Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On 14 February 2011 23:55, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:32:30PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote: >> >> >From what I understand (a quick review of wikipedia helps :), modern >> >flash cards are now typically rated for 100K writes, include ECC bits >> >to actually correct or at least detect errors and try to remap bad >> >blocks to unused blocks, and implement wear-leveling techniques of >> >varying degrees of effectiveness. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> -Chuck >> >> PS: Reposted from a NetBSD thread, was >> > > Just make sure you double-check the rating for the specific SSD storage > hardware you're actually using. The fact the state of the art is better > now than it was does not mean you are using state of the art hardware. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > We have the main DB server on our portal running directly on some of these http://www.oracle.com/us/043970.pdf. Its a high volume site so we really needed the speed. They are supposed to last 6 years but we shall see. We have the 1 TB version, all mirrored giving us 500 GB. We run solaris 10 on top with zfs, so we should see any data corruption very quickly if it starts to happen. The cluster has been running for about a year now ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:32:30PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote: > > >From what I understand (a quick review of wikipedia helps :), modern > >flash cards are now typically rated for 100K writes, include ECC bits > >to actually correct or at least detect errors and try to remap bad > >blocks to unused blocks, and implement wear-leveling techniques of > >varying degrees of effectiveness. > > Regards, > -- > -Chuck > > PS: Reposted from a NetBSD thread, was > Just make sure you double-check the rating for the specific SSD storage hardware you're actually using. The fact the state of the art is better now than it was does not mean you are using state of the art hardware. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpZEg3483gtE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
Hi-- On Feb 14, 2011, at 3:17 PM, David Brodbeck wrote: > I would be curious to hear stories from people who actually *have* run > into SSD failures related to write limitations. I've heard a lot of > speculation but no actual anecdotes. I'm sure they're out there; but > I also know people are more likely to complain when things go wrong > than talk about things going right, so my suspicion is it must be > rare. Back around 2005 / 2006, we were using a bunch of Soekris 4511's, IIRC, running NetBSD and a network IDS we'd been working on, which possibly generated 100s of MB to a few GB of logging per day. Whoever did the initial setup didn't realize that the flash cards of that timeframe were limited to 10K writes or so, and after a few months you started getting 16K chunks of old logfile data, or 16K chunks of new and old logfile data corrupted together-- looked to be a binary OR of the 0 bits. Nothing reported that writes were failing-- evidently the flash cards didn't notice an error and thus didn't report it back to the system. Switching /var to tmpfs resolved the issue for us. >From what I understand (a quick review of wikipedia helps :), modern flash >cards are now typically rated for 100K writes, include ECC bits to actually >correct or at least detect errors and try to remap bad blocks to unused >blocks, and implement wear-leveling techniques of varying degrees of >effectiveness. Regards, -- -Chuck PS: Reposted from a NetBSD thread, was ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Frank Shute wrote: > Agreed. I posted my short experience of using an SSD as a workstation > drive and I'd be interested in hearing the experience of any other > users. Problems? Praise? Let's hear it. While not quite a workstation application, in a previous job I helped maintain industrial PCs that booted cut-down Windows 95 installs off of 128 megabyte CompactFlash cards. As SSDs go this was pretty primitive stuff. We had very few problems with this setup. This was just FAT, no special SSD support. I also have a netbook with an SSD I've used heavily for the last three years with no problems. My only complaint about that one is the write performance is rather slow, it being an SSD optimized for power consumption instead of speed. I would be curious to hear stories from people who actually *have* run into SSD failures related to write limitations. I've heard a lot of speculation but no actual anecdotes. I'm sure they're out there; but I also know people are more likely to complain when things go wrong than talk about things going right, so my suspicion is it must be rare. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:10:47 -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Chip Camden wrote: > > > But for users who do not wish to learn anything ... > > the Microsoft Way fits the bill. > ^ > > Of course. It's his company. But does it fit anyone else? It perfectly fits the round depot "G". :-) It's a common misbelief that "Windows" doesn't involve learning. IT DOES. Furthermore, this misbelief is strenghtened by the typical habit of "Windows" users to delegate problems they encounter to others (who then solve the problems, or even do the pending work). You would wonder how many problem people have who have never seen a "Windows" before and are now forced to try to do any serious work with that. Even the relation between the "foot pedal" and the "white triangle", let alone the "letter board", is too complicated for many. I could see that in reality... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
Chip Camden wrote: > But for users who do not wish to learn anything ... > the Microsoft Way fits the bill. ^ Of course. It's his company. But does it fit anyone else? >;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:10:26AM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > > Hey, I just found out that libreoffice can open all those old .WRI files > that MS Office no longer recognizes! Thanks for the tip! My pleasure. I bet it doesn't have the old Windows Write memory leak, either -- which, by the way, persisted in Wordpad at least as late as XP. I haven't checked whether that same memory leak still exists in Vista or Win7; maybe I should. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpwaxx7be93Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0800, Chip Camden wrote: > > But for users who do not wish to learn anything and who want to use > their computer the same way they use their DVD player or their electric > toothbrush, the Microsoft Way fits the bill. I think you're being too kind to the obviousness of the modern media player device's interface. The electric toothbrush is pretty obvious, though, if one is accustomed to toothbrushes in general. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpYbuP5dX9bp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:05:51PM -0500, Maxim Khitrov wrote: > > Can you guys please take Microsoft bashing elsewhere? This thread is > about FreeBSD and SSDs - a topic I'd like to hear more about from > people with first-hand experience in running such setup. Perhaps responding to the "FreeBSD bashing" got a little out of hand. I apologize for sinking to nearly the same level of off-topic OS deprecation. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpwXFS5HoHrp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
Quoth Bruce Cran on Sunday, 13 February 2011: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:42:54 -0700 > Chad Perrin wrote: > > > There's no use pretending MS Windows never has issues with the > > efficacy of its autoconfiguration. Most of us have used that OS > > quite a lot, and know that problems arise -- and that, unlike with > > open source OSes, it's actually fairly common to have no recourse at > > all when something does not work. > > A good example is the need to edit the registry to improve network > performance - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321098 . Another is that > in order to disable auto-run you need to know to type "gpedit.msc" in > the "Run" window to load the Group Policy Editor and navigate to the > settings. > > -- > Bruce Cran You've touched on the basic philosophical difference between the Microsoft and Unix approaches. The former seeks to make usual activities easy and obvious, at the expense of making unusual activities downright difficult or impossible. Unfortunately, one person's unusual is another's everyday. The latter (Unix), OTOH, seeks greater consistency of interface, at the expense of a significant user learning experience just to get started. Personally, I prefer the latter, because that learning builds on itself and generates enormous power to overcome further obstacles and create new things. But for users who do not wish to learn anything and who want to use their computer the same way they use their DVD player or their electric toothbrush, the Microsoft Way fits the bill. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgptPp92J4rk0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
Quoth Chad Perrin on Sunday, 13 February 2011: > > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice offer functionality MS Office does not, > just as MS Office offers functionality they do not. Different people > have different needs, and those office suites serve slightly different > needs. On the other hand, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice encompass more > MS Office functionality than MS Office does of OpenOffice.org and > LibreOffice functionality. Since it became a household term (at least in > the open source community), for instance, OpenOffice.org has supported a > wider range of MS Office documents than MS Office, thanks to the fact > that despite its much-ballyhooed adherence to "backwards compatibility", > MS Office has tended to (intentionally?) break file format compatibility > between release versions. > Hey, I just found out that libreoffice can open all those old .WRI files that MS Office no longer recognizes! Thanks for the tip! -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://chipsquips.com | http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com pgp3Y3QPOJNHS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On 13.02.2011 19:50, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Frank Shute wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:05:51PM -0500, Maxim Khitrov wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you guys please take Microsoft bashing elsewhere? This thread is >>> about FreeBSD and SSDs - a topic I'd like to hear more about from >>> people with first-hand experience in running such setup. >>> >>> - Max >> >> Agreed. I posted my short experience of using an SSD as a workstation >> drive and I'd be interested in hearing the experience of any other >> users. Problems? Praise? Let's hear it. >> > > I have two personal SSD's, one an older PATA model in my laptop and an X-25 > serving as a ZIL. I have had a great experience with them, but I know the > Intel doesn't properly obey cache flush requests even with updated firmware > so I guess that would be my biggest problem with them. I'm running two X25-m G2s myself. One in my laptop, the other in my workstation (as systems and software drives, I used spinning metal for raw storage in both). Nothing but praise from me. //Svein -- +---+--- /"\ |Svein Skogen | sv...@d80.iso100.no \ / |Solberg Østli 9| PGP Key: 0xE5E76831 X|2020 Skedsmokorset | sv...@jernhuset.no / \ |Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13 | | sv...@stillbilde.net ascii | | PGP Key: 0x58CD33B6 ribbon |System Admin | svein-listm...@stillbilde.net Campaign|stillbilde.net | PGP Key: 0x22D494A4 +---+--- |msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575 |sv...@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle:SS16503-RIPE +---+--- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Picture Gallery: https://gallery.stillbilde.net/v/svein/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Frank Shute wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:05:51PM -0500, Maxim Khitrov wrote: > > > > > > Can you guys please take Microsoft bashing elsewhere? This thread is > > about FreeBSD and SSDs - a topic I'd like to hear more about from > > people with first-hand experience in running such setup. > > > > - Max > > Agreed. I posted my short experience of using an SSD as a workstation > drive and I'd be interested in hearing the experience of any other > users. Problems? Praise? Let's hear it. > I have two personal SSD's, one an older PATA model in my laptop and an X-25 serving as a ZIL. I have had a great experience with them, but I know the Intel doesn't properly obey cache flush requests even with updated firmware so I guess that would be my biggest problem with them. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:05:51PM -0500, Maxim Khitrov wrote: > > > Can you guys please take Microsoft bashing elsewhere? This thread is > about FreeBSD and SSDs - a topic I'd like to hear more about from > people with first-hand experience in running such setup. > > - Max Agreed. I posted my short experience of using an SSD as a workstation drive and I'd be interested in hearing the experience of any other users. Problems? Praise? Let's hear it. Have people bothered to mount /tmp as a memory drive or are they as me just using their SSDs without any messing about? Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgpsCkOwKiE7d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:42:54 -0700 Chad Perrin wrote: > There's no use pretending MS Windows never has issues with the > efficacy of its autoconfiguration. Most of us have used that OS > quite a lot, and know that problems arise -- and that, unlike with > open source OSes, it's actually fairly common to have no recourse at > all when something does not work. A good example is the need to edit the registry to improve network performance - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321098 . Another is that in order to disable auto-run you need to know to type "gpedit.msc" in the "Run" window to load the Group Policy Editor and navigate to the settings. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Jerry wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:10:51 + >> Bruce Cran articulated: >> >> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500 >> > Jerry wrote: >> > >> > > Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community >> > > has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor >> > > clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable >> > > someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it >> > > can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. >> > >> > For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and >> > libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. >> >> New, as in four years old? That is one of the worst straw man arguments >> I have heard in a while. In any case, In 2008 OpenOffice.org started >> the project Renaissance to improve the user interface of OpenOffice. So >> far the prototypes of the project are frequently seen as similar to the >> ribbon interface. > > I do not think you understand the term "straw man" as used in reference > to a logical fallacy. A straw man fallacy involves using a distraction > in place of a valid argument, supplanting someone else's argument with > this distraction, attributing it to that other person for the sake of > attacking it rather than the argument that other person actually made. > How, exactly, does the comment about the ribbon fit that definition at > all? > > >> >> Obviously, the use and customization of any software is a personal >> experience. However, if the use of the "ribbon" is beyond your >> abilities, and I am assuming that you are aware that the "ribbon" can >> be hidden, modified and that there are many "add-ons" available that >> can be used to manage it, then so be it. I would rather work with an >> application with a minor annoyance, and I do not find the "ribbon" to be >> one, then to use a less robust application. Again, it is up to the end >> user to ascertain their requirements and find the tool that is best >> fitted to that job. > > "Beyond your abilities" is a better example of a straw man fallacy, since > I don't think anyone here said "Use of the ribbon is beyond my > abilities," or anything even remotely equivalent to that. > > >> >> In any case, I am quite confident that your condemnation of the >> "ribbon" is totally based on your reading of Slashdot and other similar >> documents and not from any personal experience. > > Interfaces that change without a consistent use model being presented to > the user -- as is the case with all but the most basic, unsophisticated > users who are presented with the ribbon -- have long been recognized as a > failure of usability design, and for good reason. This is why the words > "consisten navigation" are so important in Web design circles. > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Can you guys please take Microsoft bashing elsewhere? This thread is about FreeBSD and SSDs - a topic I'd like to hear more about from people with first-hand experience in running such setup. - Max ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:10:51 + > Bruce Cran articulated: > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500 > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community > > > has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor > > > clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable > > > someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it > > > can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. > > > > For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and > > libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. > > New, as in four years old? That is one of the worst straw man arguments > I have heard in a while. In any case, In 2008 OpenOffice.org started > the project Renaissance to improve the user interface of OpenOffice. So > far the prototypes of the project are frequently seen as similar to the > ribbon interface. I do not think you understand the term "straw man" as used in reference to a logical fallacy. A straw man fallacy involves using a distraction in place of a valid argument, supplanting someone else's argument with this distraction, attributing it to that other person for the sake of attacking it rather than the argument that other person actually made. How, exactly, does the comment about the ribbon fit that definition at all? > > Obviously, the use and customization of any software is a personal > experience. However, if the use of the "ribbon" is beyond your > abilities, and I am assuming that you are aware that the "ribbon" can > be hidden, modified and that there are many "add-ons" available that > can be used to manage it, then so be it. I would rather work with an > application with a minor annoyance, and I do not find the "ribbon" to be > one, then to use a less robust application. Again, it is up to the end > user to ascertain their requirements and find the tool that is best > fitted to that job. "Beyond your abilities" is a better example of a straw man fallacy, since I don't think anyone here said "Use of the ribbon is beyond my abilities," or anything even remotely equivalent to that. > > In any case, I am quite confident that your condemnation of the > "ribbon" is totally based on your reading of Slashdot and other similar > documents and not from any personal experience. Interfaces that change without a consistent use model being presented to the user -- as is the case with all but the most basic, unsophisticated users who are presented with the ribbon -- have long been recognized as a failure of usability design, and for good reason. This is why the words "consisten navigation" are so important in Web design circles. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgppRQt7YQpaN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
So... how about those solid state drives... yup. -Modulok- On 2/13/11, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:38:01AM -0500, Jerry wrote: >> >> "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. What one user considers bloat >> could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while >> you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" >> protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. > > If one OS has about a gigabyte installed size and another more like > fifteen to twenty, and both are suitable to accomplishing everyday tasks > for a given user, the latter is bloated. It doesn't matter if your > favorite 5% of the latter system is different from mine, and we consider > different parts of the system "bloat", it's still bloated to both of us. > This is why good design concepts like "modularity" are . . . good design > concepts. > > Well, it's *one* reason, among many. > > Shame Microsoft never caught on to that concept. > > >> >> I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines >> and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other >> reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD >> platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. > > You use what you need. I get that. I never disputed it. On the other > hand, needing something because of a particular couple of requirements > does not mean it's well designed. > > >> >> MS Office is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS >> community has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than >> a poor clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be >> usable someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way >> it can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. > > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice offer functionality MS Office does not, > just as MS Office offers functionality they do not. Different people > have different needs, and those office suites serve slightly different > needs. On the other hand, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice encompass more > MS Office functionality than MS Office does of OpenOffice.org and > LibreOffice functionality. Since it became a household term (at least in > the open source community), for instance, OpenOffice.org has supported a > wider range of MS Office documents than MS Office, thanks to the fact > that despite its much-ballyhooed adherence to "backwards compatibility", > MS Office has tended to (intentionally?) break file format compatibility > between release versions. > > Of course, office suites are collectively steaming garbage anyway. > > >> >> Until the FOSS can write applications that are not only compatible >> with, but as fully functional as MS Office and similar software, as >> well as provide drivers in a timely manner (and I am still waiting for >> Java to be updated to the latest version so that it will work with the >> FreeBSD version of Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play >> well with others, etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many >> end users. > > When your criteria for success are "identical to someone else's > software", you're just creating a rigged game, where the "someone else" > is the only possible winner -- because its efforts are in your eyes the > standard of excellence no matter what its efforts produce, and everyone > else just has to play catch-up. It has nothing to do with actual > quality, usefulness, or productivity. > > It's funny you are complaining about open source developers not doing a > good job by pointing out that closed source developers aren't doing their > jobs, by the way. You are aware that both components of the complete > Java system and Adobe's PDF reader are both closed source software -- > right? > > >> >> This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source >> product. > > . . . aside from the part where you blame open source developers for all > the ills of the world above. Okay, so I exaggerate -- but you seem to be > trolling rather than making a salient point. > > >> >> It is just a simple statement of fact. The majority of users, despite >> what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware that just >> works. I had installed an older nVidia GeForce GT 220 card in an older >> PC and then discovered that there was no sound being emitted by the >> machine. Wasting valuable time, I finally discovered that I had to >> modify the "sysctl.conf" file. Crap like that should just not happen. > > I agree that there should be ways to handle such things without forcing > minimally competent computer users to search documentation for > information about how to use sysctl to make sound work. Sane defaults > and reasonable levels of autoconfiguration, at least as *options*, are > good things. > > On the other hand, I wish I had the option of searching documentation and > using a simple tool like sysctl to make graphics work on an MS Windows > syst
