Originally posted by Stiles223 Most SSD's have wear levelling and other safeguards to extend life. Also keep in mind that the drive life depends on how hard you hit it. Gamers will be good here as there is minimal writes being made to the SSD after the initial install. It is writes that wear down a SSD, not reads.
Hence my point about working on lot's of creative projects and the implications of said wear.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Stiles223 Most SSD's have wear levelling and other safeguards to extend life. Also keep in mind that the drive life depends on how hard you hit it. Gamers will be good here as there is minimal writes being made to the SSD after the initial install. It is writes that wear down a SSD, not reads.
Hence my point about working on lot's of creative projects and the implications of said wear.
If you buy a decent SSD I would not worry. Where I work we use SSD's for medium load databases, and currently they dont hit a significant level of wear during the first two years, and projected lifetimes atm is beyond 6 years on avarage.
SSDs are being used for high end stuff, Eve Online uses a solid state database array for it's main DB.
Strait from EOs Wiki:
Database Server
This is the persistence layer of EVE Online. There is only one database server running Microsoft SQL Server 2008. This is backed up using online backups to the 'old' TQ DB hardware, a fiber channel RAID array. The current database resides entirely on solid state disk drives, two RAMSAN400 and 2 RAMSAN500 units from Texas Memory Systems. They are not SSD RAID disks, but rather single disk drives capable of high data throughput but crucially fully random requests. On traditional hard drives this incurs a lag due to disk seek operations while read heads are placed in the correct position on the platter and the data is read out.
At peak hours as of 2007 the database handles around 2-2.5k transactions per second, which generate roughly 40,000 input/output operations per second on the disks.
Originally posted by Stiles223 Most SSD's have wear levelling and other safeguards to extend life. Also keep in mind that the drive life depends on how hard you hit it. Gamers will be good here as there is minimal writes being made to the SSD after the initial install. It is writes that wear down a SSD, not reads.
Hence my point about working on lot's of creative projects and the implications of said wear.
If you buy a decent SSD I would not worry. Where I work we use SSD's for medium load databases, and currently they dont hit a significant level of wear during the first two years, and projected lifetimes atm is beyond 6 years on avarage.
YEah I'm kinda working on out of date info it seems, as the failure rate seemed a little higher the last time I looked into SSD's vs HD's. The added workflow would be helpful (loading, unloading)
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For a few years now. Currently using four Intel 730 series in gaming rig now. (3 x 240gb 1 x 480gb) Can't picture a life without SSD's now. Can't wait to see what the future has store.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
An SSD is about 3x+ as much which kinda sucks. A 1TB SSD is $320. You can get a 1TB internal HD for about $50-60. Thats a huge difference. I just bought a 4TB external for $120. For me and what I do I need storage size. Now for your regular OS HD I would use a SSD.
Originally posted by Deathsmind An SSD is about 3x+ as much which kinda sucks. A 1TB SSD is $320. You can get a 1TB internal HD for about $50-60. Thats a huge difference. I just bought a 4TB external for $120. For me and what I do I need storage size. Now for your regular OS HD I would use a SSD.
I'm not saying for everyone to get an SSD only instead of a hard drive. I'm saying, when should we recommend that everyone get an SSD and possibly also a hard drive, depending on your capacity needs.
Originally posted by Deathsmind An SSD is about 3x+ as much which kinda sucks. A 1TB SSD is $320. You can get a 1TB internal HD for about $50-60. Thats a huge difference. I just bought a 4TB external for $120. For me and what I do I need storage size. Now for your regular OS HD I would use a SSD.
Um, I have never seen a TB SSD for under $400 -- where have you seen $320, or even typically 320 which is even lower?
Originally posted by Deathsmind An SSD is about 3x+ as much which kinda sucks. A 1TB SSD is $320. You can get a 1TB internal HD for about $50-60. Thats a huge difference. I just bought a 4TB external for $120. For me and what I do I need storage size. Now for your regular OS HD I would use a SSD.
Um, I have never seen a TB SSD for under $400 -- where have you seen $320, or even typically 320 which is even lower?
