Sign in to follow this  
linux731

Using 1TB SSD for everything

Recommended Posts

So...

 

I went on Newegg and saw this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147251

 

 

My first reaction was:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  I WANT ONE.

(But of course, I have no money)

 

But I started thinking, is it bad for you to store EVERTHING on a SSD? I.e., the SSD being your one and only drive? Does it make the life of the drive actually last less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

So...

 

I went on Newegg and saw this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147251

 

 

My first reaction was:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  :Hypnotized:  I WANT ONE.

(But of course, I have no money)

 

But I started thinking, is it bad for you to store EVERTHING on a SSD? I.e., the SSD being your one and only drive? Does it make the life of the drive actually last less?

Save yourself over $300 and buy the hard drive below. SSD's wont give you anymore FPS all they will do is allow the OS to boot faster (My 1TB HDD boots in about 20sec). and they allow the sim to load faster (I can be in a plane about 2 min after I click the P3d icon on my desktop) I think they are a waste of money as I could build a new i4770k rig for a few hundred more than that SSD costs.

 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178326

4TD HDD $169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save yourself over $300 and buy the hard drive below. SSD's wont give you anymore FPS all they will do is allow the OS to boot faster (My 1TB HDD boots in about 20sec). and they allow the sim to load faster (I can be in a plane about 2 min after I click the P3d icon on my desktop) I think they are a waste of money as I could build a new i4770k rig for a few hundred more than that SSD costs.

 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178326

4TD HDD $169

What do you use to backup a 4 TB drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you use to backup a 4 TB drive?

I only back up my financial docs and addons that I can't redownload everything else is pretty easy to reinstall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save yourself over $300 and buy the hard drive below. SSD's wont give you anymore FPS all they will do is allow the OS to boot faster (My 1TB HDD boots in about 20sec). and they allow the sim to load faster (I can be in a plane about 2 min after I click the P3d icon on my desktop) I think they are a waste of money as I could build a new i4770k rig for a few hundred more than that SSD costs.

 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178326

4TD HDD $169

 

I'm not thinking for it for FSX... Like the title says, for EVERYTHING. Including my Steam games, my pictures, my videos, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be cheaper to use 2 500GB SSDs (or even 4 250GB SSDs) because FSX allows you to alias an addon scenery to another drive, and you can create hard links between drives for your other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


for EVERYTHING

 

As P.T. Barnum was reputed to have said ' There's one born every ... '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As P.T. Barnum was reputed to have said ' There's one born every ... '

What?

 

It might be cheaper to use 2 500GB SSDs (or even 4 250GB SSDs) because FSX allows you to alias an addon scenery to another drive, and you can create hard links between drives for your other stuff.

How do I make Windows recognize only 1 total?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on your budget and current setup.  If you have a low-end setup, or a small budget for a PC, then usually a huge SSD is the least cost-effective purchase/upgrade......

 

The SSD is good for:

1) speeding up your OS boot - mine went from almost 2 minutes to 15s

2) speeding up your FSX aircraft "pool" loading IF you have MANY (>1000 models) aircraft

3) it MAY help loading scenery if you have a LOT of scenery in 1 area (MAYBE) --- but you are more likely to hit a VAS OOM before the SSD makes a difference.

4) speeding up normal game loading times (STEAM games, etc.)

 

Make sure you purchase or upgrade to these 1st:

a) a fast CPU

b ) an overclockable CPU (and supporting motherboard, CPU fans/cooling, etc.)

c) if using P3D v2.0 a fast and high-memory GPU (Titan, GTX 780, etc.)

 

SSDs don't last as long as hard-drives so if you hold onto your drives for a while, HDD storage is more reliable.

 

If money is no object, and/or you already have a good rig and have enough cash, then a 1TB SSD is fun to have. (or 2, like I have :) ).  Just make sure to get a reliable SSD (i.e. Crucial m500, or Samsung, generally speaking).

 

As for is it bad to put EVERYTHING on it.......