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:38:01AM -0500, Jerry wrote: > > "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. What one user considers bloat > could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while > you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" > protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. If one OS has about a gigabyte installed size and another more like fifteen to twenty, and both are suitable to accomplishing everyday tasks for a given user, the latter is bloated. It doesn't matter if your favorite 5% of the latter system is different from mine, and we consider different parts of the system "bloat", it's still bloated to both of us. This is why good design concepts like "modularity" are . . . good design concepts. Well, it's *one* reason, among many. Shame Microsoft never caught on to that concept. > > I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines > and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other > reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD > platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. You use what you need. I get that. I never disputed it. On the other hand, needing something because of a particular couple of requirements does not mean it's well designed. > > MS Office is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS > community has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than > a poor clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be > usable someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way > it can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice offer functionality MS Office does not, just as MS Office offers functionality they do not. Different people have different needs, and those office suites serve slightly different needs. On the other hand, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice encompass more MS Office functionality than MS Office does of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice functionality. Since it became a household term (at least in the open source community), for instance, OpenOffice.org has supported a wider range of MS Office documents than MS Office, thanks to the fact that despite its much-ballyhooed adherence to "backwards compatibility", MS Office has tended to (intentionally?) break file format compatibility between release versions. Of course, office suites are collectively steaming garbage anyway. > > Until the FOSS can write applications that are not only compatible > with, but as fully functional as MS Office and similar software, as > well as provide drivers in a timely manner (and I am still waiting for > Java to be updated to the latest version so that it will work with the > FreeBSD version of Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play > well with others, etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many > end users. When your criteria for success are "identical to someone else's software", you're just creating a rigged game, where the "someone else" is the only possible winner -- because its efforts are in your eyes the standard of excellence no matter what its efforts produce, and everyone else just has to play catch-up. It has nothing to do with actual quality, usefulness, or productivity. It's funny you are complaining about open source developers not doing a good job by pointing out that closed source developers aren't doing their jobs, by the way. You are aware that both components of the complete Java system and Adobe's PDF reader are both closed source software -- right? > > This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source > product. . . . aside from the part where you blame open source developers for all the ills of the world above. Okay, so I exaggerate -- but you seem to be trolling rather than making a salient point. > > It is just a simple statement of fact. The majority of users, despite > what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware that just > works. I had installed an older nVidia GeForce GT 220 card in an older > PC and then discovered that there was no sound being emitted by the > machine. Wasting valuable time, I finally discovered that I had to > modify the "sysctl.conf" file. Crap like that should just not happen. I agree that there should be ways to handle such things without forcing minimally competent computer users to search documentation for information about how to use sysctl to make sound work. Sane defaults and reasonable levels of autoconfiguration, at least as *options*, are good things. On the other hand, I wish I had the option of searching documentation and using a simple tool like sysctl to make graphics work on an MS Windows system a few years back. Instead, I ended up having to just use a different 3D graphics adapter because the one I had refused to work properly on a given motherboard with MS Windows. I later discovered the same hardware setup worked fine wit
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:58:05 -0500 Jerry wrote: > New, as in four years old? That is one of the worst straw man > arguments I have heard in a while. In any case, In 2008 > OpenOffice.org started the project Renaissance to improve the user > interface of OpenOffice. So far the prototypes of the project are > frequently seen as similar to the ribbon interface. > > Obviously, the use and customization of any software is a personal > experience. However, if the use of the "ribbon" is beyond your > abilities, and I am assuming that you are aware that the "ribbon" can > be hidden, modified and that there are many "add-ons" available that > can be used to manage it, then so be it. I would rather work with an > application with a minor annoyance, and I do not find the "ribbon" to > be one, then to use a less robust application. Again, it is up to the > end user to ascertain their requirements and find the tool that is > best fitted to that job. > > In any case, I am quite confident that your condemnation of the > "ribbon" is totally based on your reading of Slashdot and other > similar documents and not from any personal experience. Obviously I'm not talking about myself having problems with it since I've used all sorts of different UIs over the years and can learn new interfaces quickly. You seem to be forgetting that most people don't upgrade very frequently: I wouldn't be surprised if lots were still running Office 2000. I worked in an R&D environment and even there people were steadfastly ignoring Vista and even 64-bit Windows even 3 years after it was released - I had to keep running 32-bit XP. The problem is that less technically-literate people have problems with _certain_ operations which were simple in the past - printing for example now takes several clicks during which the screen changes each time. For people who get confused when icons move on the screen the context-sensitive nature of it can be rather difficult to learn. With large screens and people who don't have the baggage of expecting things to work a certain way I do think Ribbon is better: for example I recently started using Access 2010 and found it rather easy to find how to do things like exporting to SQL Server 2008, which would previously have been buried. Also, the way traditional sub-menus work in Windows is really awful for people who don't have accurate mouse skills - move the mouse outside the menu and it disappears. The Ribbon solves this problem. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:58:05 -0500, Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:10:51 + > Bruce Cran articulated: > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500 > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community > > > has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor > > > clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable > > > someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it > > > can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. > > > > For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and > > libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. > > New, as in four years old? That is one of the worst straw man arguments > I have heard in a while. You're refering to when the UI has been issued as being "new". I'm refering to how users recept it TODAY. In many business settings, you won't see any of the "new" stuff MICROS~1 has to offer. This "Windows XP" is still VERY present, and a common office application is the predecessor with the traditional menues. Many user complain about the Ribbon and refuse to use it, as they had a hard time learning menues (and the changes within them from program version to program version). And now something "new"... that's too complicated. That's why I was using "new" as this kind of nonfamiliar interface is considered new TO THEM. > In any case, In 2008 OpenOffice.org started > the project Renaissance to improve the user interface of OpenOffice. So > far the prototypes of the project are frequently seen as similar to the > ribbon interface. Providing the TRY of "the same" is often inferior to providing "better". But users do not want "better", they want "the same" as they prefer consistency in usage, implying that nothing new has to be learned. > Obviously, the use and customization of any software is a personal > experience. However, if the use of the "ribbon" is beyond your > abilities, [...] Preferences. Abilities have nothing to do with it, except we are talking about niche users (who are out of scope anyway), such as blind users who could read menu text through a Braille readout, but can't identify images (without any text) by that means, which implies that a pictural interface which is contextually changing is absolutely unusable for them. > [...] and I am assuming that you are aware that the "ribbon" can > be hidden, modified and that there are many "add-ons" available that > can be used to manage it, then so be it. I'm not using any MICROS~1 stuff at all, so my experience can be seen as limited. > I would rather work with an > application with a minor annoyance, and I do