I have been full SSD for awhile now. Currently have a 120GB G.Skill Phoneix for OS and a 240GB Kingston SSDNow V300 for a game drive. SSDs do make a difference in games and especially mmos. No more standard hard drives for me.
I just had a 90gb SSD bite the dust after two years. It was my boot drive and nothing else. I had a secondary 120gb SSD that I used for certain programs and have since switched to that one.
My general rule of thumb, don't expect to get more than a few years out of your HD (SSD or not).
They would need to be in the ballpark of 4TB for $100 before I would recommend only an SSD. The main benefits of an HDD right now are its achievable size and stability. I have been using SSDs long enough to have a couple fail on me. I still have not had an HDD fail on me, and some are over a decade old. Until I can reasonably afford data redundancy in the 2TB range, I really can't switch over to an SSD.
I would still recommend people to buy the WD 1TB Black. SSDs really won't have a huge noticeable impact yet outside of load times for things on that drive. Most program developers are still designing around 7200 RPM drives. Using a single drive is easier to setup than using an SSD and a Data drive. It usually takes me about 20 minutes to setup the junctions for Windows and it usually causes some inconsistencies.
Also with games starting to be around 20~40GB, its hard to suggest people buy an SSD smaller than 256GB. I had a 90GB SSD and it got filled up quick with only the OS and a couple games.
With cloud backups and streaming services the need for large amounts of hard drive storage space for the average person is getting smaller and smaller.
For those thinking about getting an SSD just make sure you get one that's 120 GB or larger if you're putting your OS on it. You CAN get away with a smaller one but 120 GB would allow you to not stress over where the OS saves user information, temp files, etc. and you'll have space for 2 or 3 games depending on their size.
The 240+ GB SSDs are the sweet spot for space/price. Of course if you're rolling in extra cash nothing is stopping you from getting a larger one, or even multiple ones.
If you're building a gaming PC try and scrounge up an extra $70-$80 and get a 120+ GB SSD. Or better yet scrounge a bit more and get a 240+ GB SSD for $105-$130.
They would need to be in the ballpark of 4TB for $100 before I would recommend only an SSD. The main benefits of an HDD right now are its achievable size and stability. I have been using SSDs long enough to have a couple fail on me. I still have not had an HDD fail on me, and some are over a decade old. Until I can reasonably afford data redundancy in the 2TB range, I really can't switch over to an SSD.
I would still recommend people to buy the WD 1TB Black. SSDs really won't have a huge noticeable impact yet outside of load times for things on that drive. Most program developers are still designing around 7200 RPM drives. Using a single drive is easier to setup than using an SSD and a Data drive. It usually takes me about 20 minutes to setup the junctions for Windows and it usually causes some inconsistencies.
Also with games starting to be around 20~40GB, its hard to suggest people buy an SSD smaller than 256GB. I had a 90GB SSD and it got filled up quick with only the OS and a couple games.
Even getting a 120+ GB SSD you don't need to do any sort of tinkering with windows. Of course then you'd only have room for maybe 2 or 3 games depending on size. I have a 120 GB SSD, with Windows 8, smaller but essential programs like antivirus or video drivers, the Users directory, and 2 games (46 GB worth) and I still have 32 GB left over.
I don't do anything fancy with Windows to try and keep it from using space. So definittely no 20 minutes setting up junctions and stuff. The only thing special I do is tell programs I use often to save files on my standard drive if they have an option to.
Cloud storage is really only taking care of documents, media that can be streamed, or data for crunching. There are still significant issues when you look at high-performance computing over an internet connection unless you are on a lightning fast optical line and those aren't much of a reality for the moment.
120 GB is not enough for me as a gamer who has multiple 40 GB games installed! +5GB of Music/Videos and just a whole lot of things stored on my hard-drive. Id rather have a slow 1TB/2TB Hard-drive vs a fast 120 GB SSD at the same price ; that's just me though.
///Edit/// Already running out of room - Maybe ill consider picking one up after reading through this thread
I really don't like to view cloud as the only method for storing data. First thing of concern is if the cloud provider will remain in business, remember what happened with Mega Upload. Microsoft and Google might be safe bets here, but you are looking at only 50GB of data. Second is its a lot easier to move files around using the desktop features which will mean you need your own disk space as well.
