In the CPU forum there are threads about "good enough CPU", what is "good enough primary storage"?

[cbn]

I remember back in mid 2009 wanting an 80GB Intel X25-M (G2) SSD for my system. At the time I had 2GB of RAM and a 80GB 3.5" 7200 rpm hard drive. The hard drive I had was slow (and I would suffer from disk swapping from time to time), but the 80GB Intel SSD was $225.

These days RAM is a lot cheaper and I find myself able to use a HDD fairly easily now (as long as the drive is fairly decent).

For me, the following devices have worked well:

1. 2x Western Digital WD5000AZLX 3.5" 7200 rpm HDDs in RAID-0 (each of these has 32MB of cache and a 1TB platter, short stroked to 500GB). This combo is quite strong IMO.

2. Seagate Firecuda (ST2000LX001) 2.5" 2TB 5400 rpm drive (128MB cache, 1TB 2.5" SMR platter, 8GB NAND). NOTE: I have only used the drive for 2 weeks so far and the usage is desktop, not laptop.

3. Western Digital WD1600HLX VelociRaptor 2.5" 160GB 10,000 rpm drive (32MB cache with a 200GB 2.5" platter, short stroked to 160GB).

So what lower spec devices (HDDs, SSDs, eMMC) have you thought were surprisingly good enough assuming enough RAM is present?

P.S. One drive that didn't work out as well I though it would was Western Digital WD3200AZKX 3.5" 320GB 7200 rpm HDD (16MB cache, but the 320GB capacity came from a short stroked 1TB platter according to Hard drive platter database).

 

[Insert_Nickname]

So what lower spec devices (HDDs, SSDs, eMMC) have you thought were surprisingly good enough assuming enough RAM is present?

I'm, if its not too strong a term to use, impressed by the lowly 64GB Transcend SSD370 (SM2246/20nm Micron MLC NAND) in one of my systems. You'd not think it would perform quite so well just by looking at its specs, but it feels the same as much higher spec SSDs.

Honourable mention to the eMMC in my laptop. Surprisingly decent for what it is.

 

[cbn]

I'm, if its not too strong a term to use, impressed by the lowly 64GB Transcend SSD370 (SM2246/20nm Micron MLC NAND) in one of my systems. You'd not think it would perform quite so well just by looking at its specs, but it feels the same as much higher spec SSDs.

SM2246EN was pretty good. In fact, I have a 2.5" 120GB SSD (in a laptop) using that controller and I definitely like it.

Honourable mention to the eMMC in my laptop. Surprisingly decent for what it is.

What laptop make and model?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Most SSDs are good enough for primary storage.

Most HDDs or HDD-based solutions are... not.

 

[XavierMace]

Most SSDs are good enough for primary storage.

Most HDDs or HDD-based solutions are... not.

This.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Most SSDs are good enough for primary storage.

Most HDDs or HDD-based solutions are... not.

I've had situations, using an SSD, that I wished I was using a HDD. Yes, true story.

I was moving some ISOs to / from a NAS. Actually, I think that I was transferring the ISOs between two different NAS units (both using HDDs and gigabit LAN), using my desktop PC (with an Adata SU800 Ultimate 128GB SSD) as an intermediary.

Well, that SSD seems fast, on the surface (500MB/sec seq. read/write).

But write about 50GB sequentially, and transfer rates dropped, from 111MB/sec (gigabit ethernet line speed - almost), down to varying between 30-40MB/sec write speeds. (SLC write cache exhausted.)

A decent HDD would have wrote the ISOs sequentially at 100MB/sec continuously.

Never thought a modern SSD would bottleneck gigabit ethernet.

Moral of the story: Get / use MLC SSDs, like the 850 Pro, if you're going to be moving "bulk files" around.

 

[XavierMace]

While that is a shortcoming of all TLC drives, some are still much faster than others after exhausting the cache (IE the 850 EVO). 30MB/sec is abysmal.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'll never go back to RAID0 for consumer use. I had a RAID0 array years ago, and of course that meant it was tied to the motherboard it was created on. When that died, the array was useless. Had to ask a local computer shop to help me recover the data, and he could only recover some of it. Never again!

