Solved SSD Question

[bigmck]

I am in the market for a HDD and would like to ask a question about a SSD. As a rule SSD are small. It is considered a big one if it is 160 GB (as far as I know). Since it is recommended on here by most to have your OS and your programs on the same partition, doesn't a drive that small make things rather difficult?

 

[fseal]

Personally I think 160 is the min size so that it is NOT a constant load of trouble. It's perfectly comfortable, with all lmy personal files stored on the network.

Games can make a bit of a mess with that, so you may have to decide if you really want that 6 gig game on the SSD or not. But most programs are not that big. It's the content that goes crazy with the disk space...

You can get away with a 40 or a 80 or 120, but as you said, the smaller it is the more crazy you got to get with the rearranging of this and that and the disk clean up. At 160 I really just treat it as any normal spinner, but save my files elsewhere.

[Edit] Ugh then there are VMs ahaha, almost forgot about those, yes other than maybe ONE VM, you gotta put those on another drivem or get a 320+ SSD! [/edit]

 

[DeaconFrost]

No, because most people won't have anywhere near that many apps loaded. I've already run my corporate laptop on a 64 GB SSD. What most people do is run the OS and their apps on the SSD, and if they tend to load a lot of games, you can always create a folder on your data drive, such as D:\Games, and install them there. The common setup is to use an SSD as C, and have a large HDD as D for your data, like photos, music, etc.

 

[bigmck]

No, because most people won't have anywhere near that many apps loaded. I've already run my corporate laptop on a 64 GB SSD. What most people do is run the OS and their apps on the SSD, and if they tend to load a lot of games, you can always create a folder on your data drive, such as D:\Games, and install them there. The common setup is to use an SSD as C, and have a large HDD as D for your data, like photos, music, etc.

Do you think most folks only put the OS on the SSD? Is there a tremendous difference in the speed? Does it boot a lot faster?

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Do you think most folks only put the OS on the SSD? Is there a tremendous difference in the speed? Does it boot a lot faster?

Most people on this forum put both the OS and applications on the SSD.

Most people, at least on this forum, could not put their data on an SSD--audio and video files take up a lot of space. If all you have is text files, then your data will likely fit on an SSD.

Boot speed on an SSD is typically around 30 seconds--compared to maybe 60 or 80 seconds on a spinning drive.

How much is "tremendous"?

 

[bigmck]

Do you think most folks only put the OS on the SSD? Is there a tremendous difference in the speed? Does it boot a lot faster?

Most people on this forum put both the OS and applications on the SSD.

Most people, at least on this forum, could not put their data on an SSD--audio and video files take up a lot of space. If all you have is text files, then your data will likely fit on an SSD.

Boot speed on an SSD is typically around 30 seconds--compared to maybe 60 or 80 seconds on a spinning drive.

How much is "tremendous"?

In my book, 30 seconds is not "tremendous". Considering the cost difference, I can wait 30 seconds . My main reason for asking about the space is that I am currently going to replace my 160 GB HD due to it filling up with my OS and programs. I wouldn't want a SSD smaller than 320 GB, maybe bigger. Ones that big are pretty pricey. I think I will just go for a 500 GB HD. Thanks,

 

[DeaconFrost]

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.

 

[badger906]

i have a 120gb SSD in my macbook and have mac osx and windows 7 installed, as well as all my apps and data and i still have room to spare. I do have a home NAS system and a server for all the silly things (you dont need 200+ movies on a computer 24/7) and i do have a selection on a portable drive for when im not home (i took the existing 256gb and put it in a caddy.. sensible i know!)

My gaming rig also only has a 120gb SSD in it (i was going to put a mechanical drive in there also, but it was about the time the prices went through the roof so i thought better about it.)
I currently have BF3, skyrim, saints row the third, Red orchestra 2 and a few other games installed and i still have a large amount of space left.

At the end of the day most of whats on our computers is junk.. its stuff that we keep but never really use. i mean i have about 20gb of photos in total.. i dont need them all on my computer at once as i dont look at them that often, nor do i need all my movies and such.
so putting the non essentials on a portable drive is the best compromise. you should of course already have all your files on another format just incase something goes bang... and if you dont well your asking to loose all your data

i have mine on 5 separate drives in my server, on 2 portable hard drives and on my NAS system.. can never back up too much!

 

[JimLewandowski]

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

 

[whs]

My SSDs on the desktops are 60GB - and that is ample since the OS plus a big selection of programs (no games) never exceeds 30GB. My user data I put on the HDDs and if you have large games, you can move them there too. It is also recommended to delete the hiberfile and set the page file to 2GBs.

On the laptops I have 80 and 90GB. That works for me because a lot of the data is on big (16 and 32GB) sticks.

On a couple of those systems I even run Ubuntu in Virtual Box and on the 90GB laptop I will install Windows8 Beta in Virtual box.

 

[bigmck]

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.

 

[whs]

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]

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.

 

[bigmck]

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]

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.

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.

 

[JimLewandowski]

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.

 

[bigmck]

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,

 

[whs]

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.