No need to CC me. If it makes sense to find your answer, I will. :)
René J.V. Bertin - 02.09.18, 13:39:
> On Sunday September 02 2018 13:09:25 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > was so annoyed by it, but with mlocate I hardly ever noticed it. Not
> > that I see much point in using hard disks as storage for hot data of
*hot* data. Which for me means data which is accessed often, mostly
randomly, not sequential.
> > laptops or desktops anymore.
>
> Size-to-price ratio. Last I checked I could get a reliable and
> (proportionally) fast 1Tb 2.5" HDD for about 80€, slightly more for
> hybrids (although I got one of those in my 300€ Clevo notebook). I
> bought a small (64Gb) SSD last year for about 50€ (I forget what the
> form-factor is called) for use as a work/build disk over USB3. Turns
> out it is actually slower than all my other HDDs except for certain
> read operations.
While I still currently have all music files and photos also on SSD,
albeit not in BTRFS RAID 1, but on a single, the larger one of the SSDs
in this laptops, I also see that an SSD does not add much benefit to
store sequential access data that I change rarely. I consider it a bit
of a luxury having it that way.
It adds to one important thing for me however:
A *silent* laptop :)
I also still use hard disks for backup storage for exactly the reason
you stated. But given the current price drops I am reconsidering even
that. Anyway, there is no hurry to change anything regarding that.
> But this thread is not about such things, nor memory usage (except
> possibly by akonadi). As such I consider it irrelevant enough to cite
Sure it is not. That is part of the reason I thought its pretty
pointless.
> precise numbers to bother getting them, again except when pertaining
> to akonadi. But if you have to know, the Chrome/Firefox numbers I
> cited come from the Memory Clean utility on Mac. They reflect actual
> resident (possibly compressed) memory of the main process, evidently
> using Mb but don't ask me which flavour. Chrome is at the latest
Okay, I can´t say much about this. As I do not know what the utility
actually displays, whether it somehow considers memory processes share
with other processes and so on. Your numbers are not even from a Linux
box and you did not state that unless I missed that you did. I really
wonder for what purpose you mentioned the number in the first place. Its
quite meaningless for a Linux box.
> version for 10.9, Firefox is the Developer Edition (63b2 ATM). FF
> being a secondary browser it normally has only a single tab open and
> way fewer extensions installed
Okay, that it at least a Firefox with the Quantum engine. According to
what I read it can handle an insane amount of tabs efficiently.
Thanks,
--
Martin