I set up junctions and defaults when setting up a multi-drive system for two reasons. The first is that Windows poorly sets up for multiple drives. Nearly all your data is saved in the Users folder, and it does not use the secondary drive as the default Users folder which means it will need to be changed. Setting up defaults to point to other folders also takes a little time. Then you have to consider some companies are notorious for using hard-coded paths. Especially Microsoft; so in these cases you need junction points to move the data into the correct location.
In my oppinion a 120GB SSD is the barest minimum.. Mine is twice that and Its nowhere near enough. Sure if you only play one or two games at a time you will be fine.. but no matter how large my drives get, I am constantly running low or out of space.
Originally posted by Octagon7711 They will become recommended when they become a lot cheaper. For the average person I don't think speed vs space is a good trade-off. Or, when it becomes a minimum requirement to run the game.
I don't get this argument. 128 Gb for 60 bucks. Even with a shit job that's such a low cost that i literally cannot see how people can say "its still to expensive". Obviously i could understand if we were talking about an ice cream. But we're talking about something that is such an enhancement in technology that you can be computer illiterate and STILL see the obvious difference in speed.
Also the average person does not require the space that massive HDD's that are being sold enmasse provide. Made up statistics incoming but i wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of the people who buy 1 TB HDD don't even use up half the space they paid for.
Also the average person does not require the space that massive HDD's that are being sold enmasse provide. Made up statistics incoming but i wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of the people who buy 1 TB HDD don't even use up half the space they paid for.
I thought that too until I looked at my old drive and saw it was at 800 gbs. And that's all games and deleting mmos I no longer play. I think once you stop buying boxed copies of games not having a physical disk makes you less inclined to delete an old game. Couple that with games getting into the 30 and 40 Gb size and these drives can start filling up quick.
Comments
Hence my point about working on lot's of creative projects and the implications of said wear.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If you buy a decent SSD I would not worry. Where I work we use SSD's for medium load databases, and currently they dont hit a significant level of wear during the first two years, and projected lifetimes atm is beyond 6 years on avarage.
SSDs are being used for high end stuff, Eve Online uses a solid state database array for it's main DB.
Strait from EOs Wiki:
Database Server
This is the persistence layer of EVE Online. There is only one database server running Microsoft SQL Server 2008. This is backed up using online backups to the 'old' TQ DB hardware, a fiber channel RAID array. The current database resides entirely on solid state disk drives, two RAMSAN400 and 2 RAMSAN500 units from Texas Memory Systems. They are not SSD RAID disks, but rather single disk drives capable of high data throughput but crucially fully random requests. On traditional hard drives this incurs a lag due to disk seek operations while read heads are placed in the correct position on the platter and the data is read out.
At peak hours as of 2007 the database handles around 2-2.5k transactions per second, which generate roughly 40,000 input/output operations per second on the disks.
The server used is an IBM <a rel="noreferrer" text"="" data-cke-saved-href="http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/x/hardware/enterprise/x3850m2/index.html"; href="http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/x/hardware/enterprise/x3850m2/index.html">x3850 M2 server with 128 GB RAM and two 2.6 GHz six core Xeons (Dunnington) running Windows server 2008 x64 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft SQL Server 2008.
YEah I'm kinda working on out of date info it seems, as the failure rate seemed a little higher the last time I looked into SSD's vs HD's. The added workflow would be helpful (loading, unloading)
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
I'm not saying for everyone to get an SSD only instead of a hard drive. I'm saying, when should we recommend that everyone get an SSD and possibly also a hard drive, depending on your capacity needs.
Um, I have never seen a TB SSD for under $400 -- where have you seen $320, or even typically 320 which is even lower?
Guess it was on sale. It was this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-7TE1T0BW/dp/B00E3W16OU/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1401655607&sr=1-1&keywords=ssd
Not on sale anymore. Had it saved for later when I built my computer later this year.
I just had a 90gb SSD bite the dust after two years. It was my boot drive and nothing else. I had a secondary 120gb SSD that I used for certain programs and have since switched to that one.
