PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

HDD or SSD as primary storage

 
 
Noob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12th Mar 2012
Joseph Terner wrote:
> Noob wrote:
>> Arno wrote:

>
>>> [...] Also, some SSDs start
>>> to limit the write speed to very low speeds at some point in order
>>> to reach their promised lifetimes.

> [...]
>>
>> Isn't this the problem that TRIM is supposed to solve?

>
> TRIM doesn't solve the problem with limited write cycles of flash memory.
> As SSD manufacturer you have two options:
>
> 1. Allow the maximum write speed and the drive dies within weeks.


Meh... too much hyperbole.

cf. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/6

Naive calculation (assuming perfect wear-leveling, no write amplification,
and 5k erase cycles) one can write ~1 PB to a 256-GB SSD.

(That's 275 GB per day over 10 years.)

More on so-called "High Endurance" cells:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4807/i...the-enterprise
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-e,3038-4.html

Regards.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12th Mar 2012
On 12/03/2012 7:14 PM, Daniel Prince wrote:
> a1pcfixer<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>>> Do any of the current laptop computers allow the user to install a
>>> HD and a SSD simultaneously?

>>
>> Not exactly as you worded it, but yes you can order some that way new.
>> I'd then put ONLY the OS on the SSD/boot drive, and EVERYTHING else on
>> the HDD.

>
> What about the EXE files of programs that you use frequently?
>
> What size of SSD would you order if you used Windows 7 64 bit?
>
> What size of SSD would you order if you used Windows 7 64 bit and
> Linux?



SSD only come in limited sizes - large 240Gb

Cost a bit under $1 /GB

HDD cost about 7c /Gb

your choice

The slowest part of a PC now within an average system is the HDD.

What advantages do SSD have within the system as a whole are they worth
the extra cost for a faster boot time?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Krypsis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12th Mar 2012
On 12/03/2012 5:57 PM, Daniel Prince wrote:
> Arno<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It depends on your usage patterns. If you do not write a lot
>> (normal usage), an SSD should be fine for 3-10 years, difficult
>> to say exactly at this time.

>
> Do any of the current laptop computers allow the user to install a
> HD and a SSD simultaneously? If some did, that would allow the user
> to use a SSD where speed is really needed and use a HD for files
> that are written to frequently.


My 5+ year old Toshiba Qosmio has provision for two hard drives. It was
originally equipped with 2 x 160 GB Toshiba drives. I have since
replaced them with 2 500 GB units from Western Digital. The interesting
point is that the new drives are faster, use half the current and
(obviously) have 3 times the capacity. Battery life has been noticeably
extended. I don't know if the all the SSDs are of the same form factor
or if they have the same interface but it should be possible to do as
you request. The only SSD I have seen was in a netbook and that seemed
to be nothing more than a tiny circuit board.

Don't know if the new Qosmio laptops (more a desktop replacement really)
are similarly equipped. It is the only laptop I know of with provision
for two internal drives though I have no doubt there may be others.

--

Krypsis
 
Reply With Quote
 
Group Admin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      14th Mar 2012
I had another thought/question...

If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. If this is so,
it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.

Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
new laptop is concerned). And I continue to be grateful for all the
previous info. So thanks again on that.

But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
the info shared previously.

Regards,
--Thri

On Mar 12, 1:46*am, thricipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> To one and all who replied. *Thank you so much. *Abundantly helpful.
> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
> stick with HDD's.
> :
> [snip]
> :

 
Reply With Quote
 
thricipio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      14th Mar 2012
I *am* curious about one thing, though: what are the implications of
what's been discussed for the many mobile devices (e.g., smartphones
and tablets) currently in use? That is, I believe their memory uses
the same underlying solid-state technology; yet, I haven't heard of
any memory-related problems. I wonder why not!

Thanks again for all your help.
—Thri

On Mar 12, 1:46*am, thricipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> To one and all who replied. *Thank you so much. *Abundantly helpful.
> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
> stick with HDD's.
> :
> [snip]
> :

 
Reply With Quote
 
Arno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      15th Mar 2012
Group Admin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I had another thought/question...


> If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
> would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. If this is so,
> it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
> especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
> Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.


Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
management or wear-leveling.

> Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
> forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
> new laptop is concerned). And I continue to be grateful for all the
> previous info. So thanks again on that.


> But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
> the info shared previously.


There are none.

