Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778 
|
SSD
Oct 14, 2016 21:56:49 GMT
Post by Rob on Oct 14, 2016 21:56:49 GMT
I've skimmed this thread - catching up online. Father-in law had a heart attack last Saturday. We should have been in Corfu this week. I do feel 'something' made sure we we weren't away when it happened. Even Greek ATC were due to prevent us going - called off the strike around the time of the heart attack. Spooky/weird?
Anyway...
I have an SSHD in the work laptop and it's quite nice and fast but not as fast as the SSD in the desktop PC/Hackintosh. If this was me building a PC (not laptop) then I'd have an SSD for the system drive (fast boot, fast application opening, etc.) and probably a large 7200RPM (or faster) hard drive for my data. Plus backups. For temporary jobs you could use the SSD for data. In fact that's how my PC is... rarely turned on.
My Mac Mini has Apple's Fusion drive so a 128GB SSD plus 1TB hard drive. Unlike an SSHD it's the OS that decides what is on the SSD part of the volume and what is on the hard disk. It is certainly not as quick to load apps as an SSD but it's quick and maybe a better way of doing this - i.e. multi-level SSD/HD storage.
I'd not avoid an SSD - just have good backups. Even HDs can fail and proper archiving can avoid other data loss issues such as accidental file deletion, corruption, wanting an older version of a file, etc.
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 14, 2016 21:57:48 GMT
Post by Hofmeister on Oct 14, 2016 21:57:48 GMT
Much is a matter of personal interpretation and preference, but I (unlike Zero) would at least move the swap/paging file to mechanical disk, since, if it is a heavy write load it will over-exercise an SSD, and if it isn't, then the performance hit is sustainable (and it is one of the easier things to do). But it is the paging file that benefits most from the performance advantages of SSD. And SSD is all about its performance advantages. If you dont want that performance boost then you go HDD. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SSD
Oct 14, 2016 22:00:34 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 22:00:34 GMT
I guess if you have no data at all on the system disk, so that it is just a matter of reinstalling from various disks or from an image copy, then the only risk is the cost of a new SSD.
Given that, how noticable is the performance gain?
Presumably if you move the swap [edit: page etc] to the mechanical disk then its pretty much only system and application startup which is faster?
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 5:45:10 GMT
Post by crankcase on Oct 15, 2016 5:45:10 GMT
You haven't told us why you are considering SSD?
For me, I'm very risk averse. In our place we buy annual batches of desktops as well as servers. When SSDs came out we plumped for putting them in the desktops. From memory about 50% failed within 18 months. So for the next year or two, we went back to mechanical, and failure rate was right down. Today, I think there's no exaggeration to say all the first batch of SSD drives we bought have failed, whilst we still have (only one or two, but even so) mechanical drives in service that date from my joining the place 20 years ago.
Then, after a couple of years, my guys insisted SSD tech had moved on and we tried again. Failure rate is indeed now down at only about double that of the mechanical ones, as in a couple a year. But they do fail. It's not a big deal as long as you have some sort of recovery strategy thought out.
For our users, they were wowed, initially, as Windows appeared within about ten seconds flat, but now they are used to it and there is no more kudos to be won there. In use, ther are indeed snappy and quiet.
If I were speccing my own PC I wouldn't bother though. I'd prefer to live with the few extra seconds doing things and feel more comfortable with a mechanical drive that will likely run a decade.
If however your need really is speed intensive, in a server, then the balance may be different.
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 7:59:04 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 15, 2016 7:59:04 GMT
Much is a matter of personal interpretation and preference, but I (unlike Zero) would at least move the swap/paging file to mechanical disk, since, if it is a heavy write load it will over-exercise an SSD, and if it isn't, then the performance hit is sustainable (and it is one of the easier things to do). But it is the paging file that benefits most from the performance advantages of SSD. And SSD is all about its performance advantages. If you dont want that performance boost then you go HDD. ...if you're paging to the extent that you are taking a big performance hit, then the sort of repeated write traffic you're experiencing is just that which will age an SSD more quickly. Nowadays, with 64-bit OS versions and a reasonable amount of RAM (for most people 8 or 16GB) you can largely eliminate paging effects in a more appropriate (and non-deteriorating) manner. |
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 8:06:29 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 15, 2016 8:06:29 GMT
I guess if you have no data at all on the system disk, so that it is just a matter of reinstalling from various disks or from an image copy, then the only risk is the cost of a new SSD. Given that, how noticable is the performance gain? Presumably if you move the swap [edit: page etc] to the mechanical disk then its pretty much only system and application startup which is faster? ...I think you've just about nailed it (but, you could add faster system update, faster virus scan, etc.). (Patently, this isn't the only benefit, since, behind the covers of a standard install, Microsoft leaves the install location as the default for a lot of write activity - system logs, default user data location, etc. It is arguable, given the usage profile, whether these are best (left) located there, but aren't the easiest to move). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 11:38:56 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 11:38:56 GMT
>You haven't told us why you are considering SSD?
I'm a disk down at the moment, having had a disk die a couple of months ago. I've got several spare, but I need to get around to buying one, of whatever type.
