Question about SSD's

[Tyrianth]

I was looking into getting a SSD installed into my macbook, but after reading around these forums a lot of people go with a SSD + HHD. Why have both? Do you have to have both or is just because SSD's are so expensive?

[Tokas]

hdd=free shitloads of space
sdd=freaking expensive and no space (but speed)
so ppl got both for speed (sdd) and space (hdd)

[Beress]

IIRC, SSD's have limited writes before the drive starts to degrade, so you would really only want it for something like your O/S with day-to-day apps and games on a regular HD.

[BicycleMafioso]

I was looking into getting a SSD installed into my macbook, but after reading around these forums a lot of people go with a SSD + HHD. Why have both? Do you have to have both or is just because SSD's are so expensive?

Because SSDs are not for storage; They are for performance.

For reference, I have a 1TB and a 2TB-drive for storage, but I only have a 60GB SSD. Yet, the SSD costs 2,53 USD/GB, while the 2TB costs 0,05 USD/GB.

In a laptop who usually only have one drive-bay, I'd go only an SSD, and in fact, I will on my upcomming one.

[coldfiredragon]

SSD have a few problems

1) Price.
2) Limited writes before they stop working.

So what people will do is get a SSD to store the OS on since it does not change a lot, it will maximize boot times and OS related performance then they use a large normal drive for all their other stuff.

[BicycleMafioso]

IIRC, SSD's have limited writes before the drive starts to degrade, so you would really only want it for something like your O/S with day-to-day apps and games on a regular HD.

Sure. You could write to some of them for 10 years continually before they start to break, though :P Whereas a HDD would be bust ages ago by that time.
New-generation SSDs last longer than HDDs (generalisation)

[Bitlovin]

I was looking into getting a SSD installed into my macbook, but after reading around these forums a lot of people go with a SSD + HHD. Why have both? Do you have to have both or is just because SSD's are so expensive?

Trust me when I say that the speed of an SSD is so worth it. I run my OS / apps / games off it, running WoW 12+ hours a day for a year on my SSD and no hint of a problem, ever. I think the "limited writes" stuff you hear is 99% rumor.

That said, I do keep an external USB 500gb traditional hard drive for media storage.... SSD's just aren't that spacious.

[Oursaviour]

I can only guess, but maybe they want the SSD for the operating system, wow and such, and the traditional HDD for storage of music, movies etc

[Deleted]

IIRC, SSD's have limited writes before the drive starts to degrade, so you would really only want it for something like your O/S with day-to-day apps and games on a regular HD.

Most SSD's 'cells' have sufficiently long lifespans that it takes a very long time before wear becomes a problem. Measurable in years, even decades for the normal user.

I think the "limited writes" stuff you hear is 99% rumor.

No, its an inherited limitation of the technology itself. However its a non-issue for normal users, even enterprise systems typically don't worry about it.

[BicycleMafioso]

Trust me when I say that the speed of an SSD is so worth it. I run my OS / apps / games off it, running WoW 12+ hours a day for a year on my SSD and no hint of a problem, ever. I think the "limited writes" stuff you hear is 99% rumor.

No, it's a fact.
It was way worse in the older generations
But in the new generations, and after TRIM, not to mention their experience in building them, they last a lot longer.

[Tyrianth]

Ok so i have two options get one big SSD and ditch the HHD, or get a smaller SSD ditch my optical drive and remount the stock HDD there.

I can live without the optical drive, and money isn't an issue for a larger SSD.

Edit: scratch that, i was looking at the wrong price the 480GB SSD is over $900 >.> I guess I'll go without an optical drive XD

[Deleted]

It was way worse in the older generations

Actually not necessarily true. Larger lithography processes have better endurance; but newer SSDs tend to have better wear leveling. Exactly which ends up being better varies a bit from drive to drive; but new generation drives are theoretically going to wear out sooner.

[Detheavn]

I've got a SSD for the OS (windows 7) partition and an HDD for the rest.

Windows loads in approx 5 to 7 seconds from a cold boot, I think

[Donax]

it's funny everyone thinks that the SSD are worth the performance yes they are faster because seek times are reduced.. but to me I don't see it being cost effective NOW. In the future when software is written with SSD as the storage then i can see it but saving 10sec on OS startup and .10 sec to open programs. I dont see it.

Don't get me wrong when we get more stable SSD and software that is program to load from SSD yes you may see the benefit. but I'll stick with the old HDD having 4TB for the cost of 400MB of SSD

[Deleted]

Ok so i have two options get one big SSD and ditch the HHD, or get a smaller SSD ditch my optical drive and remount the stock HDD there.

SSDs, even large ones - don't really have the capacity to serve as a storage drive. Your case should be able to handle one SSD and one HDD though along with an optical drive.

and .10 sec to open programs. I dont see it.

Its a little more than that on application opening speeds, and keep in mind - SSD users never defragment (Since some people are paranoid about this). Besides, that logic can be applied to most computer hardware - especially processors, graphics cards, and peoples tendency to overbuy RAM. The most common computer uses are bottlenecked completely by the systems storage medium.

[Tyrianth]

SSDs, even large ones - don't really have the capacity to serve as a storage drive. Your case should be able to handle one SSD and one HDD though along with an optical drive.

Ya I'm going to do that probably, something similar to this setup:

http://forkbombr.net/ssd-life-in-the-fast-lane/

[BicycleMafioso]

Actually not necessarily true. Larger lithography processes have better endurance; but newer SSDs tend to have better wear leveling. Exactly which ends up being better varies a bit from drive to drive; but new generation drives are theoretically going to wear out sooner.

Very true. But that's why generalisations, even this one, are always bad.

[Donax]

SSDs, even large ones - don't really have the capacity to serve as a storage drive. Your case should be able to handle one SSD and one HDD though along with an optical drive.

Its a little more than that on application opening speeds, and keep in mind - SSD users never defragment (Since some people are paranoid about this). Besides, that logic can be applied to most computer hardware - especially processors, graphics cards, and peoples tendency to overbuy RAM. The most common computer uses are bottlenecked completely by the systems storage medium.

it's true that computers are bottlenecked at storage mediums but any benchmarks i've seen haven't made me want to spend excess money on little performance increase. I can cold start to wow login in screen in about 2 minutes right now.. I personally don't think an extra $400 to be able to do it in 1 minutes is worth it.

[Deleted]

I personally don't think an extra $400 to be able to do it in 1 minutes is worth it.

If you're getting $400, you need to change stores, you're paying close to double the average user.

[Donax]

If you're getting $400, you need to change stores, you're paying close to double the average user.

Most SSD that are good quality ive seen have been about $350-$400.. sure they have them for $150-200 but hell even at $200 it's not a big enough performance increase for me.