- Sep 5, 2013
- 26
- 0
- 10,530
Hi all,
There's been something plaguing my mind for years now, and I haven't come to ask it until now.
I'm quite familiar with the machine setup of placing your OS and Applications on your SSD, and your media on your HDD alongside. For performance while being able access terabytes of information.
Here's where my confusion hits...is it really worth it?
Storage and I/O bottlenecks. SSD's reach **very fast** speeds in operation, but they are only as fast as the slowest bottleneck.
If I have 4 TB of movies on my HDD, and my media player is on my SSD...my machine still has to process information from that HDD and it can only go as fast as the speed of the HDD right?
If I'm playing a movie that is located on that HDD, it would need to continuously feed bits of information from the HDD to the media player on the SSD rendering the performance only as fast as the HDD....which is significantly slower than the SSD.
When I think about it like that, if feels like there is no added benefit of the SSD...unless I was to copy over my files to the SSD so they could run natively on that SSD, or mitigate the issue by making the media drive a larger SSD (which is expensive and possibly impractical).
So, here is where I turn to you to hopefully prove me wrong and clear my confusion once and for all.
Please let me know why this strategy is so popular, even in NAS setups with networked drives and all. As I do not see the performance boost with the impending bottleneck that is the HDD.
There's been something plaguing my mind for years now, and I haven't come to ask it until now.
I'm quite familiar with the machine setup of placing your OS and Applications on your SSD, and your media on your HDD alongside. For performance while being able access terabytes of information.
Here's where my confusion hits...is it really worth it?
Storage and I/O bottlenecks. SSD's reach **very fast** speeds in operation, but they are only as fast as the slowest bottleneck.
If I have 4 TB of movies on my HDD, and my media player is on my SSD...my machine still has to process information from that HDD and it can only go as fast as the speed of the HDD right?
If I'm playing a movie that is located on that HDD, it would need to continuously feed bits of information from the HDD to the media player on the SSD rendering the performance only as fast as the HDD....which is significantly slower than the SSD.
When I think about it like that, if feels like there is no added benefit of the SSD...unless I was to copy over my files to the SSD so they could run natively on that SSD, or mitigate the issue by making the media drive a larger SSD (which is expensive and possibly impractical).
So, here is where I turn to you to hopefully prove me wrong and clear my confusion once and for all.
Please let me know why this strategy is so popular, even in NAS setups with networked drives and all. As I do not see the performance boost with the impending bottleneck that is the HDD.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram