• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SSD + HD: Is this a good strategy?

Y

YanKleber

Member
There is some time already that I have thought about to install a small SSD drive on my PC exclusively for the OS. In my case it is W7 Pro.

To get rid of the known problem of the SSDs that uses to lose performance overtime due to recurring 'writes' I had this idea of put only the OS on the SSD and install all the applications and point all the ram pages to an HD avoiding writes in the SSD.

Do you think that this is a good strategy?

Thanks!
 
These days with newer controllers, TRIM, etc. I think that you could run everything from an SSD and be fine. They generally will not die before you are ready to upgrade computers.
 
Thanks for this, fellows! I cannot measure the ammount of data my system writes to disk (have no idea how to do this).

I am a professional that does a heavy computer usage for job as well for hobby. My computer stays on at least 12-14 hours a day and it is not rare that it stays up for days without being turned off (specially when I am d/l movies and such).

My work is main coding and image editing. For personal use it is for browse the web, writing, composing, download stuff (mainly music and movies) and make musical production (recording). I don't play games ever.

My computer is a brand new (about 6 months) Gigabyte i5 mobo with 4GB RAM. Whole stuff onboard.

With all of your experience, do you think that with this level of use a SSD could survive well for at least say 2 years?

Thanks!

PS: I am thinking on buy a Kingston 300V 60GB that would be more room than I need even installing all the apps in the same disk. The reason why I am not going for a bigger disk is mainly because cost (they are still pricey here in Brasil) and this is the cheaper one I can go for (around $100). Also I have a near to new 300GB Samsung HD that probably will give to me a long time of joy.

🙂
 
Thank you, fellows!

Chiefcrowe, that's what I needed to know! I think I am going for it!

🙂

By the way... does exist any tool for Windows that logs the amount of write my system does daily, weekly or whatever?
 
Last edited:
Is pretty typical, these days.

Have two SSD's in RAID for the OS and 4 1TB's on a Hardware Controller in RAID for storage here.

A lot of those "problems" have been worked out to a large extent on newer SSD's
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
Is pretty typical, these days.

Have two SSD's in RAID for the OS and 4 1TB's on a Hardware Controller in RAID for storage here.

A lot of those "problems" have been worked out to a large extent on newer SSD's
Click to expand...

MongGrel's configuration most likely custom-fits his own needs.

Similarly, my own: originally, I had the 500 GB Sammy 840-Pro as boot and program disk, with a 500 GB HDD for local data storage and (mostly) DVR recordings, music and pictures. Doubling the HDD size through a cloning operation is a simple upgrade I've been planning to do (and without any further purchases), but there is no urgency.

I archive films/movies on my server, and most of my important (serious) data requirements are filled by the server. So one SSD is boot-system disk with programs on the client-workstation, and I've so far extended that usage by adding more programs to a second SSD.

We have another system in the house using only a 128GB SSD for boot-system-programs & data-files.

Frankly, as some have already mentioned here, it shouldn't matter if you add data-files to the OS/programs disk. I only try and segregate the data-files for ease of backup and reliability. This has very little or nothing to do with the longevity of the SSD.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
MongGrel's configuration most likely custom-fits his own needs.

Similarly, my own: originally, I had the 500 GB Sammy 840-Pro as boot and program disk, with a 500 GB HDD for local data storage and (mostly) DVR recordings, music and pictures. Doubling the HDD size through a cloning operation is a simple upgrade I've been planning to do (and without any further purchases), but there is no urgency.

I archive films/movies on my server, and most of my important (serious) data requirements are filled by the server. So one SSD is boot-system disk with programs on the client-workstation, and I've so far extended that usage by adding more programs to a second SSD.

We have another system in the house using only a 128GB SSD for boot-system-programs & data-files.

Frankly, as some have already mentioned here, it shouldn't matter if you add data-files to the OS/programs disk. I only try and segregate the data-files for ease of backup and reliability. This has very little or nothing to do with the longevity of the SSD.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a bit out there, and even getting old other than the SSD's, but a SSD just for the OS and a HD is pretty common was my point.
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
Yes it's a bit out there, and even getting old other than the SSD's, but a SSD just for the OS and a HD is pretty common was my point.
Click to expand...

I've come to the view that the combination is not only feasible for a workstation, but also for a server. In latter case, I can't anticipate how that would vary according to "N" of users accessing. But segregating the OS from the data-drive-pool seems to work pretty well.

I just don't think we'll see the obsolescence of the electro-mechanical HDD for a while.
 
Get a bigger SSD and put everything on the drive except huge video files. If I can't treat my SSD like a regular hard drive, and not have to baby it, it would make me sick. People overthink the entire SSD thing because they were super small when the first came out. So people were constantly fighting for space. 99% of the SSD doomsday stuff came out of this by now ancient phase. And yet people still think SSD need to be babied. I still have regular drives because I edit video and collect big video files. Everything else, documents, programs, etc, go on my Samsung 256 GB SSD. After at almost two years, the sucker is still half empty.
 
