Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Developing on SSD

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 23, 2012 11:58:34 AM

Hello, I was wondering if I should have any concern with developing on SSD?

Individual projects can have thousands of source files, and then when you add git or svn the grows even more.

Should this be a concern where I would want to use a normal HDD to store development work on?

(dont see sub-category for SSD listed, so thats why I'm in general)

More about : developing ssd

a c 265 G Storage
February 23, 2012 12:04:56 PM

Run the application from the SSD for faster load times and store on a HDD.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 302 G Storage
February 23, 2012 12:07:05 PM

(the subcategory is there, named ssd. Don't sweat it).

My answer is: If you have the SSD disk space for it, use the SSD.

While it is true that the general practice is to store the OS and apps on the SSD and data on an HDD, this became the general practice for two reasons. 1) SSD space is expensive, so you probably don't have enough for all your data. 2) SSDs have a limited number of write cycles. I don't care about that one, since I will probably be buying a new 0.75" SSD before I wear out my current one.

If any of your work is disk-bound, you will see an improvement moving your projects to the SSD. Even if you are simply using a build environment with thousands of source files, while you may not saturate the transfer speed of the disk the seek time may be dominating your results. Copy the project to the SSD and try a build. If it's faster than a build on the HDD, and if your time is valuable to you, work on projects on the SSD. Remember, back up often; this applies to any kind of disk.

Many people will disagree with me.
Share
Related resources
a c 265 G Storage
February 23, 2012 12:23:17 PM

Totally agree if budget is available for large enough SSD it certainly would speed up the time for development, saving and loading large amounts of DATA.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 23, 2012 12:28:34 PM

Unless you're doing distributed builds, your disk is not going to be much of a factor, if any, in your build times. Raw processor power is by far the most important factor. If the numerous writes to the SSD during a large build make you worry about its longevity, just put it on a normal HDD. You won't notice a difference in your build times one way or the other.
m
0
l
February 23, 2012 2:06:50 PM

WyomingKnott said:
(the subcategory is there, named ssd. Don't sweat it).

My answer is: If you have the SSD disk space for it, use the SSD.

While it is true that the general practice is to store the OS and apps on the SSD and data on an HDD, this became the general practice for two reasons. 1) SSD space is expensive, so you probably don't have enough for all your data. 2) SSDs have a limited number of write cycles. I don't care about that one, since I will probably be buying a new 0.75" SSD before I wear out my current one.

If any of your work is disk-bound, you will see an improvement moving your projects to the SSD. Even if you are simply using a build environment with thousands of source files, while you may not saturate the transfer speed of the disk the seek time may be dominating your results. Copy the project to the SSD and try a build. If it's faster than a build on the HDD, and if your time is valuable to you, work on projects on the SSD. Remember, back up often; this applies to any kind of disk.

Many people will disagree with me.


Thanks everyone. I bought a 240GB SSD, which I'm embarrassed to say but that is larger than my current HDD setup :)  So it's more than enough room to store everything I use/have on that SSD

You sound like you are in a similar situation, what are you expecting to be the lifetime of your drive?
m
0
l
February 23, 2012 11:12:52 PM

Best answer selected by rschmitty.
m
0
l
a c 302 G Storage
February 24, 2012 1:03:16 PM

rschmitty said:

You sound like you are in a similar situation, what are you expecting to be the lifetime of your drive?

I expect it to still be working fine when I retire it three or four years from when I put it into service. By then, 128 GB will be too small for Windows ;) 

With computer equipment, I prefer to replace it before it fails. I've only ever had three failures. One HDD, for which I had backups (except for my most recent mail. Arrgh. I spent $1,500 to get it back, and now I mirror my mail folder). One southbridge, which clearly required a rebuild. One power supply, which convinced my wife that I am a total geek, as I went up into the attic and brought down one I hadn't gotten around to using yet.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:42:09 PM

We can transfer and copy files thirteen minutes and five seconds faster than usual—just enough time to give you a head start on rush hour traffic.
m
0
l
!