These days, if you want speed, get an SSD instead of a RAID 0 array. I cannot see a use for a RAID 0 array when SSDs are available and getting much cheaper.

My first SSD was an OCZ Agility 3 240GB, and I recently bought a Samsung 850 Evo 500GB for about 30% less than that OCZ Agility 3 cost.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

What laptop make and model?

It's an Asus E403NA. The drive is from SK Hynix. Haven't bothered to find the exact model.

Moral of the story: Get / use MLC SSDs, like the 850 Pro, if you're going to be moving "bulk files" around.

HDDs undoubtedly still have their uses. Otherwise, agree on the MLC aspect.

I'll never go back to RAID0 for consumer use. I had a RAID0 array years ago, and of course that meant it was tied to the motherboard it was created on. When that died, the array was useless. Had to ask a local computer shop to help me recover the data, and he could only recover some of it. Never again!

This^^

And this is coming from a guy who used to RAID0 10.000RPM Raptors. My first SSD (X25-M) convinced me otherwise...

 

[cbn]

I'll never go back to RAID0 for consumer use. I had a RAID0 array years ago, and of course that meant it was tied to the motherboard it was created on. When that died, the array was useless. Had to ask a local computer shop to help me recover the data, and he could only recover some of it. Never again!

Matrix RAID?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005789/technologies.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

So what you have is one partition of the array as RAID-0, then another partition for data you are concerned about as RAID-1. This way if one of the hard drive fails (or the motherboard dies) you only lose what was in the RAID-0 partition.

 

[cbn]

Most SSDs are good enough for primary storage.

Most HDDs or HDD-based solutions are... not.

I've actually not yet used an SSD that I thought wasn't fast enough. Though with this mentioned, I am relatively late to the game. My first (and slowest) SSD was this Sandisk 64GB 2.5" SATA model. (Notice how the IOPS are relatively low in the Newegg specs ("up to 7000 IOPs 4K random read and up to 2000 IOPS 4K random write") and in a Newegg review by Anonymous dated 7/7/214):

Crystal Disk Mark results:

seq: 420/183 r/w
512k 254/33 r/w
4k 11/12 r/w
4k qd 32 32/9 r/w

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I've actually not yet used an SSD that I thought wasn't fast enough. Though with this mentioned, I am relatively late to the game. My first (and slowest) SSD was this Sandisk 64GB 2.5" SATA model. (Notice how the IOPS are relatively low in the Newegg specs ("up to 7000 IOPs 4K random read and up to 2000 IOPS 4K random write") and in a Newegg review by Anonymous dated 7/7/214):

The "slowest" SSD I've used was an Intel X25-V 40GB. It still blew any HDD (even Raptors in RAID0) out of the water for random IOPS, and this was by no means a performance drive. Pretty impressive when used in a netbook. Basically took it from toy to something very useful.

 

[cbn]

The "slowest" SSD I've used was an Intel X25-V 40GB. It still blew any HDD (even Raptors in RAID0) out of the water for random IOPS, and this was by no means a performance drive. Pretty impressive when used in a netbook. Basically took it from toy to something very useful.

Yes, I could definitely see a 40GB SSD helping a netbook. Most (the vast majority) of these had only 1GB of RAM and a very slow 5400 rpm drive 2.5" hard drive (probably with 8MB cache).

So yeah, the paging out (with how many browser tabs open?) must have been just terrible with stock configuration.

P.S. Here were some notes I took back when I was playing around with lower capacity drives (this mainly for secondary desktops, etc).

Yes, booting will be faster with SSD.

But coming out of sleep is still very fast even with 80GB HDD.

With that mentioned, the situation that makes me want a faster HDD (or SSD) the most is when RAM is 2GB. (re: With 2GB RAM system slow downs caused by disk swapping are more prevalent than when there is 4GB or more of RAM).

