3 ms·

The link talks about consumer SSDs and server workloads, makes a valid point regarding those two things (don't mix them), but doesn't say anything with regards

• olavgg 10y ago
  Server workloads is a bad excuse. Most browsers and a lot of applications use SQLite. Firefox and Chrome is known to write a lot more than they read. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung-960-evo&num=2 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung-9...
  • Dylan16807 10y ago
    That's still ten to twenty times faster than a hard drive, and browsers are not exactly slamming their history database. It's a trickle of writes, and a consumer SSD can handle it fine.
    • olavgg 10y ago
      You are absolutely right that a consumer SSD can handle it just fine, just like you can surf the web fine with 2GB ram and a single core CPU. But some people pay more bucks because they want better overall performance, and it sucks to pay for a top consumer SSD model that underperform the enterprise models by a huge margin for some basic tasks. Almost everyone who review consumer SSD, with a few rare exceptions, never benchmark sync write performance / latency. Those number matters a lot more than many believe. I've already seen to many people who use consumer drives with VMware, ZFS Intent log, SQL servers and so on, that gets frustrated because those applications are behaving a lot slower than what they expected and they feel really bad when I tell them that they have been fooled to believe that they bought "fast" SSD drives.