not find the "ribbon" to be > one, then to use a less robust application. I don't think robustness is important for end users in the home sector, as "bleeding edge" is preferred. Robustness is very important for corporate users. > Again, it is up to the end > user to ascertain their requirements and find the tool that is best > fitted to that job. No. End users do not try or find anything, or make judged considerations. They use whatever comes preinstalled, or they use what they know from their work place (traditionally by obtaining a pirated copy of whatever it is). > In any case, I am quite confident that your condemnation of the > "ribbon" is totally based on your reading of Slashdot and other similar > documents and not from any personal experience. I have never read anything on Slashdot, sorry. Should I? :-) My personal experience is limited in helping users who come from a "menu background" and feel that the constant re-learning a contextually changing interface that is based upon pictural elements instead of WORDS is limiting their productivity. This was the chance for me to try to use the Ribbon interface, and I didn't feel it is THAT BAD. There are, however, applications where this kind of interface, if consistently used, would be a benefit for the user. I suggest you have a look at this: http://toastytech.com/guis/win72.html It's part of the "Windows 7" article of the "GUI Gallery" and contains a very nice summary of user perception of the Ribbon, NOT in relation to MICROS~1's office programs in this case. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:10:51 + Bruce Cran articulated: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500 > Jerry wrote: > > > Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community > > has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor > > clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable > > someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it > > can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. > > For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and > libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. New, as in four years old? That is one of the worst straw man arguments I have heard in a while. In any case, In 2008 OpenOffice.org started the project Renaissance to improve the user interface of OpenOffice. So far the prototypes of the project are frequently seen as similar to the ribbon interface. Obviously, the use and customization of any software is a personal experience. However, if the use of the "ribbon" is beyond your abilities, and I am assuming that you are aware that the "ribbon" can be hidden, modified and that there are many "add-ons" available that can be used to manage it, then so be it. I would rather work with an application with a minor annoyance, and I do not find the "ribbon" to be one, then to use a less robust application. Again, it is up to the end user to ascertain their requirements and find the tool that is best fitted to that job. In any case, I am quite confident that your condemnation of the "ribbon" is totally based on your reading of Slashdot and other similar documents and not from any personal experience. -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Knights are hardly worth it. I mean, all that shell and so little meat... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:10:51 +, Bruce Cran wrote: > For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and > libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. Users who have already used PCs are familiar with the menu technique of functionality presentation. Scanning them is a lot faster than trying to find things in an always-changing context-sensitive Ribbon interface where things tend to rearrange whatever your focus is currently on. On the other hand, the Ribbon would be good for new users who do not have to re-learn things and who are not good at thinking in categories, or good at thinking at all. :-) No, seriously: Provided certain parameters (big screen, no established knowledge, no need for consistency, average visual perception and discrimination abilities), the Ribbon can benefit work. Just because *I* do not feel familiar with it, it doesn't mean that others have to judge the same way. Oh, and you don't really need it when you already know the keyboard shortcuts, which is ESSENTIAL for serious work (because it's faster). :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500, Jerry wrote: > "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. It's not. > What one user considers bloat > could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while > you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" > protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. This would not be bloat in any regards. Bloat refers to software that raises hardware requirements (or also software requirements) for NO benefit at all. For example, a program that re-implements existing functionality, but does it in a way that the final result becomes much slower, more vulnerable to attacks or generally more insecure, would be bloat. This is a relation between what software provides and what it requires for that in chance. A term in relation is "overall usage speed" which contains things like system booting time, program loading time, time needed for interaction and so on. The corresponding equation would be software requirements speed = --- hardware resources which shows that if you increase both parts, the result will stay constant. This is the explaination why a 386 with 40 MHz and GEOS (Geoworks Ensemble) does not feel slower than a current PC with plentycore processor and tenmelonhundred Gigahertz and tons of RAM, running "Windows" and the MICROS~1 office suite. This assumes that people do the same things with both example systems, as they usually do (here: generic example of word processing). You can easily see that working (!) hardware support would not be bloat. In opposite, it would be very WELCOME to have support for wireless "N" protocol cards on ANY operating system. But there are reasons why it is NOT the case. This means that bloat is not specific to an OS. There are systems that traditionally emphasize the development of bloatware for their own marketing reasons, but you can also find bloated software on efficient and secure systems. > I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines > and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other > reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD > platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. MS Office > is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community has > spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor clone > of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable someday; > however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it can be > compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. Which ordinary people treat like a worse typewriter. :-) I can see that there may be fields where office suites have their right to exist. I've been working in a multi-OS place where Linux, BSD, Mac boxes as well as some "Windows" have been working quite cooperatively. The MICROS~1 office programs always caused problems, and as the systems were all given a OpenOffice installation, things magically worked. This, keep in mind, is just a very individual observation that does not claim to be applicable everywhere, just as yours. > Until the FOSS can write > applications that are not only compatible with, but as fully functional > as MS Office and similar software, as well as provide drivers in a > timely manner Just ask for the many different file format specifications for DOC files. You do know where you need to ask, don't you? :-) Honestly: If you need to open outdated or defective DOC files, there is always OpenOffice which achieves what the MICROS~1 program can't. > (and I am still waiting for Java to be updated to the > latest version so that it will work with the FreeBSD version of > Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play well with others, > etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many end users. Many things you named work also on the Mac OS X platform which is also essential to many end users. Also note that Java and Acroread are just requirements for OTHER things, as they are tools to support other fields of use. THOSE fields are the ones creating the initial requirements (e. g. changing file formats, language specifications, arbitrary interface changes, and so on). > This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source > product. It is just a simple statement of fact. Which is to be seen in relation to reality. > The majority of users, > despite what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware > that just works. That's true. But MANUFACTURERS do not want such hardware, as this is NOT the way to increase geowth. Just imagine you could sell a "just works" PC that "just works" three years. Good idea? No. Better sell a "halfway works" PC every year along with a support bundle. If it doesn't break by itself, do it in software: "Feature X requires software Y, but software Y requires hardware Z." The NEEDS of the majority of users is NOT in the scope of the ma