P.S. I haven't tested 2GB RAM with 160GB 3.5" HDD yet, but 2GB RAM + 80GB HDD is really slow. 2GB RAM + 64GB SSD or 4GB RAM + 80GB HDD (fresh install) is much faster.

What a difference going from 2GB RAM to just 4GB RAM made in overall usability.

So I can only imagine what 1GB RAM with an old 2.5" 5400 rpm drive would be like.

 

[cbn]

For the purpose of this thread I am thinking of systems with at least 12GB RAM.

(This would be pretty typical of an upgraded desktop system with four DIMM slots (2 x 2GB + 2 x 4GB) or even a LGA 1366 workstation (6 x 2GB)).

For systems with eMMC, the RAM will be lower though.

 

[coercitiv]

But write about 50GB sequentially, and transfer rates dropped, from 111MB/sec (gigabit ethernet line speed - almost), down to varying between 30-40MB/sec write speeds. (SLC write cache exhausted.)

A decent HDD would have wrote the ISOs sequentially at 100MB/sec continuously.

But write 50GB consisting of 40.000 files and the speed on the HDD goes down from 100MB/s to 7-8MB/s. Just did that last week with someone's backup files and watched the progress bar like it was 2007.

More importantly there was something wrong with your TLC drive, either the SLC caching was badly implemented or the drive was nearly full. I have two planar TLC drives from Samsung, they are both OEM models that do not feature SLC caching, and they can sustain sequential write speeds faster than HDDs. I just finished a test of copying 58GB worth of large media files from a 2.5" HDD to a 250GB TLC drive with aprox. 80GB free space. The file copy speed varied from 60MB/s to 100MB/s, with the HDD utilization meter pegged over 98%, I was clearly limited by the mechanical drive read speed. (the drive is not fragmented, some of the files were just located towards the lower speed area of the platter).

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Yes, I could definitely see a 40GB SSD helping a netbook. Most (the vast majority) of these had only 1GB of RAM and a very slow 5400 rpm drive 2.5" hard drive (probably with 8MB cache).

So yeah, the paging out (with how many browser tabs open?) must have been just terrible with stock configuration.

P.S. Here were some notes I took back when I was playing around with lower capacity drives (this mainly for secondary desktops, etc).

Fortunately, this was a Pentium SU4100 (2C/2T 1.3GHz Penryn, 2MB L2 cache) system, with 3GB* of dual channel (!) DDR2. But still, the X25-V helped immensely. Older Atoms are just too painful to use, 5400RPM HDDs just make everything worse. Especially with only one GB of RAM.

*Shared with the 4500MHD IGP of course.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Matrix RAID?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005789/technologies.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Matrix_RAID

So what you have is one partition of the array as RAID-0, then another partition for data you are concerned about as RAID-1. This way if one of the hard drive fails (or the motherboard dies) you only lose what was in the RAID-0 partition.

Again, why bother with RAID at all for consumer scenarios? Whatever type of RAID you are talking about, whether it is 0, 1, 5, 10 or Matrix RAID, is wholly and completely unnecessary for consumer workloads.

SSDs provide speed and reliability with none of the downsides of any RAID configuration. Super fast while also being unharmed by all but the most severe shocks.

As a somewhat educated consumer and former RAID 0 user, I would never both with any sort of RAID on the desktop ever again. Not even RAID 1.

 

[cbn]

Again, why bother with RAID at all for consumer scenarios? Whatever type of RAID you are talking about, whether it is 0, 1, 5, 10 or Matrix RAID, is wholly and completely unnecessary for consumer workloads.

SSDs provide speed and reliability with none of the downsides of any RAID configuration. Super fast while also being unharmed by all but the most severe shocks.

As a somewhat educated consumer and former RAID 0 user, I would never both with any sort of RAID on the desktop ever again. Not even RAID 1.

1. Capacity

2. More than enough IOPS for a single user in most scenarios (assuming enough RAM is present)

3. SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

SSDs provide speed and reliability with none of the downsides of any RAID configuration. Super fast while also being unharmed by all but the most severe shocks.

