3 ms·

I've had this with gen5 PCIe SSDs recently. My T710 is so fast it's hard to believe. But you need to have a lot of data to make it worth. Example: > time

I've had this with gen5 PCIe SSDs recently. My T710 is so fast it's hard to believe. But you need to have a lot of data to make it worth. Example: > time du -sh . 737G . ________________________ Executed in 24.63 secs And on my laptop that has a gen3, lower spec NVMe: > time du -sh . 304G . ________________________ Executed in 80.86 secs It's almost 10 times faster. The CPU must have something to do with it too but they're both Ryzen 9.

adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago
To me that reads 3x, not "almost 10x". The main differrence here is probably power. A desktop/server is happy to send 15W to the SSD and hundreds of watts to the CPU, while a laptop wants the SSD running in the ~1 watt range and the CPU in the 10s of watts range.
- simlevesque 10mo ago
  There's over twice as much content in the first test. It's around 3.8gb/s vs 30gb/s if you divide both folder size and both du durations. That makes it 7.9 times faster and I'm comfortable calling this "almost 10 times".
  - adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago
    oops. I missed the size diff. that's a solid 8x. that's cool!
  - ls65536 10mo ago
    The total size isn't what matters in this case but rather the total number of files/directories that need to be traversed (and their file sizes summed).
    - simlevesque 10mo ago
      I responded here, it's essentially the same content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46150030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46150030
taneliv 10mo ago
I believe you, but your benchmark is not very useful. I get this on two 5400rpm 3T HDDs in a mirror: $ time du -sh . 935G . real 0m1.154s Simply because there's less than 20 directories and the files are large.
- simlevesque 10mo ago
  I should have been more clear: It's my http cache for my crawling jobs. Lots of files in many shapes. My new setup: gen5 ssd in desktop: > time find . -type f | wc -l 5645741 ________________________ Executed in 4.77 secs My old setup, gen3 ssd in laptop: > time find . -type f | wc -l 2944648 ________________________ Executed in 27.53 secs Both are running pretty much non-stop, very slowly.

adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago

To me that reads 3x, not "almost 10x". The main differrence here is probably power. A desktop/server is happy to send 15W to the SSD and hundreds of watts to the CPU, while a laptop wants the SSD running in the ~1 watt range and the CPU in the 10s of watts range.

simlevesque 10mo ago
There's over twice as much content in the first test. It's around 3.8gb/s vs 30gb/s if you divide both folder size and both du durations. That makes it 7.9 times faster and I'm comfortable calling this "almost 10 times".
- adgjlsfhk1 10mo ago
  oops. I missed the size diff. that's a solid 8x. that's cool!
- ls65536 10mo ago
  The total size isn't what matters in this case but rather the total number of files/directories that need to be traversed (and their file sizes summed).
  - simlevesque 10mo ago
    I responded here, it's essentially the same content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46150030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46150030

taneliv 10mo ago

I believe you, but your benchmark is not very useful. I get this on two 5400rpm 3T HDDs in a mirror: $ time du -sh . 935G . real 0m1.154s Simply because there's less than 20 directories and the files are large.

simlevesque 10mo ago
I should have been more clear: It's my http cache for my crawling jobs. Lots of files in many shapes. My new setup: gen5 ssd in desktop: > time find . -type f | wc -l 5645741 ________________________ Executed in 4.77 secs My old setup, gen3 ssd in laptop: > time find . -type f | wc -l 2944648 ________________________ Executed in 27.53 secs Both are running pretty much non-stop, very slowly.