• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

SSDs and multitasking

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Is it possible that a faster SSD means that much more of the system resources are being used on the disk system, therefore the rest of the system becomes less responsive?
    No.

    Not unless there is some serious issue with SSD - when used for writing a lot they can slow down massively and this can substantially reduce performance of the whole system if it is installed on it.

    Comment


      #12
      I'd put more RAM in the box. We're using VS2010 here and it sucks big stylee.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post

        Surprisingly (as it has no moving parts), SSD cards are notoriously unreliable and are almost guaranteed to fail within a year.

        I saw a blog article on this, but don't now have the reference. NickFitz probably knows though.
        I don't effing believe it - Two -ve reps for a serious post trying to be helpful!

        "bad misinformation, or trolling in serious forum"

        "rumour and innuendo"

        OK, here was the link I was thinking of:

        The Hot/Crazy Solid State Drive Scale


        I feel ethically and morally obligated to let you in on a dirty little secret I've discovered in the last two years of full time SSD ownership. Solid state hard drives fail. A lot. And not just any fail. I'm talking about catastrophic, oh-my-God-what-just-happened-to-all-my-data instant gigafail. It's not pretty.

        I bought a set of three Crucial 128 GB SSDs in October 2009 for the original two members of the Stack Overflow team plus myself. As of last month, two out of three of those had failed. And just the other day I was chatting with Joel on the podcast (yep, it's back), and he casually mentioned to me that the Intel SSD in his Thinkpad, which was purchased roughly around the same time as ours, had also failed.

        Portman Wills, friend of the company and generally awesome guy, has a far scarier tale to tell. He got infected with the SSD religion based on my original 2009 blog post, and he went all in. He purchased eight SSDs over the last two years … and all of them failed. The tale of the tape is frankly a little terrifying: ...
        So whoever repped me, hang your heads in shame. (Or may all your SSDs go tits up when you least expect it )
        Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
          I don't effing believe it - Two -ve reps for a serious post trying to be helpful!

          "bad misinformation, or trolling in serious forum"

          "rumour and innuendo"

          OK, here was the link I was thinking of:

          The Hot/Crazy Solid State Drive Scale

          So whoever repped me, hang your heads in shame. (Or may all your SSDs go tits up when you least expect it )
          I wasn't one of the reppers but I would say that it's slightly unscientific. As someone in the comments pointed out, if SSDs were that unreliable, there would be a lot more people making noise about it.

          I would be inclined to say that Mr Portman Wills should probably stop opening computers.

          I would say that based on the numbers I have seen the intel ones seem to be more reliable than other brands.

          http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-...omposants.html

          Edit: added link to actual numbers
          Last edited by doodab; 25 May 2011, 09:55.
          While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

          Comment


            #15
            Seems odd no reviews I ever read, or people with SSDs, mention this.

            New MacBooks come with SSDs and I really doubt those are going to last a year or less.

            A couple of people getting bad units does not make a useful statistic.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by d000hg View Post
              Seems odd no reviews I ever read, or people with SSDs, mention this.

              New MacBooks come with SSDs and I really doubt those are going to last a year or less.

              A couple of people getting bad units does not make a useful statistic.
              Also worth mentioning that duff memory can also result in filesystem and data corruption.

              Chances are that people who are throwing this much money at SSDs are also using a large amount of "high-performance" RAM i.e. that often overpriced rebinned non-ECC stuff that run over voltage to eke out a few more MHz.
              While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Churchill View Post
                I'd put more RAM in the box. We're using VS2010 here and it sucks big stylee.
                Why did you upgrade? We stayed on 2008 - only a handful of .NET 4.0 features are worth going for and if necessary it is possible to make same binary build to run on .NET 4.0 CLR (well, they still bloody call CLR being 2.0 - total BS with parallel numbering).

                Comment


                  #18
                  I seem to have "fixed" the problem by moving the swap file to the hard disk, rather than on the SSD.

                  It doesn't build any faster, but the rest of the system is now fast and responsive whilst the build is happening.
                  Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post
                    Why did you upgrade? We stayed on 2008 - only a handful of .NET 4.0 features are worth going for and if necessary it is possible to make same binary build to run on .NET 4.0 CLR (well, they still bloody call CLR being 2.0 - total BS with parallel numbering).
                    Maybe for C++ compiler, or one of the other new things added other than which .Net versions are supported... web-focused stuff although I'm not sure what exactly.
                    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                    Originally posted by vetran
                    Urine is quite nourishing

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by Churchill View Post
                      I'd put more RAM in the box. We're using VS2010 here and it sucks big stylee.
                      More ram will only help if its 64 bit Windows.

                      VS2010 is fine, just very slow interface. Most microsoft products are worse, slower than the previous version.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X