Well, SSDs can, and do, fail completely without warning. So RAID1 still provide redundancy against drive failure. If you have a good backup system in place, and don't have critical files in flight, yes, there is little need for RAID on the desktop.

Anything other then RAID1 is pointless with SSDs. As a bonus, you can set it up so reads happen from both drives, for some really massive read performance...

1. Capacity

2. More than enough IOPS for a single user (assuming enough RAM is present)

3. SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives.

1. Get a larger capacity SSD. They perform better, due to more physical NAND on drive, then smaller capacity drives.

2. See above.

3. True. As usual though, backup, backup and backup. But at least SSDs are easy to image to another SSD. Or even a HDD, if you're on a budget.

That's just my opinion at least...

 

[cbn]

1. Get a larger capacity SSD. They perform better, due to more physical NAND on drive, then smaller capacity drives.

Some SSDs actually don't have to be that big for the performance to be close to maximized.

For example, My PNY CS2211 does well on Sequential write even with just 240GB Toshiba MLC NAND (the 480GB model is only 50 MB/s faster):

With that mentioned, I do feel the IOPS on this particular SSD is way overkill for what I need.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Some SSDs actually don't have to be that big for the performance to be close to maximized.

I guess it isn't as pronounced as it used to be with more modern controllers and higher capacities (>250GB). SATA is already pretty much maxed out.

For example, My PNY CS2211 does well on Sequential write even with just 240GB Toshiba MLC NAND (the 480GB model is only 50 MB/s faster):

With that mentioned, I do feel the IOPS on this particular SSD is way overkill for what I need.

But notice the difference between the CS1311 240/480GB and 120GB. Over twice the performance.

 

[nOOky]

I've switched almost entirely to SSD's for boot drives so I am biased. I am in the process of building a new computer. The boot drive will be a Samsung 850 Pro 256GB from my old build (sata), I also bought a dedicated Samsung 850 Evo 500GB for use as a Steam games drive (probably overkill, I know), and I have a 640GB WD Black drive and a 2TB WD Black spinning disks for pictures etc. and backup.

So what I would say is that only a sata SSD or better is good enough for a primary drive. I would also say that any decent hard disk is fine for backing up and storage still.

 

[jhansman]

Most SSDs are good enough for primary storage.

Most HDDs or HDD-based solutions are... not.

This. I would never boot from a rotational drive if I had the choice (and I do), but I use them for storage and archiving.

 

[dlerious]

1. Get a larger capacity SSD. They perform better, due to more physical NAND on drive, then smaller capacity drives.

2. See above.

3. True. As usual though, backup, backup and backup. But at least SSDs are easy to image to another SSD. Or even a HDD, if you're on a budget.

That's just my opinion at least...

You also get a higher MTBF with larger drives. I'm also not too fond of the increased price/GB on the smaller drives (256GB and smaller).

 

[cbn]

Again, why bother with RAID at all for consumer scenarios? Whatever type of RAID you are talking about, whether it is 0, 1, 5, 10 or Matrix RAID, is wholly and completely unnecessary for consumer workloads.

SSDs provide speed and reliability with none of the downsides of any RAID configuration. Super fast while also being unharmed by all but the most severe shocks.

As a somewhat educated consumer and former RAID 0 user, I would never both with any sort of RAID on the desktop ever again. Not even RAID 1.

1. Capacity

2. More than enough IOPS for a single user in most scenarios (assuming enough RAM is present)

3. SSDs are more difficult for data recovery than hard drives.

1. Get a larger capacity SSD. They perform better, due to more physical NAND on drive, then smaller capacity drives.

2. See above.

3. True. As usual though, backup, backup and backup. But at least SSDs are easy to image to another SSD. Or even a HDD, if you're on a budget.

That's just my opinion at least...

You also get a higher MTBF with larger drives. I'm also not too fond of the increased price/GB on the smaller drives (256GB and smaller).

Price/GB is better on larger SSDs....that is true. But the absolute cost is still rather high.