The SSD probably has enough bandwidth to handle anything you throw at it......but it could be a bit faster if you split OS onto it's own boot SSD, and everything else onto an app SSD.  And a little more reliable (and cheaper storage/TB) if you put your data/downloads, etc. onto a large HDD.

 

For example, my setup:

C - OS boot SSD (Samsung 840 Pro)

D - FSX/P3D SSD (1TB Crucial m500)

E - photoscenery/FSX & P3D overflow SSD (1TB Crucial m500)

F - storage drive  (4TB Western Digital)

 

And a NAS for backups/offline storage.

 

This setup is massive overkill for most people/purposes.....but I have a HUGE FSX collection, and was willing to spend the $$$, so it works for me.

 

Thanks,

David

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SSDs don't last as long as hard-drives so if you hold onto your drives for a while, HDD storage is more reliable.

 

If money is no object, and/or you already have a good rig and have enough cash, then a 1TB SSD is fun to have. (or 2, like I have :) ).  Just make sure to get a reliable SSD (i.e. Crucial m500, or Samsung, generally speaking).

 

As for is it bad to put EVERYTHING on it.......

The SSD probably has enough bandwidth to handle anything you throw at it......but it could be a bit faster if you split OS onto it's own boot SSD, and everything else onto an app SSD.  And a little more reliable (and cheaper storage/TB) if you put your data/downloads, etc. onto a large HDD.

 

For example, my setup:

C - OS boot SSD (Samsung 840 Pro)

D - FSX/P3D SSD (1TB Crucial m500)

E - photoscenery/FSX & P3D overflow SSD (1TB Crucial m500)

F - storage drive  (4TB Western Digital)

 

And a NAS for backups/offline storage.

 

This setup is massive overkill for most people/purposes.....but I have a HUGE FSX collection, and was willing to spend the $$$, so it works for me.

 

Thanks,

David

Have yours been reliable? Any problems you've had? 

 

With my FSX installed plus all of my other games, and my addons etc., I have about 45% of my 1TB hard drive being used. My current one is a Seagate Barracuda that I bought really quickly and inattentively because of it's price only.... I mean, it's an OK drive. It's just a bit slow, and I even get a Windows message about it (See one of my older threads). My computer takes about 3 minutes to FULLY boot (I.e., all my startup programs up and running and the computer is at a usable state, as in, you can actually use it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I started thinking, is it bad for you to store EVERTHING on a SSD? I.e., the SSD being your one and only drive? Does it make the life of the drive actually last less?

No, its not bad at all, it could be quite convenient. I'd still use regular HDD to store all my music, videos and photos, purely to save money and not use valuable SSD space for that.

 

I am so surprised of how many that are scared that the SSD won't last. Yes, it a well known fact that SSDs have a limited number of writes and people seems to think they gonna exhaust that. How much do people think they write to their disks? It's simply not an issue when used in a desktop computer. It is in write intensive servers you have to care.

 

But, drives die due to other causes. SSDs have a tendency to get bricked by firmware issues, that didn't happen to HDDs. HDDs however die for mechanical reasons. That's why you should always use backup regardless if you use HDD or SSD.

 

Don't be scared to get an SSD for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSDs don't last as long as hard-drives so if you hold onto your drives for a while, HDD storage is more reliable.

 

 

 

The Samsung Pro uses MLC, with an expected lifespan of 60 years. The Samsung Evo with TLC 19 years.

 

Who still has the same hard drive after 19 years?

 

Lifespan isn't a consideration. Other causes as Saab 340 said are a consideration, but not to the degree that you should be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have a friend who keeps his drives for almost 10 years.  He just keeps adding them into his large computer case.

 

Regarding SSD:

If you are a typical user (i.e.your storage usage is typical and you keep your drive for up to 5 years) -  no problem whatsoever.

If you are an atypical user (i.e. your storage usage is typical and you keep your drive for 10+ years (yeah, crazy) - no problem whatsoever.

If you are an atypical user (i.e. you do EXTENSIVE video editing/recording, generate large database/cache files) and keep your drive for 7-10+ years - there is a good chance you will have a problem.

