On samedi 8 avril 2017 21:03:39 CEST Peter Mc Donough wrote: > Am 08.04.2017 um 20:09 schrieb Frank J.: > > Am 07.04.2017 um 08:07 schrieb Remco Viëtor: > > ... > > > >> .... And SSD is still quite a bit more expensive per TB... > > > > ... > > > >> Remco > > > > Yes, but you don't have to replace the complete HDD by SSD. > > > > I have a small SSD (120 GB) for Linux (faster booting and program start) > > and for Darktable-Development (Import, generate Thumbs, rating, tagging, > > work in darkroom). > > > > When a filmrole is ready developed, then I move the fotos to the > > "archive" on HDD to free the space on SSD. > > I thought the original raw is never changed, so it probably doesn't > matter for processing whether it is on an HDD or SSD. The location of > dartktable's database should be on an SSD. > All the above is true. But: while you are working on an image the main bottleneck is CPU/GPU. /Personally/, I prefer a system where I have to wait a few seconds more to chance to the next image over one where I have to wait for the pipeline to catch up with my edits (the "working" overlay...). Said differently: I'd put priority on the CP/GPU speed/power, and not on disk I/O speed.
OP seemed to be on a rather tight budget, and in that case, an SSD might not be the most efficient investment. It all comes down to getting the best value for the money. What is best value for his money is something OP must decide for himself, all I can do is give my personal opinion and experiences. ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