Arno




> Regards,
> --Thri


> On Mar 12, 1:46?am, thricipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> To one and all who replied. ?Thank you so much. ?Abundantly helpful.
>> For my purposes, my conclusion, based on your input: I'm going to
>> stick with HDD's.
>> :
>> [snip]
>> :


--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
 
Reply With Quote
 
thricipio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      16th Mar 2012
Okay, thanks. I sort of see what you're saying.

Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
however long I'd like to use the device.

It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?

Anyway, thanks again. --Thri


On Mar 15, 3:17*am, Arno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Group Admin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I had another thought/question...
> > If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
> > would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. *If this is so,
> > it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
> > especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
> > Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.

>
> Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
> much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
> possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
> then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
> management or wear-leveling.
>
> > Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
> > forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
> > new laptop is concerned). *And I continue to be grateful for all the
> > previous info. *So thanks again on that.
> > But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
> > the info shared previously.

>
> There are none.
>
> Arno

 
Reply With Quote
 
Arno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      16th Mar 2012
thricipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Okay, thanks. I sort of see what you're saying.


> Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
> based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
> correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
> the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
> other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
> however long I'd like to use the device.


This should not be a problem, yes.

> It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
> the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
> limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
> period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?


Depends. It may also be that some devices do it better than others.
However I would expect that basically all will have wear-leveling
and some kind of defect management.

5 years is the usual device lifetime for nomal usage.

That said, it may well be possible to write an App that
does destroy your storage a lot faster, but it would
have to be intention or a high level of stupidity. Which
can be observed in the wild. This still is new technology
and cannot be expected to be completely reliable.

Arno



> Anyway, thanks again. --Thri



> On Mar 15, 3:17?am, Arno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Group Admin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > I had another thought/question...
>> > If I'm not mistaken, SSD's use the same basic technology that one
>> > would find in smartphones and tablet computers, etc. ?If this is so,
>> > it seems one would expect to see memory failures in these devices,
>> > especially once a given model has been in use for a period of time.
>> > Yet, I've heard no reports along these lines.

>>
>> Your model is flawed. These use different filesystems with
>> much reduced stress on the storage and avoid writing wherever
>> possible. You can do that for Linux (e.g.) as well and
>> then get years of usage on FLASH storage without defect
>> management or wear-leveling.
>>
>> > Mostly, I'm just curious about this; I'm sticking with my decision to
>> > forego the SSD experience for the time being (at least as far as my
>> > new laptop is concerned). ?And I continue to be grateful for all the
>> > previous info. ?So thanks again on that.
>> > But... I *am* interested in the implications for mobile devices, of
>> > the info shared previously.

>>
>> There are none.
>>
>> Arno


--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      19th Mar 2012
thricipio wrote:

> Part of my curiosity centers around interest in getting an Android-
> based tablet, hopefully, in the near future. And if I understand you
> correctly, then I shouldn't need to worry about adding media files to
> the storage, and maybe erasing some of them, and replacing them with
> other files, and maybe doing this repeatedly over the course of
> however long I'd like to use the device.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that given the nature of the device, and
> the Android OS, the fact that FLASH memory has a certain rewrite
> limit, wouldn't really matter in terms of practical usage over a
> period of years... say 5 years? More? Less?


On a related note, you may enjoy reading about file systems designed
specifically to deal with flash memory, such as UBIFS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...id_state_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBIFS

Regards.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thricipio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      20th Mar 2012
Thank you. I'll check this out.

And thanks to Arno for his last reply (Mar 16). --Thri

On Mar 19, 5:25*am, Noob <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On a related note, you may enjoy reading about file systems designed
> specifically to deal with flash memory, such as UBIFS.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...systems_optimi...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBIFS
>
> Regards.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Win7->SSD, or Win7->HDD->SSD Yousuf Khan Storage Devices 7 28th Apr 2013 01:36 AM
Re: Win7->SSD, or Win7->HDD->SSD Mr. Man-wai Chang Storage Devices 2 19th Apr 2013 09:24 PM
Adata S510 120GB SSD User Review & SSD Tips n Trick BenchZowner User Reviews 2 15th Jun 2012 07:21 PM
SSD or no SSD (Solid State Drive)? x64 or x32? RayLopez99 DIY PC 1 18th Jun 2010 12:46 PM
Storage System - SSD or PODS (Plain Old Drive System) Mobile Application Developer (MAD) Windows XP General 3 22nd Jan 2010 07:26 PM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.