My general rule of thumb, don't expect to get more than a few years out of your HD (SSD or not).
They would need to be in the ballpark of 4TB for $100 before I would recommend only an SSD. The main benefits of an HDD right now are its achievable size and stability. I have been using SSDs long enough to have a couple fail on me. I still have not had an HDD fail on me, and some are over a decade old. Until I can reasonably afford data redundancy in the 2TB range, I really can't switch over to an SSD.
I would still recommend people to buy the WD 1TB Black. SSDs really won't have a huge noticeable impact yet outside of load times for things on that drive. Most program developers are still designing around 7200 RPM drives. Using a single drive is easier to setup than using an SSD and a Data drive. It usually takes me about 20 minutes to setup the junctions for Windows and it usually causes some inconsistencies.
Also with games starting to be around 20~40GB, its hard to suggest people buy an SSD smaller than 256GB. I had a 90GB SSD and it got filled up quick with only the OS and a couple games.
With cloud backups and streaming services the need for large amounts of hard drive storage space for the average person is getting smaller and smaller.
For those thinking about getting an SSD just make sure you get one that's 120 GB or larger if you're putting your OS on it. You CAN get away with a smaller one but 120 GB would allow you to not stress over where the OS saves user information, temp files, etc. and you'll have space for 2 or 3 games depending on their size.
The 240+ GB SSDs are the sweet spot for space/price. Of course if you're rolling in extra cash nothing is stopping you from getting a larger one, or even multiple ones.
If you're building a gaming PC try and scrounge up an extra $70-$80 and get a 120+ GB SSD. Or better yet scrounge a bit more and get a 240+ GB SSD for $105-$130.
Even getting a 120+ GB SSD you don't need to do any sort of tinkering with windows. Of course then you'd only have room for maybe 2 or 3 games depending on size. I have a 120 GB SSD, with Windows 8, smaller but essential programs like antivirus or video drivers, the Users directory, and 2 games (46 GB worth) and I still have 32 GB left over.
I don't do anything fancy with Windows to try and keep it from using space. So definittely no 20 minutes setting up junctions and stuff. The only thing special I do is tell programs I use often to save files on my standard drive if they have an option to.
Same here, they've been mandatory for me, and for any computers for which I am asked to build/spec, for the past couple of years
120 GB is not enough for me as a gamer who has multiple 40 GB games installed! +5GB of Music/Videos and just a whole lot of things stored on my hard-drive. Id rather have a slow 1TB/2TB Hard-drive vs a fast 120 GB SSD at the same price ; that's just me though.
///Edit/// Already running out of room - Maybe ill consider picking one up after reading through this thread
I really don't like to view cloud as the only method for storing data. First thing of concern is if the cloud provider will remain in business, remember what happened with Mega Upload. Microsoft and Google might be safe bets here, but you are looking at only 50GB of data. Second is its a lot easier to move files around using the desktop features which will mean you need your own disk space as well.
I set up junctions and defaults when setting up a multi-drive system for two reasons. The first is that Windows poorly sets up for multiple drives. Nearly all your data is saved in the Users folder, and it does not use the secondary drive as the default Users folder which means it will need to be changed. Setting up defaults to point to other folders also takes a little time. Then you have to consider some companies are notorious for using hard-coded paths. Especially Microsoft; so in these cases you need junction points to move the data into the correct location.
I don't get this argument. 128 Gb for 60 bucks. Even with a shit job that's such a low cost that i literally cannot see how people can say "its still to expensive". Obviously i could understand if we were talking about an ice cream. But we're talking about something that is such an enhancement in technology that you can be computer illiterate and STILL see the obvious difference in speed.
Also the average person does not require the space that massive HDD's that are being sold enmasse provide. Made up statistics incoming but i wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of the people who buy 1 TB HDD don't even use up half the space they paid for.
I thought that too until I looked at my old drive and saw it was at 800 gbs. And that's all games and deleting mmos I no longer play. I think once you stop buying boxed copies of games not having a physical disk makes you less inclined to delete an old game. Couple that with games getting into the 30 and 40 Gb size and these drives can start filling up quick.