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:38:01 -0500 Jerry wrote: > Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community > has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor > clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable > someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it > can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. For some, Office is unusable due to the new Ribbon interface and libreoffice is the usable office suite due to its familiar menus. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:23:53 -0700 Chad Perrin articulated: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:53:18AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin > > wrote: > > > > > > You'd surely be happier with a better OS on it, though -- right? > > > > Chad, on the "Desktop", I'd rather run the ratware from Redmond > > than try FreeBSD! The second choice would be Linusware (not that I > > know much about it, but just because "it" seems to support certain > > aspects which would otherwise be painful to get to work with > > FreeBSD). Third option is PC-BSD (which is what you mean with > > "better OS"). All my servers run FreeBSD though. The "better OS" is > > not so better at the Desktop, hence the choice of ratware:-) > > You clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes a good OS > than I have. I prefer a desktop/laptop OS that is stable, reasonably > securable, and productivity enhancing. I do not find immense and > unnecessary bloat, a fundamentally broken approach to things like > privilege separation, and a GUI so pervasively bound to interfere > that CPU can spike to near 100% just by moving the mouse across the > screen to meet those needs. > > Perhaps the fact that I use my desktop/laptop systems for things like > writing code and articles rather than playing Guild Wars all day > colors my perceptions. "Bloat" is a purely subjective term. What one user considers bloat could very well be a requirement for another use. For example, while you might consider it bloat to have drivers for modern wireless "N" protocol cards, many other users have a real need for them. I have four PC present working in my home. Three are FreeBSD machines and one a Win7 one. The Windows machine is essential, if for no other reason than there is software that is just not available on a FreeBSD platform. Or if it is available, it is of very poor quality. MS Office is a perfect example. Despite all of the rubbish the FOSS community has spewed for over 10 years, OpenOffice is nothing more than a poor clone of Office 97. The newly released "libreoffice" might be usable someday; however, it is now only in its infancy. There is no way it can be compared to a full blown MS Office 10 suite. Until the FOSS can write applications that are not only compatible with, but as fully functional as MS Office and similar software, as well as provide drivers in a timely manner (and I am still waiting for Java to be updated to the latest version so that it will work with the FreeBSD version of Firefox, or for acroread9 to actually work and play well with others, etc), Microsoft will always be a requirement for many end users. This is in no way a condemnation of FreeBSD, or any other open-source product. It is just a simple statement of fact. The majority of users, despite what they may publicly proclaim, want software and hardware that just works. I had installed an older nVidia GeForce GT 220 card in an older PC and then discovered that there was no sound being emitted by the machine. Wasting valuable time, I finally discovered that I had to modify the "sysctl.conf" file. Crap like that should just not happen. Things should just work. If other OS's can accomplish that feat, there is no reasonable reason that FreeBSD cannot attain that level of usability either, unless its goal is to remain nothing more than a hobbyist's toy. For the record, I have never played "Guild Wars", although there are many fine games available that are not available on the FreeBSD platform. And no, I am not going to blame the authors of said software for that since they have an absolute right, well maybe not according to the EC aka ECUSSR, but in a normal and free business climate to write and publish software in whatever OS language they desire. Just my 2¢. -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:53:18AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > You'd surely be happier with a better OS on it, though -- right? > > Chad, on the "Desktop", I'd rather run the ratware from Redmond than try > FreeBSD! The second choice would be Linusware (not that I know much about > it, but just because "it" seems to support certain aspects which would > otherwise be painful to get to work with FreeBSD). Third option is PC-BSD > (which is what you mean with "better OS"). All my servers run FreeBSD > though. The "better OS" is not so better at the Desktop, hence the choice of > ratware:-) You clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes a good OS than I have. I prefer a desktop/laptop OS that is stable, reasonably securable, and productivity enhancing. I do not find immense and unnecessary bloat, a fundamentally broken approach to things like privilege separation, and a GUI so pervasively bound to interfere that CPU can spike to near 100% just by moving the mouse across the screen to meet those needs. Perhaps the fact that I use my desktop/laptop systems for things like writing code and articles rather than playing Guild Wars all day colors my perceptions. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpcWT52CVqfd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 07:12:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > > > I fail to understand why manufacturers would let people install SSDs on > > machines when their life is so much in question. > > I fail to see why a manufacturer would *not* want your hardware to wear > out faster, since that would mean you would have to buy replacement > hardware sooner. > > > > > > Can someone please enlighten me on the dangers faced by those who opt to > get > > their laptops installed with SSDs? > > In many cases, particularly where there is quite a lot of RAM installed > in the system and where people use a netbook the way it was intended to > be used when designed (typically involving a lot of Web browsing and not > much else), SSDs might be the best option -- especially given the rapid > obsolescence of low-performance, ultra-portable units. If you expect > your hardware to last a long time, overrun "physical" RAM into swap space > a lot, and (as you might with FreeBSD) compile code an awful lot, the > heavier storage-write load might make more of a difference in the > expected lifetime of the hardware. > > With FreeBSD, installing everything from binary packages can help > mitigate the possible problems of shortening the life of your SSDs. > > Of course, if you care about having lots of storage, it's worth keeping > in mind the fact that SSDs still cost a lot more per gigabyte of storage > than rotating magnetic media (HDDs). > > > > > > I personally have one, with a Toshiba 128GB SSD (THNS128GG4BAAA-NonFDE). > I > > am running Windows 7 on it. > > > > Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) > > Probably not. You already have the SSD storage, and its improved > performance for many operations (as well as improved durability under > stress in the short term) can still be of benefit. Just be sure you know > when the usable lifespan of your SSD approaches, keep good backups (as > you always should anyway), and be happy. > > You'd surely be happier with a better OS on it, though -- right? > Hehee, Chad, on the "Desktop", I'd rather run the ratware from Redmond than try FreeBSD! The second choice would be Linusware (not that I know much about it, but just because "it" seems to support certain aspects which would otherwise be painful to get to work with FreeBSD). Third option is PC-BSD (which is what you mean with "better OS"). All my servers run FreeBSD though. The "better OS" is not so better at the Desktop, hence the choice of ratware:-) -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 07:12:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > I fail to understand why manufacturers would let people install SSDs on > machines when their