 SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA
 ·voip.ms
 ·T-Mobile US
4 edits | Budget SSD vs High-Density HDD I've been using software ram based SSD's and short-stroking HDD's to enhance system performance going on ten years now. I've been very satisfied with my system performance and want to take the time to share with those who are considering adding a new storage device.
Always skeptical of the magic SSD has had on people between the marketing and the hype, I've chimed in from time to time with my opinions of SSD. Mainly because of the price per gigabyte did not match the overall performance gain, my opinion of course, for non-enterprise usage. By all means if you can afford a high capacity SSD, what I have to say is not for you.
So, I finally bought a NAND flash SSD. Fresh Win7 install with appropriate system settings and updated drivers all around. But, it's exactly as I expected it to be. Ran a few benchmarks and adjusted a few settings to conclude there is not a dramatic difference between the two for what I use them for. (HTPC/WEB)
The SSD does improve the responsiveness of the OS and applications do launch slightly quicker. For $57 shipped, it was a bargain.
At $70 my high-density HDD was a much better value for the price per GB. But what about performance? It's no slouch, loading apps in a second, it's much more responsive than my old WD250, and even has an impressive boot time. HD-HDD, it's not your same old HDD.
Price per GB, these were both a good value for their respective performance. Been there, done that, got the SSD T-Shirt. For the price I paid for my SSD, now may be the time to add one to your system too. Or not.
SSD $57 Mushkin 60gb Chronos
HDD $70 Samsung 2tb EcoGreen F4 |
|
| The only down side is if you consider you are essentially wasting a lot of space on your conventional HDD to make your idea work then you will realize it's really not that cost effective. |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA
2 edits | Nothing wasted. Two partitions. Small partition on the outer edge for OS and Apps. The other partition is for media.
I use HD Tune to map the performance curve to base the size of the partition. |
|
| reply to SysOp
IMHO, SSDs are most useful for operations that can take advantage of quick seek times. One good example of that would be handling big databases with lots of concurrent reads/writes, something like an airline reservation system.
--
Wacky Races 2012! |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA
2 edits | Ideal for an enterprise environment, when it becomes I/O per second rather than GB per sec. Also less heat which means less cooling for even more power savings on top of already reduced power usage. |
|
|
|
| reply to SysOp
That is technically not short-stroking the drive. You can do it without partitioning the drive, the end result would be pretty much the same. The key to short-stroking is that you limit your larger size drive to only use the outer tracks for performance. You don't put data on the inner tracks at all. We all know partition to partition copy is a pain in the ass and when you load files from the inner tracks you take a hit when you do other things (file copy from data partition to NAS/Ext/etc. and you will lag to death). |
|
1 edit | reply to SysOp
You might look into a Segate Momentus XT drive...
It's got the best of both worlds....
4GB or 6GB SSD Type Cache for fast reads, 32 Mb Cache 7200/7400RPM for relatively fast writes..
And costs a heck of a lot less than a SSD for a 500/750Gb drive.
--
Looking for 1939 Indian Motocycle |
|
 pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI | reply to SysOp
Do you really know what the average user's storage requirements are? If you don't, you are basically just speaking for yourself, aren't you? 
--
My Site |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA | Average users storage requirements? The average is cheap. ha! |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA Reviews:
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| reply to Jan Janowski
The hybrid drives are a neat concept. Good for laptops that only have space for one storage device. I understand they use an algorithm to move the most frequently used files into flash. Might even replace HDD as we know them permanently. I would consider one, if the price was right!
I wonder if the flash fails, do you still have the traditional platter to fall back on? |
|
 XT0RTS3x, Drugs, War
join:2001-07-28
Edmonton, AB | reply to Jan Janowski
said by Jan Janowski:You might look into a Segate Momentus XT drive...
It's got the best of both worlds....
4GB or 6GB SSD Type Cache for fast reads, 32 Mb Cache 7200/7400RPM for relatively fast writes..
And costs a heck of a lot less than a SSD for a 500/750Gb drive.
New 750GB's have 8GB of SSD Cache.
--
Core i7 2720QM : GTX 460M (485M R.I.P) : 16GB DDR3-1333 : 320GB x 2 in RAID 0 : Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1
Anonymous posts are filtered. |
|
 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to SysOp
My wife has a Momentus XT, and while it boosted the responsive quite a bit (the default drive was a 5400rpm throwaway), it's no where near the boost I have from putting my OS on an SSD.
Say what you want about the minute boost you get from an SSD from a benchmarking perspective, but the overall enhanced experience is what sells SSDs. It's a real, tangible increase in computer responsiveness--probably the largest your average user will ever see.
