SSD Advice

tpatt100

I am eventually some day in the next year or so going to *shudder* build a new PC. I have not built my own in a number of years, the last time I did it was a single core Athlon something or other and SATA drives were coming on the market.

Currently I have a Dell XPS 420 running Windows 7 64 bit. It has dual core Intel E6850 3GHZ. I replaced the Nvidia 8800 GT that came with it and installed a Radeon 5850 for gaming. I had a Radeon 4870 in it before that but this card made the desktop feel like somebody left the oven door open. It blew hot air out the back of the card like it should but it raised the temperature in my room considerably. The 5850 barely emits any heat.

Anyways I will build a new PC and will bring the blu ray drive that came with the Dell, the video card to the new machine.

I notice a lot of hard drive thrashing when I multi task on this machine. It was not always like that I figure the machine is getting older and the games now are making it work harder. I checked performance monitor and my CPU utilization is low, ram available is 1.5 gig out of the three I have.

I figure if WOW is running loading the textures and graphics is making the machine crawl, and I notice some spreadsheets in Excel load slowly (they have macros in them).

Would upgrade the IDE drive to SSD make a noticeable improvement? I was thinking of loading the OS on the SSD drive and a couple of games. I would locate the iTunes directory and my files used less often on the IDE drive which I would set up as a second drive.

demonfurbie

i know alot of the eveonline players use sd for os/game installs then have a normal platter drive for storage.

im kinda in the same boat im looking at a low size ssd (64 gig) and a 1tb platter drive

msteinhilber

I have 4 30GB OCZ Vertex Turbo drives in a RAID 0 configuration and the system certainly boots quick, programs launch very fast, back when I still played WoW I zoned very quick and didn't have issues with Dalaran taking forever to load everybody. I don't game much any longer, so other than programs loading up faster I don't really see much of a benefit between my current configuration vs. how my rig was when I just used a couple 500GB SATA disks in RAID 1.

If I were to do it again, I don't think I would invest the money in SSD's or even a single one for my boot drive - at least on a desktop computer. Once the technology becomes affordable enough that I can have a large enough amount of space available on SSD's to contain all of my data - then I would feel it's more worthwhile, when I can browse through all of my photo's I've taken without waiting for 100's of 12.1mp pictures to thumbnail.

rogue2shadow

I noticed a great improvement in my load times across the board when I upgraded from my old WD 640 blue to my OCZ Vertex 64GB. My setup is similar to what demon said with the the ssd as main and using other sata hdds as storage (though I have a WD black 1TB for reading the games *non-raided). I would definitely recommend the OCZ Vertex series to anyone interested in going SSD. There's tons of benchmarks out there for the Vertex and Vertex 2 editions of it and flash updates are quick and easy. I believe they now also support TRIM for Win7 and Garbage Collection.

MentholMoose

Yes, it will make a difference. Everything will be somewhat faster, such as booting, opening large files, running programs, and so on. I say "somewhat" because the sequential access performance of an SSD is "only" 2-4 times faster than a regular disk, so the difference for individual tasks isn't that much... in other words, they're faster, but it's probably not going to blow your mind that Firefox loads in 1 second instead of 5.

What will be dramatically faster, however, will be multitasking. You can open every program you need at the same time, with zero slowdown. You can run tons of VMs and still use your desktop like normal. Basically you can throw anything you want at it, and it likely won't slow down at all. This is because the random access performance of an SSD is 100+ times faster than a regular disk. For me, as a heavy user of VMs, this is the mind blowing improvement.

Heero

I dont know if it's enough of a difference to justify the cost difference at this point, but I have an SSD for the OS and programs that aren't huge, and I don't think I could go back.

hypnotoad

The 60 gig OCZ Vertex 2 (which is Ok) is down to $140. the intels are better. The 2tb rotationals are pretty cheap now too.

MentholMoose

hypnotoad wrote: »

The 60 gig OCZ Vertex 2 (which is Ok) is down to $140. the intels are better. The 2tb rotationals are pretty cheap now too.

The Vertex 2 (and other SandForce-based SSDs) beat the Intel MLC SSDs in almost every benchmark, and are cheaper. It even beats the much more expensive Intel SLC SSDs in many cases as well. AnandTech has a handy benchmark comparison tool, here:
Bench - SSD - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

I recently saw the 60GB Vertex 2 for $100 after a $20 rebate, so check for deals, especially now that the holiday season is upon us. The Intel SSDs are dropping in price, too, now that competition is so high.

tpatt100

I am going to look at that drive, looking around online for deals. Thanks for the information.

tiersten

The original OCZ Vertex drives which used an Indilinx controller are awful. They've got software bugs which will quietly corrupt your data if you hit certain configurations. The OCZ response is to wipe it clean and try again.