 

Consumer SSD drives (i.e. using MLC memory) typically can handle 20+GB of writes per day for up to 5 years (or something along those lines).  That's way more than a TYPICAL user would do.

If you are an extreme power-user, it probably isn't a problem, but you may want to check how much writing you do.

 

Bottom line - 99% of users won't have a problem.  Just trying to be precise so the other 1% (0.1%?) don't get problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright thanks everyone for the informative posts. I guess once the price of these goes down, we will all have a 1TB SSD. 

 

(But I'm still really craving this one.... Discounts, anyone?) 

 

 

Actually I've got another question. What about SSHDs? Are they any good?

 

i.e. something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178380&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL121313&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL121313-_-EMC-121313-Index-_-InternalHardDrives-_-22178380-L0B

 

It's cheaper, also.

Edited by linux731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For discounts, you can obsessively watch the HardForum.com hardware sales forum.  The cheapest the 960GB Crucial m500 SSD has been is $440 from Amazon.com, and B&H Photo 2 weeks back.  Prices are back up to $500 now though.

 

Sorry, I can't comment on SSHDs (aka Hybrid HDDs) - haven't tried them.  I'm sure there's some good reviews of them somewhere reliable like Anandtech.com, SSDReview.com, or StorageReview.com.

I checked the reviews out when I was doing my new computer build 6 months ago, but I wanted the fastest possible storage with money being (nearly) no object - so didn't get one.

 

Something similar can be achieved using Intel's Rapid Storage Technology using a separate 64GB SSD as a cache drive, and a hard drive of your choosing.  You may want to check that option out too for a bit more flexibility in choosing an HDD drive size and brand (or even your existing HDD).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For discounts, you can obsessively watch the HardForum.com hardware sales forum.  The cheapest the 960GB Crucial m500 SSD has been is $440 from Amazon.com, and B&H Photo 2 weeks back.  Prices are back up to $500 now though.

 

Sorry, I can't comment on SSHDs (aka Hybrid HDDs) - haven't tried them.  I'm sure there's some good reviews of them somewhere reliable like Anandtech.com, SSDReview.com, or StorageReview.com.

I checked the reviews out when I was doing my new computer build 6 months ago, but I wanted the fastest possible storage with money being (nearly) no object - so didn't get one.

 

Something similar can be achieved using Intel's Rapid Storage Technology using a separate 64GB SSD as a cache drive, and a hard drive of your choosing.  You may want to check that option out too for a bit more flexibility in choosing an HDD drive size and brand (or even your existing HDD).

Wait, so does this make sense: An SSHD is basically a normal HDD with a small amount of "SSD"ness for certain files? Who picks those files that are on that section, and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

An SSHD (aka Hybrid HDD) is a normal HDD with a small SSD (well, flash memory chips) on the controller board.  The drive itself determines what gets cached in the SSD based upon some algorithm the manufacturer came up with - usually some variation of frequently used HDD blocks based upon the number of reads against that block over some period of time (since drive power-up?  since the drive was made?).

 

The details don't matter, just how well they perform for you.  Check out the reviews and see if your expected workload type against it is a good cost-effective improvement.

 

Mind you, seagate isn't the best brand.  They have a higher failure rate than say, Western Digital.....which is why Western Digital costs more.  But if you have a good backup, and know how to do a successful restore, it could be a good bargain.

 

 

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.  Keep that in mind.  Technolust can part you from your hard-earned $$$$ sooooo very quickly....... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

An SSHD (aka Hybrid HDD) is a normal HDD with a small SSD (well, flash memory chips) on the controller board.  The drive itself determines what gets cached in the SSD based upon some algorithm the manufacturer came up with - usually some variation of frequently used HDD blocks based upon the number of reads against that block over some period of time (since drive power-up?  since the drive was made?).

 

The details don't matter, just how well they perform for you.  Check out the reviews and see if your expected workload type against it is a good cost-effective improvement.

 

Mind you, seagate isn't the best brand.  They have a higher failure rate than say, Western Digital.....which is why Western Digital costs more.  But if you have a good backup, and know how to do a successful restore, it could be a good bargain.

