Multi-drive rookie here, looking for understanding

[TheJTrain]

I've been a DIYer since 2001 but have typically kept my configurations rather vanilla and have been fortunate to enjoy the stability I was after. From 2001-2013 my systems were single-HDD, single-partition, just C: and an optical drive on D :.

Two years ago I decided to get with the program and did a fresh rebuild with an SSD as my C: and a HDD as my E:. Windows, Steam, Firefox (and then Chrome), and a couple of select apps that I wanted to go fast went on C: (as well as some utilities that didn't give me a choice at install time), while other games, applications, music, movies, etc. went on E:. I even taught myself how to make Windows use E: for My Documents, My Music, AppData, etc. etc. Everything was groovy for a couple of years.

Last Friday I started having really weird problems (this thread if you're curious) that has led me to probably RMAing my SSD (still under warranty) this week, but has really got me wondering now...

If I have to reinstall Windows on the replacement SSD as my new C:, any applications that were installed on the E: HDD (like Office, or games, etc.) - they won't be recognized by the new Windows install on the replacement SSD, right? 'Cause the registry they were hooked into is gone, etc.? Which wouldn't be catastrophic, I can wipe the Applications folder etc., keep the music/movies/etc and reinstall the apps/games/etc.

Am I thinking about that/understanding that right? If so, is that just something that owners of a multi-drive system deal with as a cost of doing business? What might be a measure that can be taken to mitigate this risk of extra effort in the case, like apparently mine, that one drive of the pair dies?

Get a second same-size SSD and do periodic clones of the C: SSD to it, almost like a hardware-based Restore Point? Then if the first one dies you can swap in the backup?

I'm also thinking about a second same-size HDD and trying to do a RAID (clone/full-copy-style, not sure what RAID "number" that is yet) in order to mitigate the risk of that first HDD eventually dying (it's a 2009 WD Caviar Blue), can I assume that I'd still be able to do the same thing with it (applications as well as data), or would going RAID limit what I can do with the drive?

Thanks in advance for the schoolin'!
JT

 

[Ketchup]

Just an opinion: with current SSDs, buying one that won't hold your apps costs a LOT of time for the relitively small amout if money it saves. So, if you get a drive back from RMA, sell it and buy one that will hold all you apps. You can still put you data on another drive, if need be, just make sure your apps will fit.

Anything below RAID 5 (and some would say RAID anything) is about fault tolerance, not backup. You may know this, but just know that even with RAID, you can still run the risk of losing data, and the array can run the risk of breaking when it is time to upgrade to a new board.

Clones are good, as are general backups for important data. You can use an external drive, another computer, or both (what I do) to accomplish this.

 

[TheJTrain]

Just an opinion: with current SSDs, buying one that won't hold your apps costs a LOT of time for the relitively small amout if money it saves. So, if you get a drive back from RMA, sell it and buy one that will hold all you apps. You can still put you data on another drive, if need be, just make sure your apps will fit.

I guess what I was after (in my now-obviously limited knowledge in late 2012/early 2013) with that split-approach was chasing SSD longevity by limiting how many read/writes were happening - that's why I moved My Documents etc. to the HDD. I wanted to get the speed boost for Windows, Chrome, and the games it mattered most for, but didn't want to "use" it when it didn't matter that much (I didn't care much how fast Office opened a file, for example), hoping that I'd maximize bang-for-buck that way, knowing that eventually the SSD would die from reads/writes but trying to extend that out as far as I could.

Has the state of the SSD art advanced over the last two years to make that approach unnecessary, or was it always unnecessary, or something in-between? If one were to go for a larger SSD to fit all his apps, leaving non-"installed" stuff for the HDD, what kind of longevity could be expected out of the SSD in question?

Thanks for your time & typing, k79, much appreciated!

JT

 

[escrow4]

SSD longevity doesn't matter anymore:

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Buy a 500GB or 1TB Samsung 850 EVO and use a HDD for the fatter stuff that won't fit on the SSD like films or music. Everything use the SSD. You can set libraries to search those files off a HDD, you don't need to move them either.

 

[Murloc]

You can just do an image of your SSD and put it in the mechanical disk.

Steamapps and such and many games are fine even if you just copy the game folder anyway.

Honestly, putting apps on the HDD or SSD is mostly an issue of how much space you have in your SSD.
It's not like you're installing and uninstalling apps all the time, so if you have enough space, just put them all on the SSD.

Keep putting files and especially torrent downloads on the HDD though.

 

[Ketchup]

escrow4 is correct. Longevity is not the issue it used to be. I am still hearing that frequent power cycles is not a good idea (think Suspend), and the Samsung software will minimize your page file if you let it (I leave mine alone though), but for standard activity with apps and file storage it should last beyond the time you decide to replace it with an M.2 drive (or whatever technology becomes the next standard).