Also not considered is the level of technical comprehension needed to do what you do when it comes to short-stroking and monitoring the performance of your HDDs. For the majority of users (and enthusiasts), it's simply better to buy the SSD.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening. |
|
pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI | reply to SysOp
said by SysOp:Average users storage requirements? The average is cheap. ha!
So, then wouldn't the SSD you listed be better for them? It's $10 less.
--
My Site |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Google Voice
 ·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to SysOp
I migrated from a 1 TB mechanical drive to a 256 GB SSD and never looked back. When my 256 GB drive became too small, I bought a 512 GB drive. Which is great.
Mixing mechanical and SSD is like being a little pregnant. Essentially you still have a mechanical system, and get the performance of a mechanical system. I'm not surprised you aren't seeing gains in performance from your SSD.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA | reply to pog
Or cheap could mean cost per GB. |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA Reviews:
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | reply to pandora
Storage for what? Games? NAS? Database?
That sounds like expensive storage for my personal PC usage, music, movies and office applications.
I have an SSD. And a good one at that. But as expected, it didn't make my multimedia experience any better. It does boot my system 5 seconds faster. |
|
pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI | reply to SysOp
said by SysOp:Or cheap could mean cost per GB.
Why would cost per GB matter to someone that has no need for large space? This is why I asked if you knew what the average user needs.
--
My Site |
|
 OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | said by pog:said by SysOp:Or cheap could mean cost per GB.
Why would cost per GB matter to someone that has no need for large space? This is why I asked if you knew what the average user needs. Exactly, one of my most used systems (Core i7 920 / Asus P6T Deluxe) has been running Windows on an OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD for some time now. I forget how long but the Windows folder says ýcreated Monday, July 13, 2009. The last few system builds (Core i5 2500K / Asus P8P67 Pro and Core i7 3930K / Asus P9X79 Deluxe as well as an OEM Asus Eee EP121 Tablet PC) have had no mechanical drives using instead various SSD configurations not exceeding 256GB.
I could probably put up to 720GB of SSD storage in one system right now in a RAID 0 array possibly ~960GB soon (4x240GB) but I don’t typically need that kind of local storage right now.
My local Home Server has about ~14TB of storage though. Obviously I’ve been using conventional HDD storage on the server because there storage space in terms of quantity is a little more important to me. Also note that since this storage is accessed across the home network the actual speed of the drive is less of a concern.
In other words use the appropriate storage where it makes sense for you as an individual.
Also,…
said by Krisnatharok:Say what you want about the minute boost you get from an SSD from a benchmarking perspective, but the overall enhanced experience is what sells SSDs. It's a real, tangible increase in computer responsiveness--probably the largest your average user will ever see.
I’d have to agree with this. Tangible differences that can empirically be detected even by some of the most uninitiated users shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Also a budget system means a compromise in some respect. |
|
| reply to SysOp
By watching sales, I was able to pickup 500Gb XT's for $100 give or take $10.... Have 2 in Wife's laptop.
Going from Vista to W7-64, swapping from old drive to XT 500's, swapped a faster CPU, and Upgrading Ram from 4 to 6Gb was like a brand new computer.. at 1/4 a new computer price... with same drive, ram specs...
Had I done same thing with SSD, it would have cost far more..
I just recently picked up a 750Gb XT2 drive for $136.. those prices are falling, now, too...
If a 500--750Gb SSD was as cost effective as the XT's are.... Yes, I would have gone that route...
But it wasn't.... So I didn't...... Though if they become cost effective... I'll probably Jump to an SSD.
I've recently been putting multiple XT drives in Servers, for use as Cache Drives, or Cache Database Drives... Gave that a kick in the pants speedup too!
--
Looking for 1939 Indian Motocycle |
|
SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Douglasville, GA Reviews:
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| reply to Octavean
You are no where close to being an average user!
You listed:
Core i7 920 / Asus P6T Deluxe
Core i5 2500K / Asus P8P67 Pro
Core i7 3930K / Asus P9X79 Deluxe
Home Server has about ~14TB of storage
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 64GB (3x)
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 128GB (1x)
Corsair Force Series 3 120GB (2x)
Crucial M4 256GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex 2 120GB (1x)
OCZ Vertex Plus 240GB (2x)
OCZ Octane 128GB (1x)
OCZ Agility 60GB (1x)
SanDisk 64GB mSATA (OEM on Asus Eee Slate EP121 Windows 7 Tablet PC) |
|
