> I agree that the maximum configurations of laptops are less than
> what I would like, but I think as SSDs get less expensive, their
> size will increase (as an option). The lack of larger SSDs in
> consumer devices is more a function of the cost to adding them,
> as opposed to consumer acceptance or desirability.
I had a look at a mid-range Dell desktop (the high-end Inspiron) and it comes with a 1 TB 7200 RPM HDD. A random Newegg 3 TB HDD is $89.99. A 4 GB HDD is $139.99. Larger HDDs aren't even offered as options. The low-spec Inspiron Desktop also offers a 1 TB HDD.
Cost is not a factor for larger HDDs in desktops and laptops today but anything over 1 TB is pretty uncommon. I think that the main reason for this is the Cloud. Our corporate laptops come with 512 GB HDDs. I personally don't understand why they didn't go with SSDs because they don't cost that much these days but we apparently felt that HDDs were good enough - and they are - people get their work done.
> No matter how quickly you may be able to recover a lost system,
> it can be done even faster in a virtual setup. Lost the laptop,
> need to get the work done while waiting for a new device. Move
> the hyper V into a temporary device, use it there, and then
> migrate it onto the new device when available. I am planning
> on trying this setup in a work environment with a Surface Pro 3.
> I will use the when connecting to a certain workplace server,
> but the base of the laptop will be used everywhere else.
This assumes that you have a temporary device that already has the operating system installed. If you have to install the operating system and the VM, then that can take a lot longer than a simple Time Machine restore. A Time Machine restore is simply a copy of files from your backup drive. The amount of time it takes is limited by your disk throughput. I use an old USB 2.0 external drive. I'm sure that it would take far less time with a Thunderbold 2.0 Drive with 20 times the bandwidth.
I don't have a temporary MacBook Pro. I'd just go to the local store, buy one and do a Time Machine restore and I'd be good to go.
> If you remote desktop into your work environment, then all the
> SSDs etc will need to be on your servers. You would also benefit
> from the faster connection of a 10G LAN to your servers from your
> workstation. Whether Intel makes money on the client side or the
> server side does not matter.
We don't use SSDs for our work development systems outside of the pieces that get hammered. You can certainly mix and match things but we do some work in optimizing the build environment so that we aren't doing the same things over and over and over again.
> In a personal example for SSD on a workstation - faster boot,
> hibernate is usable, as it is also fast, CAD programs work better.
> Compiles with Visual studio are quicker (even smaller jobs -
> saving a few seconds here and there does make for a better
> experience).
Our work systems are always on so boot-time isn't a big deal. If you're recompiling a large code base every time, then your build team isn't doing a good job in optimizing the build environment. In my area, the code base may be 60 million lines of code but you're only working on a small piece. You only need to compile your small piece and then link with prebuilt libraries.
The work-flow is that you could also just submit a server farm job to do the local build while you work on something else. We need to do this for test runs as well.
> An example on a server was when I replaced my drive that my
> backup software was using for its DB storage. The performance of
> listing file contents, deleting archives etc went up an order of
> magnitude.
Well yes, it can take a while to clean up a sandbox. But we just kick it off and then don't worry about it. It can take ten minutes or a day; doesn't really matter as we'd be working on something else while that process went on.
If something is taking a while, you just move to another sandbox to work on another project or another aspect of your current project.
AI