RobertKaucher

In my laptop I had an Intel 40 GB SSD for a while. Way to low in capacity for me but my computer flew like the wind and it was only a Pentium Dual. It is worth every single penny.

JDMurray

How about heat? I've heard that SSDs run very hot. Anyone have heat problems running an SSD in a fanless enclosure?

gunbunnysoulja

JDMurray wrote: »

How about heat? I've heard that SSDs run very hot. Anyone have heat problems running an SSD in a fanless enclosure?

Where did you hear they run very hot? I don't know of any that run "hot". Maybe warm, but certainly not in league with a mechanical HDD. An advantage to SSD is that they don't run hot. They are great for HTPC's in small form factors.

gunbunnysoulja

tiersten wrote: »

The original OCZ Vertex drives which used an Indilinx controller are awful. They've got software bugs which will quietly corrupt your data if you hit certain configurations. The OCZ response is to wipe it clean and try again.

I wouldn't say they are aweful, but the Intel's are certainly more reliable than the Indilinx models. I have a few 30GB Vertex's (Indilinx) that do work awesome however, so for <$100, they served their purpose well. The new Sandforce Vertex2's are definitely the way to go now IMO for price to performance ratio.

MentholMoose

JDMurray wrote: »

How about heat? I've heard that SSDs run very hot. Anyone have heat problems running an SSD in a fanless enclosure?

I would be surprised if they are worse than a regular disk in a fanless enclosure. Also I think they would be more heat tolerant considering they are stateless. Anyway as long as there is some airflow you will be OK. I have one in my laptop (Thinkpad T510) and haven't noticed any extreme heat.

tiersten

gunbunnysoulja wrote: »

I wouldn't say they are aweful, but the Intel's are certainly more reliable than the Indilinx models. I have a few 30GB Vertex's (Indilinx) that do work awesome however, so for <$100, they served their purpose well.

I've got a couple of the 120GB Vertex drives and I know people with the same series of Vertex and we've all had odd issues with it. The main issue seems to be that firmware is buggy and that certain configurations of the drive have issues. They've had several different flash chip vendors and models inside the drives and certain ones appear to be unreliable together with the Indilinx controller. The answer from OCZ as always is to completely erase the drive using their secure erase tool and then reflash it which involves several flashing procedures to go up through the versions.

Lee H

A recent thread got me thinking about my rig

How does 2 x 1 TB SATA's striped compare to 1 single SSD?

Do all SATA's in the stripe have to be the same size?

I should know all this stuff already but ive never had a support role that includes a lot of server set-ups or issues

I currently have 1 X 300Gig SATA as my OS drive and 2 X 1 TB for all my media and files etc....

So I was wondering if I went out and bought 2 X 2 TB to use as storage in a NAS box my 2 X 1 TB could be stripped for my OS

Would I see a big gain in performance and be glad I purchased 2 X 2 TB as opose to leaving all my media on my 2 X 1 TB's and spending the money on an SSD

rogue2shadow

Lee H wrote: »

A recent thread got me thinking about my rig

How does 2 x 1 TB SATA's striped compare to 1 single SSD?

Do all SATA's in the stripe have to be the same size?

I should know all this stuff already but ive never had a support role that includes a lot of server set-ups or issues

I currently have 1 X 300Gig SATA as my OS drive and 2 X 1 TB for all my media and files etc....

So I was wondering if I went out and bought 2 X 2 TB to use as storage in a NAS box my 2 X 1 TB could be stripped for my OS

Would I see a big gain in performance and be glad I purchased 2 X 2 TB as opose to leaving all my media on my 2 X 1 TB's and spending the money on an SSD

Random but directly related: If you use raid at all (correct me if im wrong), you lose garbage collection and TRIM with Windows 7.

When it comes to RAID'ing two 1TB drives it really comes down to the model (with WD Black vs Green vs Blue Caviar for example). Theres tons of benchmarks out there that show a difference but you'll probably see them testing with RAID 0. I think the bigger the drive the more access time is required? It may be a few mili seconds difference though.

RobertKaucher

JDMurray wrote: »

How about heat? I've heard that SSDs run very hot. Anyone have heat problems running an SSD in a fanless enclosure?

I experienced the opposite. My laptop runs exceptionally hot. SSD decreased that dramatically.

MentholMoose

Lee H wrote: »

A recent thread got me thinking about my rig

How does 2 x 1 TB SATA's striped compare to 1 single SSD?

The RAID 0 array may have faster sequential read and write speed than many SSDs. In every other benchmark there will be no comparison, the SSD will dominate.

Lee H wrote: »

Do all SATA's in the stripe have to be the same size?

No, they don't have to be, but the array size will be based on the smaller drive size (so a RAID 0 array with a 500GB and 1TB drive will be 1TB total, not 1.5TB).

Lee H wrote: »

So I was wondering if I went out and bought 2 X 2 TB to use as storage in a NAS box my 2 X 1 TB could be stripped for my OS

Would I see a big gain in performance and be glad I purchased 2 X 2 TB as opose to leaving all my media on my 2 X 1 TB's and spending the money on an SSD

It's up to you. In most operations an SSD will be way faster. But if you actually need 2TB for your OS and programs, then SSD isn't really an option.

tiersten

As always, RAID isn't a backup method. Especially if you're striping since that will reduce the reliability of your storage considerably. A failure of ANY drive in your striped array will cause you to lose ALL your data.

JDMurray

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I experienced the opposite. My laptop runs exceptionally hot. SSD decreased that dramatically.

Good to know. Now I'm trying to find where I heard about SSDs and heat dissipation problems. I want to use SSD in a fanless router box project that uses a small case with just vent holes, and I want to reduce heat generation as much as possible. I might just build my prototype using a 16GB thumb drive and go from there. If I can minimize disk writes that may just be my final disk storage solution.

rwmidl

What about running one of the WD Raptor drives (10k RPM)? It seems as if it would be less expensive to go that route and you'd get a bit more space.

SephStorm

So do most or all laptops support SSD's? I've been considering one for my next laptop, but I dont know if laptops support different size hard drives, or if I need to check compatibility,

Also, the raptors are good ideas too, heard great things about them.

rwmidl

For me (personally) I'd go with a Raptor. Right now I think SSD's, while nice, are still a bit pricey, especially for the amount of space you get. Right now on NewEgg you can get a 150gb drive for $129 (or for $50 more you can get a 300gb drive).

tiersten

SephStorm wrote: »

So do most or all laptops support SSD's?

Generally they do but not all. Try to find out what model drive is inside and then look it up to see if it is the same form factor and the correct type of interface.

MentholMoose

rwmidl wrote: »

What about running one of the WD Raptor drives (10k RPM)? It seems as if it would be less expensive to go that route and you'd get a bit more space.

A Raptor is indeed much less per GB than any SSD, and will give you great sequential read and write performance (especially with multiple Raptors in RAID 0). However, SSDs are nearly untouchable for random read and write performance. You could build a RAID 0 array with a dozen Raptors and random performance still won't be close. Just Google "vertex 2 review", and check the benchmarks from any of the reviews. They will throw in a standard disk and maybe even a Raptor for laughs-- err, "comparison". For example, check out the graphs on this page:
OCZ's Vertex 2 Pro Preview: The Fastest MLC SSD We've Ever Tested
For the random performance tests, even the Raptor barely registers on the graph!

Overall the benefit just depends on what you are doing with your PC, and personal preference. For general use (email, web browsing), photo/video editing, gaming, and many other uses, regular disks are fine. You will notice an improvement from an SSD, but the higher cost may or may not be worth it to you. Also if you need to store a ton of files on your C: drive (like if you have a laptop and are highly mobile), then a large enough SSD probably costs too much anyway.

SephStorm wrote: »

So do most or all laptops support SSD's? I've been considering one for my next laptop, but I dont know if laptops support different size hard drives, or if I need to check compatibility

Compatibility should not be an issue. Most SSDs are available in the standard 2.5" size used by most laptops, and use SATA like most laptops. Some compact laptops like netbooks use 1.8" drives, so if you have such a laptop just make sure to buy an 1.8" SSD. If you are buying a new laptop, check if there is an option to upgrade to an SSD. If so, then it's virtually guaranteed that you can buy and install one yourself that is better and cheaper.

tiersten

What MentholMoose said.

MentholMoose wrote: »

Most SSDs are available in the standard 2.5" size used by most laptops, and use SATA like most laptops.

Most of the ones available for consumer user are 2.5" with a handful of 1.8" but there are many other standards. Full sized 2.5", half sized 2.5", 1.8", mini SATA, mini PCI Express and now micro SATA. The latest SSDs for compact laptops now uses the mSATA standard. The new Macbook Air uses one but you can't get that with a regular HD. The only options are SSDs of various capacities.

MentholMoose

Yeah there are a variety of standards so it makes sense to verify what your laptop uses before purchasing an SSD for it. I do believe the regular 2.5" standard is the most common for the average laptop, though.

RobertKaucher

rwmidl wrote: »

For me (personally) I'd go with a Raptor. Right now I think SSD's, while nice, are still a bit pricey, especially for the amount of space you get. Right now on NewEgg you can get a 150gb drive for $129 (or for $50 more you can get a 300gb drive).

I ended up replacing my SSD with a Raptor due to the size limitation. In 2011 I'll be getting a new laptop and it will take 2 HHDs and the SSD will be used for my OS and everything else will go on the Raptor.

SephStorm

cheers!