life is so much in question. I fail to see why a manufacturer would *not* want your hardware to wear out faster, since that would mean you would have to buy replacement hardware sooner. > > Can someone please enlighten me on the dangers faced by those who opt to get > their laptops installed with SSDs? In many cases, particularly where there is quite a lot of RAM installed in the system and where people use a netbook the way it was intended to be used when designed (typically involving a lot of Web browsing and not much else), SSDs might be the best option -- especially given the rapid obsolescence of low-performance, ultra-portable units. If you expect your hardware to last a long time, overrun "physical" RAM into swap space a lot, and (as you might with FreeBSD) compile code an awful lot, the heavier storage-write load might make more of a difference in the expected lifetime of the hardware. With FreeBSD, installing everything from binary packages can help mitigate the possible problems of shortening the life of your SSDs. Of course, if you care about having lots of storage, it's worth keeping in mind the fact that SSDs still cost a lot more per gigabyte of storage than rotating magnetic media (HDDs). > > I personally have one, with a Toshiba 128GB SSD (THNS128GG4BAAA-NonFDE). I > am running Windows 7 on it. > > Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) Probably not. You already have the SSD storage, and its improved performance for many operations (as well as improved durability under stress in the short term) can still be of benefit. Just be sure you know when the usable lifespan of your SSD approaches, keep good backups (as you always should anyway), and be happy. You'd surely be happier with a better OS on it, though -- right? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgprvo07hiHkt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:54:19 +, Frank Shute wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 07:12:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) > > > > No you shouldn't but you should run FreeBSD on it ;) What else should one run?! ;-) > All I know is that I've been using one in my workstation for coming up > to a year with no problems so far. For noise issues, SSDs surely beat HDDs, but this will be compensated by all the fans in "modern" PCs for the power supply, the processor, the chip"set", the housing fan, the graphics card, the other graphics card... :-) > Take it from a mechanical engineer that SSDs are much more robust than > HDDs, which is one reason they (HDDs) are going the way of the dodo. At least in mobile devices (such as netbooks) they are welcome. Energy parameters seem to be okay, and the absence of moving parts is a big plus for this kind of devices where robustness is considered to be important. > I recommend that people should use SSDs for their workstations. No problem if a SSD fails after 2 years in use (just an arbitrary assumption), because of two reasons: (A) the computer itself will fail or at least considered outdated after that time, so it will get replaced, and (B) there are backups. Yes. There ARE backups. > Makes > a big difference in performance and makes the computer much more > pleasant to work on. Definitely, but consider my comment at the beginning. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Frank Shute wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 07:12:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Adam Vande More >wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Dave wrote: > > > > > > > Define "a *lot*". If you look up the spec's on the common > (currently) > > > > available SSD systems, it's only in the 10's of 1000's writes. > Pittiful > > > > compared to magnetic media. > > > > > > > > > > Chances are on many setups, by the time you've written enough data to > > > significantly wear out the drive your magnetic media would died of > > > mechanical failure long before. Purchase what you need MLC/SLC. > > > > > > > > > > The way they work too, if you write one "sector" you actualy re-write > a > > > > much larger block of memory. > > > > > > > > > Depends on full setup, the write amplification effect on the X-25's is > > > about > > > 1.1x. Recent SSD's all are much more efficient compared to when these > were > > > large, legitimate concerns. > > > > > > > > > > Wear leveling, not that common with SSD > > > > Hard Drives, but very common with USB (Flash) memory sticks, > > > > > > > > > > Completely wrong even the first gen modern SSD's had wear leveling > built > > > in. > > > > > > > > > > SSD's have a place, but not for things like swapfiles or working data > > > > that changes a lot.. > > > > > > > > > > I guess ZIL's wouldn't be a good use for such devices either. Perhaps > you > > > can inform FS designers that they are doing it wrong. > > > > > > > > While my tech mind cannot comprehend all these arguments, there are > laptops > > which come with SSD as primary drives and are running Windows or even > > Apple's OS X. > > I fail to understand why manufacturers would let people install SSDs on > > machines when their life is so much in question. > > > > Can someone please enlighten me on the dangers faced by those who opt to > get > > their laptops installed with SSDs? > > > > I personally have one, with a Toshiba 128GB SSD (THNS128GG4BAAA-NonFDE). > I > > am running Windows 7 on it. > > > > Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) > > > > No you shouldn't but you should run FreeBSD on it ;) > With all the debate about FreeBSD this, FreeBSD that as regards SSDs, I am not sure if I should so this:-) I'll continue to run my FreeBSD servers on SATA-N.. > > There's a lot of FUD talked about SSDs. > > All I know is that I've been using one in my workstation for coming up to a > year with no problems so far. > > Take it from a mechanical engineer that SSDs are much more robust than > HDDs, which is one reason they (HDDs) are going the way of the dodo. > > I recommend that people should use SSDs for their workstations. Makes a big > difference in performance and makes the computer much more pleasant to work > on. > > These people in the know always talk about the imminent failure of SSDs soon:-) -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 07:12:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Dave wrote: > > > > > Define "a *lot*". If you look up the spec's on the common (currently) > > > available SSD systems, it's only in the 10's of 1000's writes. Pittiful > > > compared to magnetic media. > > > > > > > Chances are on many setups, by the time you've written enough data to > > significantly wear out the drive your magnetic media would died of > > mechanical failure long before. Purchase what you need MLC/SLC. > > > > > > > The way they work too, if you write one "sector" you actualy re-write a > > > much larger block of memory. > > > > > > Depends on full setup, the write amplification effect on the X-25's is > > about > > 1.1x. Recent SSD's all are much more efficient compared to when these were > > large, legitimate concerns. > > > > > > > Wear leveling, not that common with SSD > > > Hard Drives, but very common with USB (Flash) memory sticks, > > > > > > > Completely wrong even the first gen modern SSD's had wear leveling built > > in. > > > > > > > SSD's have a place, but not for things like swapfiles or working data > > > that changes a lot.. > > > > > > > I guess ZIL's wouldn't be a good use for such devices either. Perhaps you > > can inform FS designers that they are doing it wrong. > > > > > While my tech mind cannot comprehend all these arguments, there are laptops > which come with SSD as primary drives and are running Windows or even > Apple's OS X. > I fail to understand why manufacturers would let people install SSDs on > machines when their life is so much in question. > > Can someone please enlighten me on the dangers faced by those who opt to get > their laptops installed with SSDs? > > I personally have one, with a Toshiba 128GB SSD (THNS128GG4BAAA-NonFDE). I > am running Windows 7 on it. > > Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) > No you shouldn't but you should run FreeBSD on it ;) There's a lot of FUD talked about SSDs. All I know is that I've been using one in my workstation for coming up to a year with no problems so far. Take it from a mechanical engineer that SSDs are much more robust than HDDs, which is one reason they (HDDs) are going the way of the dodo. I recommend that people should use SSDs for their workstations. Makes a big difference in performance and makes the computer much more pleasant to work on. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgpYgl6MyCNsr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Dave wrote: > > > Define "a *lot*". If you look up the spec's on the common (currently) > > available SSD systems, it's only in the 10's of 1000's writes. Pittiful > > compared to magnetic media. > > > > Chances are on many setups, by the time you've written enough data to > significantly wear out the drive your magnetic media would died of > mechanical failure long before. Purchase what you need MLC/SLC. > > > > The way they work too, if you write one "sector" you actualy re-write a > > much larger block of memory. > > > Depends on full setup, the write amplification effect on the X-25's is > about > 1.1x. Recent SSD's all are much more efficient compared to when these were > large, legitimate concerns. > > > > Wear leveling, not that common with SSD > > Hard Drives, but very common with USB (Flash) memory sticks, > > > > Completely wrong even the first gen modern SSD's had wear leveling built > in. > > > > SSD's have a place, but not for things like swapfiles or working data > > that changes a lot.. > > > > I guess ZIL's wouldn't be a good use for such devices either. Perhaps you > can inform FS designers that they are doing it wrong. > > While my tech mind cannot comprehend all these arguments, there are laptops which come with SSD as primary drives and are running Windows or even Apple's OS X. I fail to understand why manufacturers would let people install SSDs on machines when their life is so much in question. Can someone please enlighten me on the dangers faced by those who opt to get their laptops installed with SSDs? I personally have one, with a Toshiba 128GB SSD (THNS128GG4BAAA-NonFDE). I am running Windows 7 on it. Should I stop and buy a SATA disk?:) -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Dave wrote: > Define "a *lot*". If you look up the spec's on the common (currently) > available SSD systems, it's only in the 10's of 1000's writes. Pittiful > compared to magnetic media. > Chances are on many setups, by the time you've written enough data to significantly wear out the drive your magnetic media would died of mechanical failure long before. Purchase what you need MLC/SLC. > The way they work too, if you write one "sector" you actualy re-write a > much larger block of memory. Depends on full setup, the write amplification effect on the X-25's is about 1.1x. Recent SSD's all are much more efficient compared to when these were large, legitimate concerns. > Wear leveling, not that common with SSD > Hard Drives, but very common with USB (Flash) memory sticks, > Completely wrong even the first gen modern SSD's had wear leveling built in. > SSD's have a place, but not for things like swapfiles or working data > that changes a lot.. > I guess ZIL's wouldn't be a good use for such devices either. Perhaps you can inform FS designers that they are doing it wrong. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On 11 Feb 2011 at 13:33, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Chad Perrin > wrote: > > > Ignoring the TRIM issue for a moment . . . > > > > You're probably best off saving SSD storage for cases where you have > > lots of reads and little to no write activity, unless you enjoy > > buying new SSDs a lot. Actually, let's not ignore TRIM; the > > work-around for lack of TRIM support on some drives is a "garbage > > collection" routine that exacerbates the problem of having to > > replace your SSDs more often if you do a lot of writes. > > > > I guess I would only use SSDs on servers in the same cases where I > > would let myself be talked into using MySQL -- cases where you just > > treat it pretty much like a read-only data store, and do not have to > > (safely) add or change data stored there most of the time. > > > > Modern SSD's can do a *lot* of writes, wear-leveling and other > tecniques allow SSD's to be implemented for nearly any workload. > There's a great deal of literature and facts on this topic if someone > was motivated enough to research it. Some legends are better off > fading away. > > http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html > > Same thing is sort of true with TRIM, on most modern drives lack of OS > TRIM support isn't the performance hit it used to be although still > desirable. > -- > Adam Vande More > Define "a *lot*". If you look up the spec's on the common (currently) available SSD systems, it's only in the 10's of 1000's writes. Pittiful compared to magnetic media. The way they work too, if you write one "sector" you actualy re-write a much larger block of memory. Wear leveling, not that common with SSD Hard Drives, but very common with USB (Flash) memory sticks, only goes so far. SSD's have a place, but not for things like swapfiles or working data that changes a lot.. Regards. Dave B. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > Ignoring the TRIM issue for a moment . . . > > You're probably best off saving SSD storage for cases where you have lots > of reads and little to no write activity, unless you enjoy buying new > SSDs a lot. Actually, let's not ignore TRIM; the work-around for lack of > TRIM support on some drives is a "garbage collection" routine that > exacerbates the problem of having to replace your SSDs more often if you > do a lot of writes. > > I guess I would only use SSDs on servers in the same cases where I would > let myself be talked into using MySQL -- cases where you just treat it > pretty much like a read-only data store, and do not have to (safely) add > or change data stored there most of the time. > Modern SSD's can do a *lot* of writes, wear-leveling and other tecniques allow SSD's to be implemented for nearly any workload. There's a great deal of literature and facts on this topic if someone was motivated enough to research it. Some legends are better off fading away. http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html Same thing is sort of true with TRIM, on most modern drives lack of OS TRIM support isn't the performance hit it used to be although still desirable. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:40:37AM +, Paul Macdonald wrote: > > I'd be interested to here peoples opinions on best uses for SSD, general > purpose applications such as databases , webservers etc will benefit > obviously, > > but i'm also curious as to disk intensive applications such as mailq's, > spamassassin etc? (I presume here the lack of TRIM may degrade > performance rapidly?) Ignoring the TRIM issue for a moment . . . You're probably best off saving SSD storage for cases where you have lots of reads and little to no write activity, unless you enjoy buying new SSDs a lot. Actually, let's not ignore TRIM; the work-around for lack of TRIM support on some drives is a "garbage collection" routine that exacerbates the problem of having to replace your SSDs more often if you do a lot of writes. I guess I would only use SSDs on servers in the same cases where I would let myself be talked into using MySQL -- cases where you just treat it pretty much like a read-only data store, and do not have to (safely) add or change data stored there most of the time. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpG1etBtYC3W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD and SSD drives
Nothing to do oh, freebsd-questions stay in bat! 2011/02/11 09:40:37 + Paul Macdonald => To FreeBSD Mailing List : PM> I'd be interested to here peoples opinions on best uses for SSD, general PM> purpose applications such as databases , webservers etc will benefit PM> obviously, Sun.com before to bankrupt was spamming me about their nice idea on SSD appliance for their servers. It took me a some while though to know out accidentally that they apply solid-state memory devices for... FS journal. This looks wise and reasonable to me because: 1. SSD is known as less reliable storage. 2. SSD has less track-to-track seek average time. ( than usual HDD ) 73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627) -- http://vereshagin.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD and SSD drives
Hi, Is anyone using SSD drives on freeBSD server systems? I'm attracted by the performance increases i've seen on both my desktops and laptops (quite amazing and easy upgrade if you've not tried).. I see from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM#Operating_system_and_SSD_support that full TRIM support only comes in 8.2, I'd be interested to here peoples opinions on best uses for SSD, general purpose applications such as databases , webservers etc will benefit obviously, but i'm also curious as to disk intensive applications such as mailq's, spamassassin etc? (I presume here the lack of TRIM may degrade performance rapidly?) thanks Paul. -- - Paul Macdonald IFDNRG Ltd Web and video hosting - t: 0131 5548070 m: 07534206249 e: p...@ifdnrg.com w: http://www.ifdnrg.com - IFDNRG 40 Maritime Street Edinburgh EH6 6SA - ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
