Storage Set-up

[sympilot 1]

I am hoping that I could get some suggestions from you all on what kind of storage set ups are being utilized on your rigs.

I am beginning a "gradual" upgrade of my current rig (2500k@4.2, Gigabyte Z68X-UD4-B3, 1TB Hitachi HDD, 8GB DDR3, ASUS ROG 1070 - new) and am looking at storage as my next upgrade. I use FSX-SE and XP11 and currently have my current drive partitioned with work on C and fligntsim on F. My original thinking is that I would use a 500GB M-2 card for the OS and maybe a 1TB 2.5 for flight sim?

 

[Gary A 8]

Hi,

 

Running programs from the second partition is not ideal due to performance loss of data being placed further from the faster outside edge of the disks platter.  Not a cardinal sin as you likely have already experienced, it works, it just isn't optimal.

 

Your upgrade choice is good with OS on SSD and FSX and other on SATA.  You want FSX loaded on the SATA first.  You can partition that disk and have storage on the partition, this allows simpler and faster maintenance on the FSX drive for defragging.

 

In order of best performance:

 

1. Everything on SSD (requires large enough SSD to accommodate and is subject to affordability).

2.OS, on SSD FSX on SSD (two smaller SSD's  as opposed to one large one).  This option is good if two smaller SSD's afford better price than single larger SSD.

3. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000 RPM HDD through PciE professional controller card.

4. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000RPM HDD.

5. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 7500RPM large platter HDD i.e. 1TB or larger.  HDD may be partitioned with FSX installed to first partition.

 

A secondary storage drive can be added to any of the above.

[Charlatan 68]

I have:

 

OS on 240gb SSB

P3d on 480gb SSD

Storage on 1TB SSHD

[sympilot 1]

Hi,

 

Running programs from the second partition is not ideal due to performance loss of data being placed further from the faster outside edge of the disks platter.  Not a cardinal sin as you likely have already experienced, it works, it just isn't optimal.

 

Your upgrade choice is good with OS on SSD and FSX and other on SATA.  You want FSX loaded on the SATA first.  You can partition that disk and have storage on the partition, this allows simpler and faster maintenance on the FSX drive for defragging.

 

In order of best performance:

 

1. Everything on SSD (requires large enough SSD to accommodate and is subject to affordability).

2.OS, on SSD FSX on SSD (two smaller SSD's  as opposed to one large one).  This option is good if two smaller SSD's afford better price than single larger SSD.

3. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000 RPM HDD through PciE professional controller card.

4. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 10,000RPM HDD.

5. OS on SSD, FSX on dedicated 7500RPM large platter HDD i.e. 1TB or larger.  HDD may be partitioned with FSX installed to first partition.

 

A secondary storage drive can be added to any of the above.

 

Thank you for the response. How much room does W10 take up? So the 2 SSD's (1 M.2 and 1 2.5) would work ok? Or, should I keep it it to 2 2.5 SSD's?  I am going to keep my HDD as storage.

I have:

 

OS on 240gb SSB

P3d on 480gb SSD

Storage on 1TB SSHD

 

This was kind of along the lines of what I was thinking. Having the 2 SSD's. Just wondering if there would be enough of a difference to get an M.2 card vs the 2.5 SSD's

[ryanbatc 12,845]

I have:

 

OS on 240gb SSB

P3d on 480gb SSD

Storage on 1TB SSHD

I basically do this except OS on 120 GB

and storage is a plain HDD

[Gary A 8]

 

 

Thank you for the response. How much room does W10 take up? So the 2 SSD's (1 M.2 and 1 2.5) would work ok? Or, should I keep it it to 2 2.5 SSD's? I am going to keep my HDD as storage.

 

Windows 10-64bit requires 20Gb to install, occupies about 15Gb on disc, my system reserved and system size is about 45Gb (based on my installed software).

 

M.2 is a pcie interface and 2.5 is a SATA interface (Still an SSD drive but uses SATA ports).  Preference is to keep both M.2 (money issues  aside).

 

I want to caution you that I am writing in high level terms with sufficient information to be dangerous. :>)  The type of MB you use and its provided connections along with single vs. dual GPU use, and SSD form factors must all be specifically considered together.

 

In re-reading your post it appears that you plan to keep your current MB and only upgrade the drives.  This is not the way that I would personally address an upgrade unless I was forced due to a drive failure.  My focus would be processor upgrade (yes and all the goodies preceding such an upgrade) and my drives would be the last of my considerations.

 

Your current MB does not support M.2, you may be able to use it through an adapter card but this topic is more complex than a simple storage solution question.  I would encourage you to abandon your storage upgrade in favour a new PC upgrade come back to the drives last.

[sympilot 1]

Windows 10-64bit requires 20Gb to install, occupies about 15Gb on disc, my system reserved and system size is about 45Gb (based on my installed software).

 

M.2 is a pcie interface and 2.5 is a SATA interface (Still an SSD drive but uses SATA ports).  Preference is to keep both M.2 (money issues  aside).

 

I want to caution you that I am writing in high level terms with sufficient information to be dangerous. :>)  The type of MB you use and its provided connections along with single vs. dual GPU use, and SSD form factors must all be specifically considered together.

 

In re-reading your post it appears that you plan to keep your current MB and only upgrade the drives.  This is not the way that I would personally address an upgrade unless I was forced due to a drive failure.  My focus would be processor upgrade (yes and all the goodies preceding such an upgrade) and my drives would be the last of my considerations.

 

Your current MB does not support M.2, you may be able to use it through an adapter card but this topic is more complex than a simple storage solution question.  I would encourage you to abandon your storage upgrade in favour a new PC upgrade come back to the drives last.

 

I was afraid that you might say that. I was actually think that I would actually use an adapter board for the M.2 or just get the 2.5 SSD as I am really trying to hold off to see about any performance gains are to be had with Ryzen. I mean even with my 2500K I am getting 30+ fps at moderately high settings in XP11 after I put in the GTX1070 (15-20 before).

I am thinking about just biting the bullet instead of waiting though because I get so overwhelmed with all the choices out there (you should see me with the menu at Cheesecake Factory).

Should I wait for Ryzen or should I go for it with this kind of set-up:

 

https://secure.newegg.com/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx

[Gary A 8]

I get so overwhelmed with all the choices out there (you should see me with the menu at Cheesecake Factory).

Should I wait for Ryzen or should I go for it with this kind of set-up:

Listen Penny. :>)

 

First I establish the need for the upgrade. Is the upgrade due to component failure or inability of current specs to operate the software that I need to run or is it only want. Once I make a decision, I base my component selection on what I can afford and proceed with the best components currently available in that price range. I do not wait for the next best thing because the next best thing is always coming around the corner. My decisions (excuses) to upgrade are supported by the fact that I can pass my current system onto the family. When you consider that the family computer is then always a few generations behind the current tech, it makes me feel like I am getting better value than if I was only upgrading for myself. Also if I can salvage any existing components for reuse, I do so; things like PSU or HDD can be reused, sometimes if you get blessed memory can be reused, of course, the case. Reusing components when able helps keep costs down. I also try not to upgrade except for a socket change when possible (i.e. socket 775 to 1156 etc.). My most recent upgrade was from an i5-4690k to i7-6700k. I only did this because I had the opportunity to sell the 4690k system at near original cost making the 6700k more palatable. I can tell you the perceived performance between the 4690 and 6700 was negligible (moral, bigger or more expensive or newest, isn’t always worth the increased costs). Upgrade priorities for performance are always 1. Processor 2. GPU 3. Memory 4. HDD/SSD

 

Your link didn't work.

 

You really don't need an upgrade unless you just want to because of "want to."