SSDs might be new and cool and shiny and neat in which case I obviously need one.
I rarely shut my computer down because its startup times are a pain when i need it quickly.
Its performance is pretty good with no obvious lags, but faster is always better, right?
...........and general curiosity really. I like to know stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 11:40:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 11:40:45 GMT
Hey Rob, I missed the first bit of your note earlier. Sorry to hear about FiL, I hope he's doing ok and your wife is not too distressed.
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 12:19:35 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 15, 2016 12:19:35 GMT
Hey Rob, I missed the first bit of your note earlier. Sorry to hear about FiL, I hope he's doing ok and your wife is not too distressed. ...as did I, so similar thoughts from me. === As to the SSD issue, if you really want to try stuff out, then stop being anal-retentive (like me) and just get one and install it (though make sure the OS at least is on it). If you're competent enough to clone and re-image, you're competent enough to deal with any fall-out. What I would do, however, is go for a device with a decently-rated endurance (often evidenced by a warranty in terms of years and Terrabytes written, whichever is the sooner). If you're going for OS and ancillaries only (allowing for easy cloning and re-imaging) then a low-capacity drive (128GB) is fine, though remember, manufacturers will recommend over-provisioning (using the 128GB to present, say, a logical 80-90GB to the OS and using internal logic to extend the life of the cells by sharing things out). To date, Samsung products have been well-rated, and at that size, given the lowish premium, it is probably worthwhile going for an 850 "Pro", rather than an 850 "EVO", for the much better quoted endurance and warranty. We've discussed paging, and if you have a lot of RAM, it probably won't be much of an issue, BUT, "hibernation" as opposed to sleep, can cause an awful lot of system writes if you enable it and habitually don't turn your machine off, and the hibernation file is in the OS root directory. I'd be wary of using hibernate with an SSD, (YMMV) and it is best to be aware that recent OS practice has been to implement "hybrid sleep" (which writes hibernation data when sleeping) by default if using sleep (it can be turned off), with the same issue. Recommendations vary tremendously on what to enable/disable and reconfigure, and change as the technology progresses, but IMO SSDs still aren't quite the "fit and forget" option that HDDs are (or at least, should be). |
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 12:24:34 GMT
Post by Humph on Oct 15, 2016 12:24:34 GMT
I never realised that you were clever T&E. Quite impressed to be honest. Don't understand half of it ( possibly that's too being generous in its own right in truth ) but it all sounds very good.
😉
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 12:29:57 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 15, 2016 12:29:57 GMT
I never realised that you were clever T&E. Quite impressed to be honest. Don't understand half of it ( possibly that's too being generous in its own right in truth ) but it all sounds very good. 😉 I have a degree (from The University of Life) in BS (Tyrednemotional BS (with hons)) |
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 12:34:45 GMT
Post by Humph on Oct 15, 2016 12:34:45 GMT
It's very convincing BS, I'd be happy to believe it. ( if I had the faintest idea what it meant )🤔
|
|
|
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 15:10:38 GMT
Post by tyrednexited on Oct 15, 2016 15:10:38 GMT
It's very convincing BS........ ...the very best BS is.If I'd also managed to learn how to fake sincerity (I nearly mastered it), then I could have been very successful.... (...or become a politician!) |
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778
|
SSD
Oct 15, 2016 16:05:36 GMT
Post by Rob on Oct 15, 2016 16:05:36 GMT
When it comes to SSDs then sometimes the smaller capacity ones (Say 128GB) are slower than the next step up. This is because they use fewer chips and therefore bandwidth is lower. Until Samsung came out with their 3D stacked NAND memory then there were three choices for SSDs with advantages and drawbacks for each. - SLC (Single Level Cell) where each bit is represented by a single NAND cell. This is the fastest and most expensive because each cell can represent a 0 or 1 with easy to differentiate voltages for each state.
- MLC (Multi-Level Cell) where each cell's charge represents a number of values (4 possible states) so more complicated electronics are needed to distinguish cell state and you need some form of error correction. It's cheaper and capacities are higher because you store more data per cell.
- TLC (Triple-Level Cell) where each cell's charge now represents even more states (8 for Samsung) so now it seven more complicated to differentiate the value and even more error correction is needed. It's the cheapest but also the most fragile with lower writes before a cell 'breaks'.
Because there has been a desire for ever greater capacities, along with using MLC or even TLC the way to increase capacity was to decrease cell size. Which eventually meant the TLC type memory would have really poor durability. So that's where Samsung's 3D NAND comes in. They cell size shot back up to something that was durable. Capacity is increased by stacking cells. What this means is current drives using MLC and TLC have much better durability and high capacities. If you look at Samsung's SSDs the PRO type models will use MLC and be more expensive and also more durable. The cheaper consumer units use TLC. Something to remember with SSDs is data is written as blocks. So if you change just one bit in a file and entire block needs to be rewritten. Wear levelling algorithms move blocks around and over provisioning helps here too. Would I be worried I could lose data on an SSD? No. I have backups. |
|