 

[TheJTrain]

Thanks, great article! The part about the drives giving warning/heads-up that The End is approaching is something I was totally unaware of, but knowing that you can check up on the life of the drive and have some warning gives me a ton more confidence to just go for it on a bigger drive with a backup strategy in mind.

 

[mfenn]

If I have to reinstall Windows on the replacement SSD as my new C:, any applications that were installed on the E: HDD (like Office, or games, etc.) - they won't be recognized by the new Windows install on the replacement SSD, right? 'Cause the registry they were hooked into is gone, etc.? Which wouldn't be catastrophic, I can wipe the Applications folder etc., keep the music/movies/etc and reinstall the apps/games/etc.

Am I thinking about that/understanding that right?

That's correct. The data is still there, but registry settings for applications and such are gone.

If so, is that just something that owners of a multi-drive system deal with as a cost of doing business? What might be a measure that can be taken to mitigate this risk of extra effort in the case, like apparently mine, that one drive of the pair dies?

The thing is, you're not any worse off than if you had everything on a single drive that died. You'd be looking at a reinstall or restore from backup in either case. You're actually slightly better off because you didn't lose everything.

Get a second same-size SSD and do periodic clones of the C: SSD to it, almost like a hardware-based Restore Point? Then if the first one dies you can swap in the backup?

You would do it with imaging software, but yes, that is one way to do a backup. However, a direct clone has the same problem as RAID for data integrity, which is to say that you have no history. You only have a single point of recoverability, and if you've already propagated the bad changes to the other drive, then you're pretty much out of luck.

A better solution in my opinion is to use a backup tool that can do multiple, incremental image-based backups to another drive. That lets you use a larger, slower, cheaper drive, and keep many points of recoverability. Good packages will include a way to build a bootable disc or USB image so that you can do a full restore even if the system drive dies.

Acronis True Image and Macrium Reflect are examples of this kind of backup utility. Having good backups is extremely important if you care about your data at all. It's in fact liberating in a way becasue you suddenly a drive dying or the OS getting corrupted by a virus is a minor inconvenience instead of a major disaster.

I'm also thinking about a second same-size HDD and trying to do a RAID (clone/full-copy-style, not sure what RAID "number" that is yet) in order to mitigate the risk of that first HDD eventually dying (it's a 2009 WD Caviar Blue), can I assume that I'd still be able to do the same thing with it (applications as well as data), or would going RAID limit what I can do with the drive?

A simple mirror is known as RAID 1. As I alluded to earlier, RAID is a good tool for data availability (keeping the data online), but a bad tool for data integrity (being able to recovery from a disaster).

I guess what I was after (in my now-obviously limited knowledge in late 2012/early 2013) with that split-approach was chasing SSD longevity by limiting how many read/writes were happening - that's why I moved My Documents etc. to the HDD. I wanted to get the speed boost for Windows, Chrome, and the games it mattered most for, but didn't want to "use" it when it didn't matter that much (I didn't care much how fast Office opened a file, for example), hoping that I'd maximize bang-for-buck that way, knowing that eventually the SSD would die from reads/writes but trying to extend that out as far as I could.

Has the state of the SSD art advanced over the last two years to make that approach unnecessary, or was it always unnecessary, or something in-between? If one were to go for a larger SSD to fit all his apps, leaving non-"installed" stuff for the HDD, what kind of longevity could be expected out of the SSD in question?

It was always unnecessary to try to "save" SSD cycles by moving documents, etc. to a mechanical drive. The reason for that is that the entire reason for getting an SSD in the first place is to speed up applications that do a ton of reads and writes. Word processing, etc. that didn't use a ton of I/O didn't need an SSD.

In other words, the things that benefited the most from an SSD were by definition the very things that would consume its write cycles the most. Less I/O intensive workloads fall into the noise level.

Murloc, escrow, and ketchup are correct: the only reason to move files over to an HDD is raw capacity needs.

 

[TheJTrain]

Thanks all for the great info!

The thing is, you're not any worse off than if you had everything on a single drive that died. You'd be looking at a reinstall or restore from backup in either case. You're actually slightly better off because you didn't lose everything.

It's even milder than that, because I didn't actually lose anything, since I was able to reboot into the SSD and move files off of it before it shut itself down again. In hindsight this has been the ideal incident to make me get knowledgeable on best practices (aka "wake-up call") while giving me a glimpse of how bad it could have been.

It was always unnecessary to try to "save" SSD cycles by moving documents, etc. to a mechanical drive. The reason for that is that the entire reason for getting an SSD in the first place is to speed up applications that do a ton of reads and writes. Word processing, etc. that didn't use a ton of I/O didn't need an SSD.

In other words, the things that benefited the most from an SSD were by definition the very things that would consume its write cycles the most. Less I/O intensive workloads fall into the noise level.

Never thought of it that way, but that makes so much sense it's crazy.

