SSD Question

DeaconFrost said:

It doesn't just speed up boot time. It speeds up the "snappiness" and responsive ness of the entire system, all the time, not just when booting.

If you are filling a 160 GB drive and it's the only drive in your system, you would probably be an excellent candidate for one, as you don't have much data. I have a 240 GB SSD for C, a 750 GB HDD for my data, and a 500 GB HDD for my DVD rips and conversations. Most of my actual data, such as photos, ripped movies, software, etc are store on my server.

It seems very strange end even counter-intuitive that someone with so little data is backing away from SSDs due to their size. On top of that, given the cost of HDDs now, this is a great time to be SSD shopping.

The first and foremost thing you should do it find out how much of your space is data and how much is the OS and apps.

I have two HD. I have one HD for my backups and the 160 GB is for my OS, programs and data. I have my C partition for OS and programs with a 110 GB partition and the D is the 50 GB for my data. It is getting pretty full so that is why I am considering a new one. If I get a 200 GB SSD, I am afraid it will be full in a couple years and I will have to get another.

JimLewandowski said:

Remember, SSD performance is directly proportional to the size of the drive. Go bigger if just for that reason alone.

For the OS that does not matter. The access time is the same for big or small SSDs and the data transfer rates play a very small role in the OS performance.

DeaconFrost said:

bigmck said:

If I get a 200 GB SSD, I am afraid it will be full in a couple years and I will have to get another.

That's the point we're trying to make. There's no way it could get full, unless it was the only drive in the system and you mismanaged your data. The SSDs get the OS and apps. No one uses the "my" folders anymore for their documents, photos, and things like that. Those go on the HDDs. I couldn't fill up a 200 GB SSD if I installed everygame I owned.

No one every said that "I was real quick" :). I see what you mean. I guess I could use my 160 GB HD for Docs only and put the OS and Programs on the SSD.
That is something to think about. Thanks,

ignatzatsonic said:

Which is running out of room, C or D?

How much has C grown in the last year or two?

For most people, data (D) grows much more quickly than C (Windows and applications), but you may be an exception to the rule?

You may be one of those people who would be better off with a single partition on the drive, with data segregated only by a folder structure. Splitting a smaller drive into partitions can lead to available space issues.

Ideally, you would have 2 discrete physical drives, with one having only the OS and applications.

The C is under 30 GB remaining. Not close to running out, but closer than I would like. The D probably has about 30 GB left also. The C seems to be growing. Not sure how much in the last year, but it has grown. I might look into an SSD.
Thanks,

JimLewandowski said:

whs said:

JimLewandowski said:

Remember, SSD performance is directly proportional to the size of the drive. Go bigger if just for that reason alone.

For the OS that does not matter. The access time is the same for big or small SSDs and the data transfer rates play a very small role in the OS performance.

All the charts I saw, showed more IOPS on the larger drive of the same model/manufacturer.

Yeah, that is true. But that is neither here nor there for the OS. The OS works only with 4K blocks and does only short R/W operations. It's performance comes from the short access time. And that is the same for any size model.

That is also one reason why SSDs in Raid0 makes no sense.

Even a 10 times better IOPS would yield very little for operating the OS.