Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 12:04 +0100, Darac Marjal a écrit : > I might be wrong here, but isn't the key benefit of SSDs that they have > a tiny access time? But that their read speed is about the same as a > normal disk (also, I might be wrong, but I understand their write speed > is average). This would have been true some years ago:
Comparison of average sequential reading rates (HDD of 2012 and SSD of 2011): http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2011/AS-SSD-Sequential-Read,2782.html http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2901.html Please note that I compared SSD with desktop HDD: mobile HDDs are generally slower. About write speed, the very best HDD gave 164.06MB/s on average while *most* SSDs are above 150MB/s and the best reaches a few MB/s less than 400. > > Hibernation, in contrast, is about writing out (and reading back) a > linear stream of data. But you are right here: sequential read/write should be fast on HDDs as well. But with and SSD twice as fast as the previous HDD, you would still expect suspend time to be cut off by a factor of 2. > > So, in summary, while SSDs may well help with swap performance, I'd not > expect them to be brilliant at hibernation. Seems right. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345807936.15003.13.ca...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr
