SSD's significant performance boost?

[shaithis]

Yes, and then you lose power-saving hibernation support. Which is a bit of a backwards peddle since SSDs are suppose to represent magical power saving properties.

Most people (including the OP) are more concerned with performance over power saving though.

I would expect HTPC and laptop owners (and the overly-zealous eco-warriors) to be the only people likely to get into the power saving options.

[aidanjt]

Most people (including the OP) are more concerned with performance over power saving though.

I would expect HTPC and laptop owners (and the overly-zealous eco-warriors) to be the only people likely to get into the power saving options.

True. But then at the performance price range. You're better off getting high density drives and RAID0'ing them up. Even a bunch of 300GB velociraptors are cheaper than many of Intel's ZOMGFASTLOLZSSDs. And they'll last much, much, much, much longer.

[Singh400]

What 20GB? No way, I'm gonna go right ahead and dispute that, I will post the size of my C:\Windows when I get home. I think it's just under 10GB. Running Vista x64 Ultimate here. I know Vista is a big fat child, but 20GB? No way!

So I'm at home right now, and the size is 19.4GB. BUT I've had this installaton running for a while and most of that space is taken up the WinSXS - SideBySide feature.

Compare it to a clean install of Vista SP2 Beta, which is 13.8GB.

[Clunk]

So I'm at home right now, and the size is 19.4GB. BUT I've had this installaton running for a while and most of that space is taken up the WinSXS - SideBySide feature.

Compare it to a clean install of Vista SP2 Beta, which is 13.8GB.

Is that the c:\windows folder or the entire partition?

I also notice you have less memory than I do, so that will make it use less space.

[Singh400]

Both are just C:\Windows (%SYSTEMROOT%).

[Funkstar]

Thats not a fair test then. Even on a clean install there is quite a lot od data in "Program Files", "Program Files (x86)" "ProgramData" and "Users".

[Clunk]

Both are just C:\Windows (%SYSTEMROOT%).

Yep, so it looks like your 13.8GB install is more like my 19GB then as your hibernation files and page file are in the root of the drive too.

[this_is_gav]

A clean Vista Ultimate x64 install with 8gb RAM is 16.5gb on the first install, with no updates or 3rd party drivers, and including the 8gb page file.

The Program Files directory is 500mb, Program Files (x86) is 300mb and the Users folder is 250mb (210mb of which is the standard included video, music and pictures).

[TheAnimus]

True. But then at the performance price range. You're better off getting high density drives and RAID0'ing them up. Even a bunch of 300GB velociraptors are cheaper than many of Intel's ZOMGFASTLOLZSSDs. And they'll last much, much, much, much longer.

At the risk of descending into a how small is your 64bit partition, and making me feel left out that i've only got 4gig of ram in my main desktop, lets try and go back on topic.

Aidanjt here is kinda on the mark with its about how much performance you need, vrs size for your dosh.

Fact is i've had plenty of spindle drives fail, a collegue of mine lost one this week (good to know he keeps everything checked in TFS ) When i was running a RAID5 of 15k scsi beasts i was glad i had the parity.

But, velociraptors aren't anything like the performance of an x25-E. We've got a RAID of them on my primary calculation server, i kinda use them as swap. They swamped the RAID controller, these things scale almost linearly.

If you've got the dosh, and don't mind been very select about what goes on the fast drive, and what goes on the spindle, these are great. They make the PC simply fly and just feal a lot more responsive.

And also put your bloody page file on the drive. Thats one of the main areas you can improve performance on!

[shamus21]

It is still to early yet for SSD`s prices will come down and size increase what really matters are improvements in the controllers.

[!TIMMY!]

I went for the Samsung 64gb SLC SSD for my netbook because it is quieter, cooler, uses less power and will perform better than the 80GB WD that's in there at the moment. Also I am limited to Sata 1 in my netbook.

I would wait to get one for my main PC, as my 150GB raptor is doing fine and as everyone says, the tech will get better and cheaper over time.

[ARBY]

Hi Guys, hope this isn't the wrong place to post this.

Could someone offer me advice on SSD's as I am going around in circles.

I am building a new desktop machine: Antec Mini, Asus P5QEM, Core2 E7400 (overclocked). 4gb OCZ DDR2. Probably XP32 (but I might swap to Vista 64 to utilise the whole memory). The question is what to use for hard-drives? Possible options are:
1) One 1Tb drive
2) Two 640/750 GB in a RAID 1 array
3) Three 500GB in a RAID 5 array
4) One 32 GB SSD, and one 750GB
I aim to keep the machine for 4/5 years, updating the processor etc, as and when required.

The machine will be used for all general purposes except games, but I am getting more and more impatient with Windows and Photoshop loading times.

My original plan was to use option 3, but I understand that system overheads with the built in RAID controler might mean this is actually slower than just one drive.

Current logic is use the SSD as the system drive and put data (pictures videos etc) onto the second drive; but the more research I do the less sure I am that option 4 is the most cost effective.

Any input would be much appreciated.

[shbris]

Even a bunch of 300GB velociraptors are cheaper than many of Intel's ZOMGFASTLOLZSSDs. And they'll last much, much, much, much longer.

intel ssd would be:

-quieter
-cooler
-use MUCH less power
-higher fault tolerance (MUCH higher than a raid of 10k rpm disks)
-cheaper, after the cost of a decent raid card (most cheap ones are pci bandwidth limited to 133mb/s)
-AND, probably last longer tbh, disk wear on ssd's are just scare tactics, they have just as good MTBF than spindle hard drives, if not longer, especially a risky 10k rpm raid array

[shbris]

1) One 1Tb drive
2) Two 640/750 GB in a RAID 1 array
3) Three 500GB in a RAID 5 array
4) One 32 GB SSD, and one 750GB

photoshop likes:

fast main drive
quite fast second disk for scratch file
LOADS of RAM

ATM its best to stay away from low end ssd's, ie anything other than ramdrive or ssd's with intel controller (jcmicron = stay away)

how about a 1TB for main OS and photo storage etc. with a cheap single platter drive (320GB maybe, or 500GB in a few weeks time) for backups and scratch file for photoshop

sound kosher?

[this_is_gav]

Photoshop? Ditch XP and get Vista to be honest. Photoshop loves Superfetch. Unless you load it straight from Windows boot, then it'll load quicker on Vista with a traditional mechanical hard drive than it would on XP with an SSD.

[aidanjt]

intel ssd would be:

-quieter - by virtue of having no moving parts, yes.
-cooler - wrong - the same sized hard drive will consume roughly the same amount of energy as it's being used, hence, will produce roughly the same amount of heat.
-use MUCH less power - wrong - ditto
-higher fault tolerance (MUCH higher than a raid of 10k rpm disks) - wrong wrong wrong
-cheaper, after the cost of a decent raid card (most cheap ones are pci bandwidth limited to 133mb/s) - wrong, oh so horribly wrong. Modern northbridge SATA controllers are on the PCIe bus.
-AND, probably last longer tbh, disk wear on ssd's are just scare tactics, they have just as good MTBF than spindle hard drives, if not longer, especially a risky 10k rpm raid array - Completely, and utterly, utterly wrong. WD didn't put a 5 year warrenty on their (veloci)raptors because of e-peen, they did so because the vast majority of them will live at *least* that long. They did the math, and they care about holding onto their money. That's what businesses do. SSDs otoh really do kill themselves and your data as they're being used, which is why they come with practically no manufacturer warrenty.