YanKleber said:
PS: I am thinking on buy a Kingston 300V 60GB that would be more room than I need even installing all the apps in the same disk. The reason why I am not going for a bigger disk is mainly because cost (they are still pricey here in Brasil) and this is the cheaper one I can go for (around $100). Also I have a near to new 300GB Samsung HD that probably will give to me a long time of joy.

🙂
Click to expand...

That seemed pretty expensive for a 60GB SSD
but after reading this I can see why:

The Most Expensive Countries to Buy an iPhone
#1 Brazil
Price: $1,016.74 (BRL 2,399)

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/20/2013-09-05/most-expensive-iphones-in-the-world.html
 
SimMike2 said:
Get a bigger SSD and put everything on the drive except huge video files. If I can't treat my SSD like a regular hard drive, and not have to baby it, it would make me sick. People overthink the entire SSD thing because they were super small when the first came out. So people were constantly fighting for space. 99% of the SSD doomsday stuff came out of this by now ancient phase. And yet people still think SSD need to be babied. I still have regular drives because I edit video and collect big video files. Everything else, documents, programs, etc, go on my Samsung 256 GB SSD. After at almost two years, the sucker is still half empty.
Click to expand...
I agree.

My setup is somewhat similar. I have SSDs for the OS(s), all applications, scratch drives for Final Cut and Photoshop etc, and for most common documents. A spare SSD is a bootable clone of my main system install, auto-updated daily. (Just my own failsafe to eliminate any possibility of system downtime).

Large video files for editing work are on a pair of 3TB hard drives. All files on the SSD are also backed up to HD and a NAS.

But basically, I find similar setups pretty common these days: Decent capacity SSD for OS, apps and basics, large HD or two for storage of larger files and backup.
 
YanKleber said:
Thanks for this, fellows! I cannot measure the ammount of data my system writes to disk (have no idea how to do this).
Click to expand...
Once you have a SSD installed, CrystalDiskInfo can give you this information for most SSDs.
 
KillerBee said:
That seemed pretty expensive for a 60GB SSD
but after reading this I can see why:

The Most Expensive Countries to Buy an iPhone
#1 Brazil
Price: $1,016.74 (BRL 2,399)

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/20/2013-09-05/most-expensive-iphones-in-the-world.html
Click to expand...

Yah, exactly. Technology here is very expensive mainly because the high government taxes.

:|

I tried eBay and it could be bought considerably cheaper BUT if the customs nails my package (almost sure it will happen) it comes back to the same price as it costs here so I think that it doesn't worst the risk. Beside that I would have to await for several weeks until it comes from China to here.

Nonetheless, here we have a small leverage in Brasil if compared with other countries when we are going to pay for something: I do it in 12 small parcels without any interest summed up. So, although it will cost me around $100 I don't have to pay it at once. Instead the credit card will charge me $8.30 along one year.

:awe:

I am putting it in my shopping cart right away.

:biggrin:

PS: However the information about the iPhone is biased. It depends on the iPhone model, internal memory, etc. I have bought an iPhone for my wife one year ago and it was $499 (still pricey in my opinion). And, of course, paid in 12x no interest.

^_^
 
Last edited:
ViRGE said:
Once you have a SSD installed, CrystalDiskInfo can give you this information for most SSDs.
Click to expand...

Actually I was referring to know this BEFORE to buy the SSD. Really that there is not a tool that can be installed on your system and keep a log of disk activity?

😵

That's bummer! Anyway, maybe it's time to someone write such tool. I will put it on my to-do list for a near future.

:hmm:

Thanks anyway!

:thumbsup:
 
YanKleber said:
Thank you, fellows!

Chiefcrowe, that's what I needed to know! I think I am going for it!

🙂

By the way... does exist any tool for Windows that logs the amount of write my system does daily, weekly or whatever?
Click to expand...

Well, once you get a SSD, you can use something like crystaldiskinfo (free) and keep an eye on the writes.

However, as was mentioned, unless you are doing lots of GB per day, you really shouldn't worry about the amount of writes you are doing.
Just remember, anything (HD or SSD) can go belly up without ANY notice, so, always have backs.
 
Windows has the resource monitor application that, while it's running, will log disk activity (reads/writes).

So if you really want to know, pop that sucker open and leave it for a few days.
 
I wanted to do bench comparisons between two computers pertaining to disk performance under certain scenarios. I had my CrystalDiskMark install-file in a "software library" -- probably downloaded after 2011. I would've forgotten any precautions I took when I used it earlier.

Did anyone notice of CrystalDiskMark's "default" installation includes an "internet-browser-hijacker" called Trovi Search? My mistake may have arisen with a trial software package I installed to both computers on the same day.

All I can advise - never do the "Express Installation" until you review the options under "Custom."
 
Is it just a matter of capacity hoarding? Or is there any lifetime issue to worry about, regarding access to SDD. I know they have finite write cycles but I'm guessing it's higher than I would ever exceed in any normal human usage. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top