SSD or NO SSD.. That is the question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ua549

120 GB of apps is a very large amount. I suspect that you've also loaded the data files for those apps on the drive, the paging file, etc. The paging file should NOT be on the same volume as the OS. I have over 500 apps loaded on my notebook. The Program File folder takes less than 10 GB and the Program Files (x86) folder takes less than 5 GB.

IMO your issue is really with the location (organization) of files, not the total size.

---

The idea of moving your page file to another drive is no longer really relevant. From my personal experience I saw no improvements when moving the page file to another drive on modern systems.
Also, the whole idea of moving the swap file to another drive is a bit obsolete:
http://forums.techguy.org/windows-7/...cate-page.html
http://windowssecrets.com/langalist-...e-performance/
Yes, those are old articles, but they give you a basic idea.
I have over 550Mbs of games installed (no images of games but actual games). Another 300GBs or so of apps (video, audio and animation apps). Then all the files I'm currently working on (Video and Audio). Placing them on another drive would increase loading times since the main drive is in Raid 0, the other drives are not (they are meant for backups). Placing them on another partition on the same drive would be pointless (same bloody drive). I though the whole point of having an SSD was to decrease loading times of apps. Dumping your apps onto another drive instead of your speedy one defeats that purpose.

Anyway, we’re getting off topic.
If the original poster has the money and doesn’t mind limited storage space then he should consider getting an SSD.
If space and price will be an issue he should get a couple of speedy HD’s and Raid them.

You nailed the philosophical difference - loading time versus running time. I don't care as much about program loading times - it happens rarely - than I do about the running speed of the actual applications that are doing many disk I/O's per second.

My 8 core Xeon desktop has 32 GB memory and the page file is still used frequently enough that it has its own dedicated SSD.

my main rig is running a 120gb SSD (sandforce)... its plenty for my OS, all my apps, and a handful of games

all my media is stored on my NAS which i got for dirt cheap
- dlink dns-320 $80
- dual hitachi 2tb drives ($50 each) running RAID-1

so i get awesome performance of my apps and all my media is safe (RAID-1) and easily accessible to all my computers for a reasonable price

I will say this much: I will never own another laptop without an SSD. 2.5" drive performance is terrible at 5400rpm, and even at 7200rpm.

We just got two Lenovo T420s systems in at work. One had a 160GB Intel X25-M (not blazing fast by today's standards) and one had a 5400rpm. The SSD model took me about 4 hours to configure, patch, and get out the door. The 5400rpm drive model took me most of a day, and honestly, felt like a completely different system from 5 years ago, vs. the same system with a slight storage change.

To have more than 120GB of OS + apps + games on a single drive baffles me.

To me, the vast majority of people who say they need over 120GB of space for applications are pack rats. They like the novelty or convenience of installing every application they ever own, and downloading every Steam game they ever bought. But in reality, they haven't used most of those apps & games even once in the past 3 months.

Yes, there are a few exceptions for people who actually need to use more than 120GB of apps. But I think those people are few and far between, and are the exception rather than the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kent1146

To have more than 120GB of OS + apps + games on a single drive baffles me.

To me, the vast majority of people who say they need over 120GB of space for applications are pack rats. They like the novelty or convenience of installing every application they ever own, and downloading every Steam game they ever bought. But in reality, they haven't used most of those apps & games even once in the past 3 months.

Yes, there are a few exceptions for people who actually need to use more than 120GB of apps. But I think those people are few and far between, and are the exception rather than the rule.

---

yep... i own about 12 games on steam but i only have 2-3 installed at any given time... does anyone actually play 5+ games simultaneously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxgq

yep... i own about 12 games on steam but i only have 2-3 installed at any given time... does anyone actually play 5+ games simultaneously?

---

I recall days when Win98 and Ultima Online would eat an entire HD (500Mbs drives were common and affordable at the time). As time progressed, hard drives got larger and larger to a point where there was no longer any need to uninstall less used software in order to shoehorn something new.
These days I go along with that mentality. If there is still a chance that I may use the app or play the game I will leave it on my HD. With a primary Raid array of 2TBs space is not an issue. Obviously if something is either too old or no longer needed it gets nuked.
To me the convenience of not having to reinstall the app is more important than the ability to load it 5 seconds faster.

I keep my little used apps on rotating media in a folder that is mounted in an empty folder on my C: volume. Use Disk Management to mount and manage volumes. everything I have can be access via the C: volume.

It's the best of both worlds. :D

BTW, 120GB is not enough. I can fill that with my Steam library alone.

Like every MMORPG nowadays is at least 20GB and expect new ones to be about 50GB with content packs.


Constantly uninstalling and installing games will just discourage you from playing games. I mean, the only reason I play Bulletstorm is when I get drunk alone in the middle of the night... otherwise it's been installed and untouched for many months. If I had to install the game to play it when I actually feel like playing it, I'd probably never get past the 1st level.

SSD is not just simply prohibitively expensive, but simply prohibitive. It's really ****ing annoying to go to LAN parties and half the place doesn't have the room to install World of Warcraft..

You can have as much storage as you want on SSD's. You just have to be willing to pay for it. The argument "They are too small" is really translating to "They are too expensive per GB" it would seem.

A blazing fast 240GB SSD right now is around $500. For many people, the performance edge is worth it. Want a 480GB drive? That's the break point in price though. Above that it gets prohibitively expensive. 480GB = $1400. 1.28TB FusionIO IoCard Duo for your performance storage needs? $20,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

You can have as much storage as you want on SSD's. You just have to be willing to pay for it. The argument "They are too small" is really translating to "They are too expensive per GB" it would seem.

A blazing fast 240GB SSD right now is around $500. For many people, the performance edge is worth it. Want a 480GB drive? That's the break point in price though. Above that it gets prohibitively expensive. 480GB = $1400. 1.28TB FusionIO IoCard Duo for your performance storage needs? $20,000.

---

You are right. The issue is that the storage space vs cost of SSD’s puts it out of the price range of a lot of people.
BTW, OCZ Vertex 2 240Gbs can be purchased for 349.99 (before rebate). I am tempted to get one for my Asus G73.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrystalMeph

You are right. The issue is that the storage space vs cost of SSD’s puts it out of the price range of a lot of people.
BTW, OCZ Vertex 2 240Gbs can be purchased for 349.99 (before rebate). I am tempted to get one for my Asus G73.

---

If you can afford it then do it. The performance difference between SSD and non-SSD is huge. Every machine I own has some form of SSD on it for OS and Apps.

I do not bother installing my entire steam library at once because like most I do not play 10-15 games at the same time. However, I do occasionally load the whole thing onto a drive and create backup of my entire library. This allows me to restore any portion of it without the need to re-download the whole game again from Steam. And by occasionally I mean every 6 months to a year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrystalMeph

To me the convenience of not having to reinstall the app is more important than the ability to load it 5 seconds faster.

---

i feel the opposite

to me, loading the 5-7 games and apps that i use daily about 5 seconds faster each time, every time is more important than fishing for a DVD or downloading a 5gb torrent (shouldnt take more than an hour or two on a modern connection) to use that one game or app that i might use once every few months

and like UA said... its not hard to keep your less used apps/games on a separate drive... i keep all my apps/games in ISO format on my NAS (2x2TB). It takes less than 15 minutes for me to get a rarely used program from my NAS installed to my main drive if I ever need it.

i really dont see the point of having all your games/apps installed like that except for maybe a psychological factor or assurance. Its like having those huge 120GB mp3 players with all your songs loaded at all times when you only listen to the same 10 albums.

Is this the Ford vs Chevy thread? Or should I ask AMD vs Wintel?? :eek:

Ok, question; I understand SS drives have a limited number of read/writes (or something as that). Similar to flash drives. A limited number of accessing the 'drive'. Isn't this a factor in this decision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by videobruce

Ok, question; I understand SS drives have a limited number of read/writes (or something as that). Similar to flash drives. A limited number of accessing the 'drive'. Isn't this a factor in this decision?

---

Technically yes, the NAND flash chips used in SSDs have a limited number of "write" cycles before they cannot be written any further. At that point, those NAND flash cells revert to read-only mode.


But that is the myth of Write Endurance. Write endurance doesn't matter. You will never run into a write endurance problem on an SSD.

If you actually break down the write endurance numbers, they turn out to be 20GB of writes every single day for the next 5 years. You will not be writing 20GB of data to your drive every day. You will not be doing it for 5 straight years. And (most importantly), you will most likely be replacing your SSD within a few years anyway to upgrade its capacity or performance.

Write endurance sounds scary to people, because SSDs are a new technology that they haven't used before. But when you actually do the math, you quickly see that write endurance doesn't apply to you.