I pulled the trigger yesterday on a new Samsung 850 EVO 500GB for my new OS/apps drive, and I'll continue to use my HDD as storage, with Macrium Reflect as my backup strategy to my second HDD. I like what I've read on their knowledgebase wrt differential images and rescue media, etc.

Thanks again all!
JT

 

[mfenn]

Thanks all for the great info!


It's even milder than that, because I didn't actually lose anything, since I was able to reboot into the SSD and move files off of it before it shut itself down again. In hindsight this has been the ideal incident to make me get knowledgeable on best practices (aka "wake-up call") while giving me a glimpse of how bad it could have been.


Never thought of it that way, but that makes so much sense it's crazy.

I pulled the trigger yesterday on a new Samsung 850 EVO 500GB for my new OS/apps drive, and I'll continue to use my HDD as storage, with Macrium Reflect as my backup strategy to my second HDD. I like what I've read on their knowledgebase wrt differential images and rescue media, etc.

Thanks again all!
JT

:thumbsup: Very nice. Macrium Reflect is indeed a good tool to use.

 

[sm625]

The way you configured your system contributes to your problems. You kept your Steam on your C drive and moved your User account folders to E. That's exactly backwards! Your Steam folder should be what is taken off the SSD. Steam, large game installations, movies, music, and pictures are all you should be taking off the SSD. You definitely want ALL your User account folders to be on the SSD.

You should have a batch script that cleans your User account space regularly, since Windows cleanup doesnt do a great job of it. Here is the script I use:

c:

cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local"

cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Roaming\GFI Software\AntiMalware\Logs"
del *.csv  /f /s /q

cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Terminal Server Client\Cache"
del *.bmc  /f /s /q



cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default"
rd cache /s /q


cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\febeprof.mine"
rd cache /s /q
rd cache2 /s /q
del urlclassifier3.sqlite


cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Opera\Opera"
rd cache /s /q
rd opcache /s /q

cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Opera Software\Opera Stable"
rd cache /s /q
rd "Media Cache" /s /q

cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\CrashDumps"
IF EXIST *.dmp del *.dmp


cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Terminal Server Client\Cache"
IF EXIST Cache*.bin del Cache*.bin


cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local"
REM create an empty file called junktest.txt to ensure that your pathing is correct
IF NOT EXIST JunkTest.txt pause
IF NOT EXIST JunkTest.txt GOTO END
IF NOT EXIST Temp GOTO END



cd Temp
del *.* /f /s /q


for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.


cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Low"

IF NOT EXIST Content.IE5 GOTO END

cd Content.IE5

del *.* /f /s /q

for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.



cd "C:\Users\MyPC\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files"

IF NOT EXIST Content.IE5 GOTO END

cd Content.IE5

del *.* /f /s /q

for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.
for /D /R . %%a IN ( * ) DO rmdir /q "%%a"
echo.

:END

pause

Of course, this is completely custom. I wrote that script based on where temporary files were accumulating on my particular system, according to WinDirStat. It is different for every system. As long as you have a script like that, your User folders shouldnt become too bloated. On a 3 year old system, my entire User folder remains under 1GB. Without such a script, I've seen them easily bloat to over 20GB.

 

[Ketchup]

That is a nice script, but with the OP's 500 GB drive, I don't think even 20 GB will be a big deal.

 

[Yuriman]

I'm not sure if writes were ever a problem. I have a pair of 80GB Intel SSDs from 2008 that I've beaten the hell out of for 7 years, and they still report above 90% lifespan left.

 

[TheJTrain]

The way you configured your system contributes to your problems. You kept your Steam on your C drive and moved your User account folders to E. That's exactly backwards! Your Steam folder should be what is taken off the SSD. Steam, large game installations, movies, music, and pictures are all you should be taking off the SSD. You definitely want ALL your User account folders to be on the SSD.

Thanks for the suggestion on keeping things cleaned up! Like I mentioned above, my "where does it go" strategy was based on two things:
1) do I want better performance from that thing, whatever it is? and
2) longevity by limiting constant writes

Now I know that #2 was unnecessary/counter-productive, but #1 still gave me what I wanted. Some games gain meaningful (meaning, matters to me) performance gains by having the install on the SSD (EVE Online for example, with texture pop-in and microstuttering), where for others it didn't matter to me (older games from GOG for example). That let me prioritize the space on the SSD to maximize my personal preference bang-for-the-buck on performance. My reasoning for keeping Steam on the SSD was along the same lines but contingent on Steam's relatively-new-at-the-time ability to define a second SteamApps library elsewhere. Given that I could pick which Steam games went where made it easy to get the performance gain of Steam itself on the SSD while still prioritizing SSD space for #1 above.

Moving some of the User folders to the HDD was indeed inclusive of music/movies/pictures (the My Music, My Videos, My Pictures folders), but having seen the proliferation of games/apps using My Documents for config/logs/savegames/etc it's clear now that it should indeed have stayed on the SSD.