Using a boot SSD and an additional SSD for mass storage worth it?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Spicyryan

Commendable
Mar 21, 2016
4
0
1,510
It is past time to upgrade my computer so I will be putting one together towards the end of the year.

Generally I have just gone the common route of a ~250GB SSD for the OS and certain applications with an HDD for mass storage.

However, I saw that Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD is going for a great price of $229. I was thinking of just ponying up and replacing the mass storage HDD with it.
Which made me wonder if it is worth using a 250GB 850 EVO (Pro doesn't seem worth it the $30) with the 1TB Mushkin or if it made no difference or if I even come out ahead from solely using the Mushkin.

I suppose durability comes into play too. Recording ingame with Fraps writes GB after GB of data to the drive at a time, but even then I doubt I would have an issue. Right?
 
Solution
geofelt
Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick. They will be 50X faster than a hard drive.
In sequential operations, they will be 2x faster than a hard drive, perhaps 3x if you have a sata3 interface.
Larger SSD's are preferable. They have more nand chips that can be accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0 if you will.
Also, a SSD will...
Sort by date Sort by votes
mjslakeridge

mjslakeridge

Splendid
Mar 6, 2013
3,386
4
21,965
If you need lots of storage space and are willing to spend $229, you could get 2x2GB for less than that (assuming you have 2 remaining sata ports). As Jared said, for general purpose storage you will not notice the difference in performance.

Now if you were setting up an audio recording workstation, then the OS could go on SSD #1, sample library on SSD#2, and session files on a HHD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Spicyryan

Commendable
Mar 21, 2016
4
0
1,510


I planned on keeping pictures, movies, music, video capture from games, etc on the larger SSD.

Is it really not going to be noticable over an HDD?
Keeping tons of music in one folder unless I go through and organize it all creates a long seek time in the folder as it populates the list of files. I have it broken down by band and album in one folder and then collectively all in the "my music folder" in order to keep new unlistened to or undesired music out of my Sonos library, but still have the music. Basically anything in the My Music folder goes into my Sonos library and the entire discographies of bands goes into another folder. I figured an SSD over an HDD would at least help with that.

I didn't think about putting two HDDs into RAID. :Q
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,144
174,240
I think I would pay a bit more for quality and buy the Samsung 1tb evo if the capacity satisfies your needs.
Samsung makes their own nand chips and can control quality better.
Samsung has a 5 year warranty vs. 3 for the mushkin.

If you will be storing large files such as videos, repurpose your old hard drive for that.
One single large drive for both the os and apps will be easier to manage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Spicyryan

Commendable
Mar 21, 2016
4
0
1,510


Old SSD and HDD aren't being used. It be a new drive for the build. Old stuff is old.

I could use a 250GB 850 Evo and the 1TB Mushkin for the same price as the 1TB Evo. Otherwise I would just go with a 500GB EVO with an HDD for mass storage. Just trying to make sense of the options in terms of price and performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mjslakeridge

mjslakeridge

Splendid
Mar 6, 2013
3,386
4
21,965
500GB is awfully large for a boot drive, unless you have tons of programs that you run. IMO 250 GB seems to be the sweet spot for a boot drive now in terms of price/performance.

Also, consider an external drive of some sort for storing backup image(s) of your boot drive, plus important files on the storage drive (unless you already have that covered).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,144
174,240


Ultimately, how much do you think would be stored on the ssd, and how much on the hard drive?

A reasonable solution might be to use a 500gb ssd for the os and apps,
Then, as it fills up, add a hard drive for large sequential files such as videos.
If you do buy a hard drive, make it large enough. WD red is a very good unit for storage.

Considering your apparent budget, and the ssd prices coming down, I might suggest the Samsung evo 1tb drive and defer on a hard drive until you have a video folder of sufficient size to warrant moving to a hard drive.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Spicyryan

Commendable
Mar 21, 2016
4
0
1,510


This is true, but it would mean I would never have to pick between installing anything to the HDD now or in the future. I could also skip rerouting the desktop and certain libraries to the HDD like I do now with my crucial 240GB.

I currently have an older HDD in an enclosure making backups every few days through Veeam and another holding movies and a collection of older files saved before reinstalls of Windows I never seem to go through as well. But man I wish the transfer speeds for large transfers didn't feel so slow.
I probably should just pony up for a Synology NAS and be done with it. Then again I am just trying to build a PC and not go nuts with a NAS and a rocket ship :|



Is the 70-$90 (The Muskin was just $209/1TB) worth it for the Samsung? Obviously it is a better and faster drive, but is it noticeable? Comparatively is using an HDD for mass storage over an SSD noticeable in that regard? I guess that would make the call easy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,144
174,240
Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick. They will be 50X faster than a hard drive.
In sequential operations, they will be 2x faster than a hard drive, perhaps 3x if you have a sata3 interface.
Larger SSD's are preferable. They have more nand chips that can be accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0 if you will.
Also, a SSD will slow down as it approaches full. That is because it will have a harder time finding free nand blocks to do an update without a read/write operation.

Worth is something only YOU can determine.
I have a method to pick between equally performing products.
Go to Newegg and find the candidates.
Filter on the reviews by verified buyers.
Then look at what percent of the reviews have zero or one eggs indicating some sort of a problem.
In particular, look at the reasons for a bad review. Some are not very valid, so exclude those.

The only reason to use a Hard drive over a SSD is the cost per gb of the storage.
Performance, reliability, heat, size, you name it favors the ssd.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom