between me and a friend about SSD performance.

As it turns out, I was completely wrong to be skeptical. The differences should have been crystal clear to me. Think of the difference between using your iPhone/iPad/Android and your computer. Notice how everything on your phone occurs nearly instantly. Most of us don't even consider it, because these devices never came with slow magnetic platter drives. Even with minimal (by desktop standards) RAM and absolutely anemic CPU power, these devices manage a level of responsiveness that makes them disappear in to the background as we use the software. An SSD brings this experience to your desktop. The performance difference is present in everything that you do, not just launching applications.

Uh, how is it NOT a performance increase? Applications load faster. Everything loads faster. The OS boots faster.

What a horrible argument.

It's not just booting/launching apps, everything feels snappier.

Hybrids are nowhere near the orders-of-magnitude improvements SSDs provide. And neither can they be.

You won't see a hybrid able to saturate a 6Gbps SATA connection on random-access any time soon.

No it's definitively not an outrageous amount of money.

I have a 3 year old Thinkpad T61p with a still decent Core 2 Duo and 4 GB of ram. After three years it felt kind of slow so I had two options: 1) Buy a SSD for 250 Euro or 2) buy a completely new laptop for > 1000 Euro.

I went the first route and after working with the SSD for half a year I'm pretty sure that an expensive new laptop with a traditional hard drive would not have resulted in such a tremendous speedup as the SSD did.

So please don't think of the 200$ for an SSD as "these 200$ will buy me a new hard drive" but instead think of this investment as "these 200$ will buy me an awesome new computer".

Tried the Momentus XT. It was good... But they have been on 500/4 for a year now. Also have an optibay enroute for the MacBook.

For my desktop I have gone for the Highpoint Rocketraid 1220. it's a two port SATA III <£50. Add a HDD of your choice and an SSD and you have your own hybrid logical disk. I am testing with a 500gb caviar black and an old OCZ Vertex 30gb.... Arrives today!

The seagate hybrid drive is a scam; it scores worse on some benchmarks than seagate's own normal laptop HDD.

It also only uses the cache for reads, and not writes. Writes is where the magic happens! If I wanted more read cache I'd just get more system RAM.

It's already been proven that hybrid drives perform as good as, or in some cases _slower_ than traditional platter drives. The SSD part is a marketing gimmick.

Wow, okay lots of replies and I'll address them here.

First, a lot of people are talking about using two drives. On Windows this model does not work. Moving programs from C: to D: will often screw up registry settings and other crap like that. On OSX and Linux, thanks to a single root filesystem and symlinks, this model might work better. Furthermore, I have to manage moving files back and forth. This is a problem algorithms should take care of and no OS does this yet.

Secondly, a lot of people are saying the Momentus benchmarks are terrible. This seems obvious. Any standard benchmark does not take advantage of a large read cache. You have to use some sector of data over and over again in order for the drive's algorithms to put it into the SSD cache. Read real world benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-revi...

I'm all SSD now. I've been telling my friends "This is as big as the floppy disk, get one".

Corsair SSD are like $250. And don't tell me you need 1.5TB in your desktop! You'd be a lot smarter to have 180gig hdd and all externals.

When I jump on someone's machine who has spinning disks and do a build in visual studio, I feel like time stopped. I keep moving the mouse "is it frozen? What's wrong?"

That's a problem with Visual studio. It doesn't do incremental builds. You basically have to create an entire assembly from scratch every time you build.

Kinda missed the point, replace "do a build" with "do a full build" and you get the same thing, I used to have the exact same issue when installing lxml via easy_install/pip in a virtualenv (which entails a full compile from a source tarball) on an MBP with a factory drive (5400rpm), I could just go and grab myself a coffee because it would pretty much slow the machine to a grinding halt.

Nowadays, I don't even notice I'm doing it (replaced factory drive with an x25M g2.

I'm amused at how strongly the for/against sides are arguing in this thread. This is a case where the cost benefit analysis is quite simple. I used to start my day at work by doing git status on my project repos to warm up the disk cache, then go get coffee. Now I just dive straight into whatever's on my plate. Then there's the 20 seconds I save whenever I start up Eclipse. The 2 minutes I save on every reboot. It all adds up.

What I'm interested is why people are so adamantly against. People drop huge amounts of money on RAM for their development rigs, but making the slowest I/O device faster and more predictable is a bad idea?

I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but is there a backlash because the people who are happy about their SSDs are so enthusiastic about them? I realize this is the internet and spending energy wondering why people are so angry is pretty futile, but what's the point?

The people who have them are for them. The people who don't are against them. I have yet to see a comment from someone who bought one and regrets it.

I noticed that, I just don't understand why people who don't have them are so negative about them.

Because if you 1) have enough RAM and 2) between two boots you use less files from the HDD than the size of the RAM then you'll observe the speed up from the SSD exactly only once between two boots. Every modern OS uses the RAM cache like that -- once you actually start to work, you work from RAM. On another side, those who buy SDD "for speed" are the same who when asked "but SSDs are significantly smaller" answer "I have everything in the cloud." Absurd, isn't it?

Edit: The title of the topic is "why are you not using a SSD yet," I give my exact arguments and get downvoted. Eh, crowd.

Not absurd, just human. People are generalizing and deliberately misinterpreting each other. That's why I find this so odd. It's _easy_ to find out if an SSD is right for you or not. Why are people's identities so tied to spinning metal vs flash storage?

> Why are people's identities so tied to spinning metal vs flash storage?

In this case, probably because the original article was needlessly confrontational.

Is it costing you any midmorning mental energy not to have that initial dose of caffeine?

Nowadays I pick up the coffee on my way in ;)

Can't agree with this enough. If your workload is IO bound, SSDs will make a world of difference. Measure before making a decision though. You'd be surprised what's bound by CPU (Loopt's iPhone and Android builds) and what's bound by IO (Loopt's server builds).

On Windows use perfmon or Resource Monitor to look for a disk IO queue frequently over 1. On Linux or OS X use iostat and/or Activity Monitor.

If you don't check before taking the plunge, you could be in for an expensive disappointment. On the same machine, Intel X25MG2s made a 2% difference in Loopt's Android build time, but a 50+% difference in Loopt's server build time. Don't spend the money if you don't need it.

Also, it may be worth it to spend the extra money on a reputable brand drive. Loopt has had 20+ drive-years on 15 drives without incident, but they're all Intel. In fact, we run our primary user database on 4 X25-Es striped in a RAID-0 configuration. I've heard horror stories second hand from friends who tried cheaper GSkill and Patriot drives and lost some or all their data.

Loopt server developers all get 80GB X25-M drives + 160GB RAID 1 platters. Totally worth it. Buy SSDs for your employees!

I'm using a SSD for the operating system and 'hot' files that I'm currently working on, and a harddisk for bulk storage.

This works very well, and is much cheaper than going 'full SSD'.

I do agree that SSD is the single greatest advancement of computer technology the last 10 years. It's such an awesome speedup. And nicely silent.

I do this too. The SSD is effectively another layer of cache, but one that has to be managed manually. I wonder how difficult it would be to write a filesystem that does this automatically.

As a developer, I'm more concerned about the lifespan of a SSD than a 'usual' user. That's why I didn't get a SSD, yet. I probably would, if the SSD will last long even when thousands of files change on a daily basis (compilation etc). But maybe my concerns are unnecessary...?

If it's replacement cost you are worried about, I think an SSD will last on average about as long as your system, assuming a max 3 year upgrade cycle.

If it's data preservation you are worried about (ie, if I wear it out and lose everything) then remember than flash memory, unlike spinning disks, is fail on write. That means that even if the drive dies, it can still be read. Compare to an ever so slightly misaligned platter getting a big scratch from a drives head.

I do daily backups for data preservation. So my concern was more for the point where writes may fail (of course the controller will care about it). You're right. As they get cheaper, I'll probably buy one this year.

Hard drives are much more likely to fail without warning than SSDs. Modern SSDs use wear-leveling along with spare flash cells to increase reliability. To give one example: Intel warranties their X25-Ms for 3 years. They claim you can write 100GB/day for 3 years without exhausting the flash cells.

The typical failure mode for a hard drive is for it to work fine and then completely die. No reading or writing, just dead. Flash cells usually become "stuck" after too many writes, turning an SSD into a read-only drive. Compared to hard drives, SSDs are much more tolerant of vibration and shock. I've had several hard drives fail, but no SSDs die on me.

Most importantly, I cannot overstate the performance benefit. Any machine without an SSD feels broken to me. Considering how much time most of us spend on our computers, $300 amortized over the life of the SSD is completely worthwhile.

That's not my experience. I bought a 128GB Patriot Torx some time ago and one day it stopped working completely. I lost all my data. They gave me a new one and 7 months later I started having data corruption problems. Now I can't even format it from Windows.

Maybe it was bad luck twice but I'm sticking with hard drives for now.

The Intel drives are especially reliable.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/...

I recently made the choice to put an 80GB SSD into my 2007 MacBook, instead of getting a new machine (and my RAM was already maxed out). It's amazing what this 4 year old machine still does, it feels so much faster, no more beachballs for me.

I did the same with my late-2008 MBP. First time I don't feel that I need to upgrade 2 and a half years later. Hell, it's the first time I didn't want to upgrade after that long.

I'm on my second in this machine. Burned through the first one. It had a rough death.

Because the performance improvement still isn't significant enough (for me) to spent 200€ on a 64 GB SSD instead of 80€ for a 2 TB HDD.

This article is the typical case of buyers euphoria... he just got his brand new toy a week ago and now wants to push it on everybody else regardless of their preferences. And he doesn't even own the thing long enough to find the bad sides.

I'm on a "crippled" Macbook Air 11". 1.4Ghz C2D, 2GM RAM, and a 64 GB SSD. The SSD makes this machine snappier than my previous 2009 macbook pro. As far as living my life on 64GB, I have room for development (Rails), I keep my music on Amazon Cloud, and any movies on my linux server. It's my portable workstation and it zings along.

For a desktop, a 147GB, 15k RPM harddrive, bought second-hand, is the price-performance-reliability sweet spot. For example, a Seagate Cheetah one generation older than the current.

Also, because I've been using XFS on it. With journal on another drive, performance is blazing fast -- and yes, including mass deletes of small files.

XFS used on the only SSD (cheapest one, admitably) I have was performing terribly -- because it has to do lots of random writes

And no, a 15k RPM is not noisy -- both thanks to good bearings and human ear not being very sensitive at that frequency.

For a laptop, sure, the available harddrives (7.2k at best, often even 5.4k) have terrible random access times; an SSD may be way better. But not on my desktop, not yet anyway.

Some of the first-gen SATA SSDs (based on the JMicron 601 and 602 chipsets) had nasty stuttering problems with lots of concurrent writes, but pretty much every SSD made in the past 12 months is going to blow away any spinning-platter disk when it comes to random writes. SSDs based on Sandforce's 1200-series controller can do 30,000 IOPS, sustaining more than 150MB/s with 4kB random writes.

You should probably investigate the current hardware (OCZ's Vertex 3, Crucial's m4, Intel's 510 series); it might surprise you just how much better it's gotten in such a short time.

Look, as an average individual, I'm not limited by drive interface (PATA, SATA and SCSI u320 are all OK for me), nor disk size (be it 2.5'' or 3.5'' or any other, really), nor capacity (I have a 1.5T drive for bulk storage, and only need about 20G for home & system & some breathing space), nor power usage. The only two real constraints for me are: 1) budget and 2) information on actual (``real-world'') performance of drives. As opposed to cute benchmarks.

> You should probably investigate the current hardware (...) -- that has never been an option to me, and probably won't be for some next 25 years. Budget, ya know.

TBH., I'm irritated by folks comparing top-of-the-line SSDs with slowest harddrives on the market (5.4k and 7.2k RPM, especially in 2.5'' form factor) and making a big woo about SSDs being faster. Get yourself a decent 15k harddrive, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps even short-stroke it if you are a racer.

> Get yourself a decent 15k harddrive, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps even short-stroke it if you are a racer.

15k HDDs are nowhere near modern SSDs in access time, IOPS or random access bandwidth (let alone factoring in noise and consumption). Nowhere.

And they're in similar prices ballparks.

15k drives in desktops are the most worthless technology available these days.

A quick search on popular polish auction site (allegro) gives:

OCZ Vertex 3: 120GB: 1100PLN, 240GB: 2100PLN

Cheetah 15k 147GB: 400PLN (second hand).

Newegg prices, both new:

Vertex 3 120gb: $299.99

Cheetah 15k 147gb: $219.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227...

His prices are probably correct for an auction site though: since 15ks are pointless, I'd expect their resell price to be much lower than on SSDs.

I've failed to make myself clear:

at the pricepoint of 1100PLN, the Vertex 3 offers only 0 IOPS, transfers measly 0MB/s and stores appaling 0B for me. Because it's way over my budget.

Your arguments were that a modern SSD is faster. That's pretty clear. But will such an SSD (of 64GB+) be available at the pricepoint of my budget? If not, your argument is moot.

A fast harddrvive can be had for reasonable price, as I'm willing to buy a second-hand ones. No such option exists for the Vertex 3 yet.

reitzensteinm found a more expensive offer for the harddrive -- that hardly invalidates my original point. Btw., newegg doesn't ship to europe, Amazon adds some heft fee ($77 S&H last time I considered ordering headphones, itself $134) and I don't feel like using no-brand, mail-order hardware from Hong-Kong for my home folder.

If I had spare $300, I'd first buy a pair of noise-cancelling (or at least well sound-proofed) headhones -- would be a better boost of productivity than faster storage.

I hope that's enough of excuse-making for not buying an SSD yet.

If you're willing to go up to 469PLN you could get a previous-generation (still basically pushing the limits of SATA2) Sandforce-powered 60GB SSD.

http://allegro.pl/ocz-vertex-2-e-ssd-2-5-60gb-285-mb-s-275-m...

While SSDs aren't that much faster at sequential access than top of the line hard drives, they asbolutely blow 15k drives out of the water when it comes to random reads and writes. And random reads and writes are basically the most common access pattern on most PCs - load a program, and tons of DLLs and config files are loaded as well. Compare the just released Vertex 3 with a Seagate Cheetah - at the same $/gb. The SSD has 5% the latency of the 15k rpm drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148...

This isn't just spec sheet or benchmarking bullshit, either - real world performance for random reads and writes really is that much better.

Of course, SSDs are only worth the price if you're limited by drive IO - and as stated elsewhere in this thread, that's not necessarily a given. But if you are limited by IO, and you're looking for a performance drive in todays market, unlike just two years ago, 15k rpm drives are dead in the water unless you need 600+ gb.

Thanks to the second-hand market, I can get an (older) Cheetah at an affordable price (as per my other reply below). If I had about 2000PLN to spend on storage, I'd probably toy with DIY SRAM based SSD, rather than ready-made Flash-based one.

Because I'd have to reinstall my OS from scratch, then all my apps, etc. It's a full day of work.

I can't speak for Windows users, but on my Mac, I didn't have to do any of that.

I don't think you need to do so under Windows either, just clone from disk 1 to disk 2, maybe fiddle a bit with the drivers, and you should be done.

IIRC good performance of ssd requires slightly modified formatting parameters. I'm not sure if this is still true, though. Anyway, with different block sizes etc. I'm not sure if cloning works, does it?

On windows, unfortunately information essential to running an app is stored in the registry and the files are scattered over several directories. So windows users might have to reinstall the stuff -- which could turn out to be a good thing anyway if you were already running your windows system for a long time of period.

This is what I've done to move an existing Windows 7 installation from an HDD to a SSD.

1. SSD preparation - format the SSD with the correct alignment:

    diskpart.exe
    list disk
    select disk n (where n is the number that was given for your SSD in list disk)
    create partition primary align=1024
    active
    exit

2. Ensure that the current OS is not using drive letters to boot:

    bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device boot
    bcdedit /set {default} device boot
    bcdedit /set {default} osdevice boot
    bcdedit /set {memdiag} device boot

3. Use PartedMagic to copy the partition from the HDD to the SSD.

4. Disable the scheduled defragmentation.

Oh, but installing apps is so much faster on an SSD, it'll only be 1/2 of a day of work. ;)

Adobe CS5 < 15 minutes onto an SSD vs. 45 minutes onto an HDD.

On the Mac, all it took was half an hour waiting for SuperDuper to finish copying files to the new SSD disk and making it bootable. Reinstalling? What?

It couldn't have been any easier.

Yes, in the worst case it's a full day of work, but your computer will be much faster for _every_ day afterwards so the invested day is more than worth it. Just give it a try, I'm 99% sure you will not regret it.

Well, there's cognitive dissonance. After spending $2-300, you'd better not regret it :p

What about the shelf life of an SSD? I have also heard that your system needs some kind of TRIM support otherwise performance slowly degrades. what's the truth in that?

I asked a question sometime back: http://superuser.com/questions/208560/hard-drive-question-ss...

I just switched my mid-2010 17" mbp to 300gb intel 320 SSD in the drive bay and a 7200rpm 750gb spinning rust seagate drive in the optibay (for mp3, infrequently used vms, etc).

Advice: do it, but make sure your homedir from your old drive, if you use file vault, is smaller than the new drive. Manually mounting the sparse bundle later to copy files is a big pain.

I remember hearing bad things about the usage of journaling file systems (Ext3, Ext4, NTFS) with SSD devices. Is this still relevant this days? Which Linux filesystem gives best long-term performance when used on SSD devices?

Would be tech writers need to learn that when you mention jargon like a solid state drive (ssd) you should define it in the beginning of the article, and it helps to explain what it is.

On the subject, any tips on running a Mysql server on SSD? I've just taken the jump, and what I can find on the net seems more like opinions then solid info.

RethinkDB's site has a good overview of the problems with traditional databases on SSDs: http://rethinkdb.com/learn-more/

How about Trim support under OSX?

AFAIK it still isn't there.. is this (still?!?) a serious negative factor when considering a SSD in a MBP?!?

Certainly considering inserting a SSD. Once I played with an MBA in a shop, I could sooo feel the difference in speed compared to my MBP which has a much faster CPU.

I think Trim support will be in Lion. I'll get an SSD wedged into my iMac then.

Why am I not using a $100-200 SSD?

Because my laptop cost $350, and my desktop cost $300.

SSD's amaze me, and I don't need an SSD larger than 64-128GB, but the performance boost just isn't as important to me as keeping my rigs cheap.

Oh, and when I need truly fast disk access? I use ramdisks.

Same here. I had a SSD for a week. It was absolutely underwhelming on my already lean and light Archlinux system. I returned it.

Mainly because my primary (non-work) machine is a netbook and, from what I've read, it's unclear whether I'd see a performance boost.

I don't use an SSD simply because the operating system block cache is good enough! More RAM is a better investment if you ask me. And I only reboot my laptop every month or so, so I don't notice the boot speed.

I use Windows 7 x64 with 8Gb of RAM on a cheap Acer laptop.

On a side note, developing software on the "best workstation you can get" is a really bad idea. You never get to see how the software will run on a piece of stink like the ones your client probably owns.

By your argument, shouldn't you toss out 3/4 of your RAM?

You should indeed test your code on a client-like machine, but for many if not most apps, building is much more demanding than running them. Developer time is expensive, so building on the fastest available machine is a good idea.

Picking the right tech and keeping your product size small is sensible.

Because a $55 Samsung 1TB drive is 80% as fast as a SSD ?

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/common_drives.html (HD103SJ)

I actually use the 500gb model @ $40 each, I have three that I rotate for full backups which take only 1 hour with a sector-to-sector based copy.

But seagate just bought samsung so best stock up on these drives soon as they are sure to disappear.

More like 1/8th. That benchmark isn't indicative of real-world performance.

Because I'm on a platform that doesn't require massive IO performance on A FREAKING DESKTOP.

How could we implement a tax on horrible programming?

Here's a tip for getting lightning fast boot times without investing in overpriced SSD's: Stop shutting things down in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com