 

 

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.  Keep that in mind.  Technolust can part you from your hard-earned $$$$ sooooo very quickly....... :)

Thanks for your reply. So there's no software involved with an SSHD. According to the reviews on Newegg, most people don't really see any difference between a normal HD and a SSHD, so I guess that's off the list.

 

My current HD is a Seagate Barracuda, btw... I'm looking now at a WD black or velociraptor. 

 

Yes I know... But I gotta have everything! :Money Eyes:  :Money Eyes:  :Money Eyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For HDDs I have reliability problems with both Seagate and WD, because their cheaper drives are now made using less reliable components when compared to their high storage densities. I had 1 brand new Seagate DoA, 1 dead Seagate after a year, and 1 dead WD after 6 months caused by WD's stupid decision to enable head parking as an energy saving measure, which rapidly caused the drive to fail. (Search "WD head parking" to learn more, and never buy WD Greens) Meanwhile I still have an old Seagate 250GB from ~7 years ago which is still running strong.

 

IMO if you have good control over your storage usage then SSDs are better than premium HDDs or SSHDs, because HDDs can rapidly fail and cause data loss if not regularly backed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best investment is usually a (small) SSD drive as the OS boot drive - assuming the 2-3 minutes startup annoys you, or you prefer a 15s startup.

Usually 64GB, but 256GB are the 'fastest'......though you may not notice much of a difference btw 64GB and 256GB (10-20%? - usually not noticeable in human terms).

 

Beyond that, most software avoids reading from storage like the plague since they are so slow.

Until EVERYONE has SSDs as their only drives, software developers will still avoid reading from storage as much as possible, and SSDs won't speed things up massively across the board.

But if you have a specific disk-intensive process in your computer usage (like for me, FSX loading 1000+ models into the Aircraft preview), an SSD definately speeds up that part.  Is it worth $500 for that?  That's only something you and your wallet (and maybe the wife/gf - lol) can decide.


To Avantime.....

 

Yeah, I only buy Western Digital Caviar Blacks, or their Enterprise line (the RE4).

My current setup has a 4TB RE4 as my main storage drive, with a Synology NAS using Caviar Blacks as my backup.

 

I don't trust the Green-line since they are basically cost-cutting versions of the main Western Digital drives, meant to compete with the cheap Seagates.  They do additional testing on the RE4s before they ship to customers, so it reduces DOAs due to manufacturing (but not DOAs due to shipping).

I've been lucky enough to not have a HDD failure yet (of the 15 HDDs I've purchased so far in my lifetime).

 

The cost of data-loss or trying to do a recovery is more than the additional cost of a better drive, IMO.

Again, different budgets, different conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For HDDs I have reliability problems with both Seagate and WD, because their cheaper drives are now made using less reliable components when compared to their high storage densities. I had 1 brand new Seagate DoA, 1 dead Seagate after a year, and 1 dead WD after 6 months caused by WD's stupid decision to enable head parking as an energy saving measure, which rapidly caused the drive to fail. (Search "WD head parking" to learn more, and never buy WD Greens) Meanwhile I still have an old Seagate 250GB from ~7 years ago which is still running strong.

 

IMO if you have good control over your storage usage then SSDs are better than premium HDDs or SSHDs, because HDDs can rapidly fail and cause data loss if not regularly backed up.

 

Yeah I've heard about the WD Greens being crap. Is Black the top of the line?

The best investment is usually a (small) SSD drive as the OS boot drive - assuming the 2-3 minutes startup annoys you, or you prefer a 15s startup.

Usually 64GB, but 256GB are the 'fastest'......though you may not notice much of a difference btw 64GB and 256GB (10-20%? - usually not noticeable in human terms).

 

Beyond that, most software avoids reading from storage like the plague since they are so slow.

Until EVERYONE has SSDs as their only drives, software developers will still avoid reading from storage as much as possible, and SSDs won't speed things up massively across the board.

