SSD worth it?

Mike Smit said:
It's not just about PC boot times. It's about the overall snapiness you get from using your machine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not having to wait for stuff.

Oh, I know it's small, but is great not hearing the hdd grind away when the OS is working. Stuff just happens. Silently and fast.

I did run a few VM's on my SSD, but had to move them to another hdd due to low space. They are still lightning fast though.
 
xera said:
SSD is worth it for i3 and C2D as well.
Click to expand...

Two years ago I put Windows XP for a client onto an Intel X25 80GB SSD. Both the client and I were flabbergasted at just how fast the damn thing was. And it wasn't even a fresh install, it was a clone from an older 80GB SATA drive.

OP, if you have the money, go for it. SSDs are the second upgrade I recommend anyone do, after moving up to 8GB RAM. I wish I had the money for one.
 
kripstoe said:
Anybody running VMs on SSD drives?

Unfortunately SSDs are still relatively expensive for the amount of storage you get. And I need quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I would not suggest VM's to be installed on SSD's if the VM's have to rewrite entire images instead of recording delta data, you will burn through your read/write memory cell MTBF prematurely extremely fast.
 
Mystic Twilight said:
I would not suggest VM's to be installed on SSD's if the VM's have to rewrite entire images instead of recording delta data, you will burn through your read/write memory cell MTBF prematurely extremely fast.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like it's exponential, at worst you will cut the life of your SSD in half (this is like a worst case scenario) Then again it does depend on your setup.

I run a VM on my SSD and Ubuntu boots really quick(~10 seconds). The SSD itself just hosts the OS and abit of extra space. I use my HDD to mount 'partitions'. Saves using up too much precious SSD space, reduces SSD memory cell burnout times etc.

Also SSDs have come a LONG way since the 1st generation drives. And they will only get better.

I also run things like ableton on my SSD which is an absolute beut. Sound processing and previewing has never been quicker
 
I use a Vertex 3 as my primary drive on my Windows Server 2012 machine. This server is my download server, media server, SQL Server (DB's live on an HDD though) and source control server. Runs 24/7 and no issues in quite a while now.
New SSD's can take quite a punch.

My dev machine uses a Vertex 4 256GB as primary. Also runs 24/7 and I use it daily. Solid as a rock.
 
I use a Vertex 3 as my primary drive on my Windows Server 2012 machine. This server is my download server, media server, SQL Server (DB's live on an HDD though) and source control server. Runs 24/7 and no issues in quite a while now.
New SSD's can take quite a punch.

My dev machine uses a Vertex 4 256GB as primary. Also runs 24/7 and I use it daily. Solid as a rock.
 
Southbit those R/w speeds pretty low, 280 is low. Shoot for 400+, most sata 3 drives pull it off easily.

If you going to go ssd, don't buy a 60gb one, save up and get a 128gb if possible.
 
@Killadoob:
Those read/write speeds are low because of the small capacity and because they're cache drives and not standard SSD's.

I don't agree with you guys that running a VM would do more harm to a SSD. I would however recommend that you use a RAM drive for the temporary files and make sure that you tell the VM that it resides on a SSD (like VirtualBox has the option to say that it is on a SSD).

At my work I just use my 2TB HDD for VM's, because it is fast enough and the testing that I'm doing is a lot more CPU and RAM intensive and not so much HDD intensive. I once ran Ubuntu desktop completely in RAM (installed it on a 16GB RAM drive) and I wasn't that impressed with the speed difference over running it on a HDD.

At my work I have a 128GB OCZ Agility 4 (for Windows, Apps & Data) and at home I've got a 120GB G.Skill Phoenix Pro 2. I'd rather recommend giving the VM more RAM before moving it to a SSD, unless of course you're going to be doing lots of work in that VM - then it would be wise to give it RAM and SSD :)
 
CrazYmonkeY159 said:
You make it sound like it's exponential, at worst you will cut the life of your SSD in half (this is like a worst case scenario) Then again it does depend on your setup.

I run a VM on my SSD and Ubuntu boots really quick(~10 seconds). The SSD itself just hosts the OS and abit of extra space. I use my HDD to mount 'partitions'. Saves using up too much precious SSD space, reduces SSD memory cell burnout times etc.
Click to expand...

Then you are not doing what I'm saying lol, storing VM images on your SSD will kill it very fast (I don't mean within 6 months, but its relative percentage will not be trivial) if your VM software doesn't utilise delta changes. It is similar to storing an active database on an SSD, if you have a lot of CRUD commands and especially UD, its lifespan will decrease.

Edit: @Pada: it's not necessarily harm, SSD drives will fail eventually. The matter I'm highlighting is that you may unnecessarily decrease your SSD lifespan and return on investment.
 
Last edited:
Mystic Twilight said:
Then you are not doing what I'm saying lol, storing VM images on your SSD will kill it very fast (I don't mean within 6 months, but its relative percentage will not be trivial) if your VM software doesn't utilise delta changes. It is similar to storing an active database on an SSD, if you have a lot of CRUD commands and especially UD, its lifespan will decrease.

Edit: @Pada: it's not necessarily harm, SSD drives will fail eventually. The matter I'm highlighting is that you may unnecessarily decrease your SSD lifespan and return on investment.
Click to expand...

This is true. Which is why enterprise class SSDs use SLC not MLC flash. SLC has a way longer life span, but of course at a higher cost.
 
is it better to keep just the operating system on the ssd and all other programmes on a conventional hard drive or can i fill the ssd up with other programmes without affecting it's performance?
 
simonbee said:
is it better to keep just the operating system on the ssd and all other programmes on a conventional hard drive or can i fill the ssd up with other programmes without affecting it's performance?
Click to expand...

My primary drive is OS and all apps.
I have a secondary 3TB drive for data and games. Steam is installed on the primary, but games are stored on secondary. Same with Origin.
 
Personally I think it is a waste of time.

Although if you really want to rig your drives do what I do...

200GB SSD for your primary OS drive, for your storage include a Western Digital Caviar Green 1TB or higher as your slave drives.

I'd rather wait for when SSDs dwindle in price and they increase the size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X