Using 1TB SSD for everything

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

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?

[stormbringer 0]

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.......

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

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:

[Avantime 81]

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.

[stormbringer 0]

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.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

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.

[martin-w 3,234]

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

[stormbringer 0]

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.

[martin-w 3,234]

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.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

 

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).

[SAAB340 28]

 

 

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

Not sure if you've seen this from another topic.

 

Here you can see differences in load time between a 2TB WD black, 1TB WD Velociraptor and a 1TB Samsung 840 EVO.

The bottom part shows the differences in load time for the innitial load. The top part show the differences on following loads.

 

 

 

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

The Velociraptor is quieter than the WD Black. Nothing beats the scilence of SSD though.

[stormbringer 0]

Awesome info Saab.  Great source post too.  I highly recommend everyone to go to the source post (see Saab340's link above).

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Nice post. Very informative, but now I think that getting that SSD is not even that important. I'll just need to get a very fast HDD like a Black.