But if you have a specific disk-intensive process in your computer usage (like for me, FSX loading 1000+ models into the Aircraft preview), an SSD definately speeds up that part.  Is it worth $500 for that?  That's only something you and your wallet (and maybe the wife/gf - lol) can decide.

To Avantime.....

 

Yeah, I only buy Western Digital Caviar Blacks, or their Enterprise line (the RE4).

My current setup has a 4TB RE4 as my main storage drive, with a Synology NAS using Caviar Blacks as my backup.

 

I don't trust the Green-line since they are basically cost-cutting versions of the main Western Digital drives, meant to compete with the cheap Seagates.  They do additional testing on the RE4s before they ship to customers, so it reduces DOAs due to manufacturing (but not DOAs due to shipping).

I've been lucky enough to not have a HDD failure yet (of the 15 HDDs I've purchased so far in my lifetime).

 

The cost of data-loss or trying to do a recovery is more than the additional cost of a better drive, IMO.

Again, different budgets, different conclusions.

Well isn't buying one JUST for Windows pretty pointless? I mean, yeah my computer boots slow, but it's the fact that FSX takes 15 years to start up and Battlefield 4 takes around 9 years to load maps that annoys me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found my WD Black was noisy. Not faulty, just noisy. So much so I took it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For martin-w: Mine hasn't been noisy, but I've heard complaint from others.  Perhaps it's the computer case they put it in?  I use a "quiet" computer case --- it has rubber mountings to isolate any vibration noise, and special case panels to absorb sounds.  Antec P192 (though there are similar cases out there).

 

For linux731:

WD line from bottom (cr*p) to top is: Green-Blue-Red-Black-RE4....also know as their Green, Mainstream, (cheap) special NAS/consumer RAID drives, Enthusiasts, and Enterprise segments.

 

It's pointless if windows boot speed is not a problem for you. It all depends on what your bottleneck is --- in this case, FSX taking "15 years to startup" (how long is it really?).

This could be due to slow CPU, lack of RAM (causing swapping to your (typically) OS drive), slow drive, or other factors.  Go to windows performance monitor while FSX is starting up and see what is happening ---- is CPU pegged at 100% (well, 25% for a quad-core)?  Are any of your drives going 100%?  Is your memory consumption at 100%?  That will determine your bottleneck and therefore what to improve to solve your performance issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For martin-w: Mine hasn't been noisy, but I've heard complaint from others. Perhaps it's the computer case they put it in? I use a "quiet" computer case --- it has rubber mountings to isolate any vibration noise, and special case panels to absorb sounds. Antec P192 (though there are similar cases out there).

 

 

 I have a Lian Li case with rubber mounts for the HD. Compared to all the other HD's I've owned and installed in the same case, my WD Black is noisy.

 

Yes, it would be quieter for you if you have a super silent case, and yes, it's possible for those of us with noisy WD blacks to opt for a very quiet case, but that usually necessities a compromise in terms of cooling. The HD is at the front, so that usually means a case with a sound deadened door at the front is required... thus, front airflow is compromised.

 

To be honest, having scanned the issue on the internet, it seems that some WD blacks are very "clicky" and some aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For linux731:

WD line from bottom (cr*p) to top is: Green-Blue-Red-Black-RE4....also know as their Green, Mainstream, (cheap) special NAS/consumer RAID drives, Enthusiasts, and Enterprise segments.

 

It's pointless if windows boot speed is not a problem for you. It all depends on what your bottleneck is --- in this case, FSX taking "15 years to startup" (how long is it really?).

This could be due to slow CPU, lack of RAM (causing swapping to your (typically) OS drive), slow drive, or other factors.  Go to windows performance monitor while FSX is starting up and see what is happening ---- is CPU pegged at 100% (well, 25% for a quad-core)?  Are any of your drives going 100%?  Is your memory consumption at 100%?  That will determine your bottleneck and therefore what to improve to solve your performance issue.

FSX takes about 53 seconds to start up to the main menu (I just did a test). To load a flight, it takes around a minute and a half (depending on what else I have opened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this