Dual boot Linux: new SSD or split existing? / Laptop advice

[archzeratul]

Hi everyone,

What SSD would you recommend for a dual boot Windows/Linux install? Is it simpler to have a dedicated SSD for each OS, or should I share the existing (Windows 7 currently installed) Crucial M4 Micron C400 128GB ($100 cheaper than when I bought it four months ago !! ) between both?

I still have 85.6GB/119GB free on this SSD, but that will soon diminish as I set up some development tools and other software... I imagine it would be a hassle to migrate things if I get a second SSD down the road...

Anything I should know before installing Linux? I've been reading this material, which seems a bit verbose and long-winded at times... when compared to how simple the Windows installation was....
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Solid_State_Drives

As a different topic from the SSDs, does anyone have recommendations on laptops / notebooks in the $500-$1000 range? The laptop I have now is quite heavy.. 7kg or so, and has a battery life of maybe 40 minutes... Considering how much those two qualities annoy me, I would like a laptop that is light and lasts long, first and foremost... I don't intend for it to be used for gaming or anything, no heavy graphics processing... just some development and perhaps some lightweight work with openGL...

Of course, if there are options I'm not thinking about here, I'm open to those too

Thanks a lot!

 

[mfenn]

Ah yes, the Arch Wiki, aka. braindump of thousands of Linux geeks. If you want to dual-boot, have Windows installed at the beginning of the drive and Linux towards the end. Since the Windows 7 installer aligns the first partition, just make sure that you resize the NTFS volume to some even number of GiB. At that point, all following partitions will be aligned by default (unless you do something silly like make a 512,452KiB partition).

HOWEVER, 128GB is not a lot of space to store two OSes on. This isn't necessarily due to the size of the OS itself, but instead due to the inherent fact that you have to guess how much space you need in the OS. Guess wrong and you'll run out of space in one long before the other.

 

[hf2046]

HOWEVER, 128GB is not a lot of space to store two OSes on. This isn't necessarily due to the size of the OS itself, but instead due to the inherent fact that you have to guess how much space you need in the OS. Guess wrong and you'll run out of space in one long before the other.

GParted can help you resize partitions, should you decide that Win7 or Linux need more space. Clonezilla can help you transfer your Linux installation to a new drive (SSD or mechanical) if you decide to do this later.

http://gparted.sourceforge.net/

http://clonezilla.org/

Honestly, it's a lot simpler having two drives, but it'll be hard trying to find a thin and light notebook that can accommodate that sort of setup without some kind of compromise (such as one drive needs to be mSATA form factor or the interface is SATA II). You could find one with an eSATA port and boot Win7 or Linux from an external enclosure. This is what I do when I need Windows. Otherwise, I sometimes use QEMU to boot a Win7 virtual machine.

 

[paperwastage]

dual boot: I have a 96GB SSD with W7 and Ubuntu dualbooting... it's really hard to juggle usage (even though i have a desktop and online storage, no media files are stored on the laptop)

I have 60GB to W7, rest(30GB) to ubuntu...

Have Visual Studio + DirectX SDK + W7 SDK, no hibernate/pagefile, roughly 20GB free on W7, roughly 70% free on my ubuntu partition

portable + usable laptop: If i had the money (~$800-$1000), I'd go for a lenovo x220... <4 pounds, 9 cell = 8 hours battery, optional slice for up to 15 hours, dual core sandy bridge, optional IPS screen... too bad it only take 7mm SSDs with an optional mSATA SSD attachment

 

[archzeratul]

Sorry... To clarify, the SSDs and laptop have nothing to do with each other... the SSD is for my desktop. The laptop is something I want independent of the desktop. Just didn't want to clutter the forums with two threads for myself

I intend for primary work / gaming / etc. to be done on the desktop. The laptop is more for taking notes and doing some lightweight work while not at home.

Considering what has been said... I am even more inclined now to just get a second SSD for the desktop though.. unless answers change with my clarification

Since I have no complaints about the one I have... does this look like the best deal?
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=60445&vpn=CT128M4SSD2&manufacture=CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY&promoid=1260

Or are there better / more reliable ones out in the market now for similar pricing?

