Intel 240 GB SSD drives are now $150


Ad

Advertisements

L

Lynn McGuire

Still too small for that price. I will still use HDD for huge storages. :p
240 GB is an excellent size for a boot drive.
The speed of the O/S is amazing when running
off a SSD drive.

And then you can put a 4 TB drive in as a data
drive.

Lynn
 
C

cjt

240 GB is an excellent size for a boot drive.
The speed of the O/S is amazing when running
off a SSD drive.

And then you can put a 4 TB drive in as a data
drive.

Lynn
For my money, 120 GB at slightly more than half the price is a better
choice for a boot drive. Another even better alternative is mirrored
120 GB drives for just a tad more than the 240.

Actually, I think 60 GB should be plenty for a boot drive, but the 120's
don't cost much more because of their popularity.
 
R

Rod Speed

cjt said:
For my money, 120 GB at slightly more than half the price is a better
choice for a boot drive. Another even better alternative is mirrored 120
GB drives for just a tad more than the 240.
Actually, I think 60 GB should be plenty for a boot drive,
Not for me. Even 100GB is too small.
but the 120's don't cost much more because of their popularity.
Still too small IMO.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cjt

For Windows versions that require the hibernation file to be in
the system partition, how do you hibernate a 32GB system?
I try to avoid Windows, but that said, surely even Windows doesn't need
to save every bit of RAM in order to hibernate. Spent buffers, etc.,
can be discarded.
Also, some consumer SSDs like being only 1/2 or 1/3 full, depending
on how many bits per cell, so you only want to use 1/2 or 1/3 of the
SSD anyhow.
I try to avoid SSDs with serious performance issues to the extent
possible; life is too short. And as I said, I generally opt for the
120GB drives, anyway, because the incremental cost tends to be low. So
I don't recall ever encountering the issue.

I consider boot drives to be expendable, with important stuff belonging
on file servers, except sometimes while actually being worked on (for
reasons of computational efficiency). One tries to keep expendables
cheap; hence, I try not to dramatically oversize boot drives.

The way I work (typically with video), I might pull down a half dozen GB
to a workstation (that takes what? a minute or two?), work on it for a
while (perhaps an hour) and then put it back on the server. Smaller
tasks can work directly off of files that stay on the server, with only
buffer files being on the local machine.

The SSDs that matter in my scenario are the log files on the server, and
those aren't all that large. They're fairly small, very fast, and
mirrored. They, too, are expendable (as long as not all the mirrors die
at once!).

So I guess the bottom line is that it depends on the kind of work you
do. If for some reason you need to carry everything with you, the
balance might be different. But even then, I would have a small SSD as
"boot drive" and a large(-ish), preferably redundant, hard disk for data.

JMHO, YMMV
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top