 

[paperwastage]

if its on a desktop, then it's fine... you can install stuff on a secondary HDD (or SSD) if yo uwant to (or run out of space on SSD), don't have that much problem compared to juggling stuff on 1 SSD on laptops with no secondary HDD bay

 

[mfenn]

I agree, in a desktop just get two drives; you have the (physical) space.

 

[archzeratul]

I guess then, what my question should have been from the very beginning...:

Which SSD is the best bang for buck? I looked at this...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-storage-value,3184-3.html

Any thoughts beyond what is written here?


I'm thinking either the Crucial M4 for $120~ (I can walk to the store, nothing wasted on shipping)
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=60445&vpn=CT128M4SSD2&manufacture=CRUCIAL%20TECHNOLOGY&promoid=1260

Or the Sandisk Extreme for $140 + shipping / other efforts...
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...32-122876066-2

Any opinions on those two, or others I may have missed in a similar price point?

I guess if I got the Crucial M4 then that would open up the option of using the two SSDs in RAID configuration if I chose to do so down the road... not sure if that even offers any benefits though...

On the other hand.. having a better performing / different SSD could prevent me from doing something stupid like flashing / formatting the wrong SSD by mistake..

As for laptops, the Lenovo x220 looks nice... although with some of the added bells and whistles it does exceed $1000 by a fair bit... I have close to no idea about the notebook market... Any other ideas / comparisons?

 

[mfenn]

The M4 is a no brainer at $120. It still has performance near the top tier and costs a less than a dollar per GB.

 

[paperwastage]

As for laptops, the Lenovo x220 looks nice... although with some of the added bells and whistles it does exceed $1000 by a fair bit... I have close to no idea about the notebook market... Any other ideas / comparisons?

in USA, you can wait for x220 deals/coupons

http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.php?forumchoice[]=9&q=x220&showposts=0&archive=0&firstonly=1

seen x220 + IPS + 9 cell under $900

or wait for the x230 (ivy bridge) successor

i don't think there are many laptops with IPS screens out there... i would consider the MBA or Sony Z series (but they're slightly more expensive / less customization), HP Folio

 

[archzeratul]

Speaking of < $1/GB... $230 for the 256GB version.. hm
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=60446&vpn=CT256M4SSD2&manufacture=CRUCIAL%20TECHNOLOGY&promoid=1260

This looks very tempting... From what I know, there are some performance improvements with larger SSDs? This would also give me a lot more freedom when it comes to space, and wouldn't this also increase the longevity of the drive when it comes to # of writes? I'm just wondering if I'm wasting money on silly things though... If i did get this, I would probably re-install or migrate Windows 7 to this SSD... any comments on difficulty / simplicity of migrating vs. re-installing? I don't have much in the way of having to back up files since I keep my media on a NAS... What about GPT / MBR if I dual boot with Linux? From what I can tell I used MBR to install the current system...

The x220 does seem very popular... Any comments on useful upgrades? eg. 8GB vs 4GB, the i7 instead of the i5, 9 cell vs. 6 cell... At least when it comes to desktops, it seems like ivy bridge has been a let down when compared to sandy bridge? Will this be different in the mobile market or am I totally wrong?

Thanks for the thoughts and comments!

 

[mfenn]

With SSDs, larger capacity drives are generally faster up to a certain point. The reason for that is that SSD controllers are inherently parallel devices with a certain number of channels. Smaller capacity drives generally don't have enough flash chips to fill out the number of channels on the controller, so you lose some performance. The 256GB version of the M4 is somewhat faster than the 128GB version, but it's not a night and day difference.

Since you originally installed Windows 7 onto a very similar SSD, you can literally just dd the old drive to the new one. Use the rest of the space beyond the NTFS partitions for Linux.

 

[hf2046]

What about GPT / MBR if I dual boot with Linux? From what I can tell I used MBR to install the current system...

You don't need GPT unless you want to partition a drive > 2 TB as a single volume and you boot using EFI or hybrid EFI / BIOS.

 

[mfenn]

You don't need GPT unless you want to partition a drive > 2 TB as a single volume and you boot using EFI or hybrid EFI / BIOS.

To be clear, ONLY an EFI or hybrid BIOS can boot from a GPT disk. Any modern OS can handle GPT for non-boot volumes.