>expensive per gigabyte versus hdd
>need to leave a quarter of space unused or it shits itself faster
>bad for storing anything except gayms and os because of limited write times
>but its le faster
some one explain to me why i should have anything bigger than a 250 to 500 gb solid meme drive
Other urls found in this thread:
techreport.com
techreport.com
guru3d.com
twitter.com
anyone?
bump
Get what you want faggot why should we care
>he doesn't have more than one drive
>he can't dedicate one drive purely for speed
They last longer than HDDs, that's why.
>bbut limited Writes
Indeed, but the amount of writes is now in the tens of petabytes, where a HDD is limited by the lubrication of the motor (5-6 years), the stability of the read heads, etc.
A modern SSD will outlive every modern HDD.
You'll need to write a petabyte or more before one of those newer ones fail.
You don't really need more than 250GB internal storage for a PC. Anything you need to keep long term should be kept on an external drive. Keep things like games, memes, anime, and music externally.
>Games over USB
Are you actually retarded?
Apart from the limited bandwidth, USB uses CPU resources for transfer where 99% of SATA controllers and all extant NVME controllers are bus mastering.
Unless you mean NAS, external storage is inconvenient and more prone to accidental damage.
>>need to leave a quarter of space unused or it shits itself faster
When you buy a drive advertised, i.e. as 256GB, it already has over provisioning around 10% in that space, i.e. 25GB.
>bad for storing anything except gayms and os because of limited write times
That's a meme from ages ago. I even run swap and pagefiles on systems with limited memory, i.e. 4GB for years on semi modern SSDs. Been for years without any failures.
Oldest SSD I have that runs an OS, has a temp folder and pagefile, is from 2011 and still works perfectly fine, it's been in use for all those 7 years.
6/10
Made me reply.
No, you copy the file of the game you want to play from the external drive to the internal SSD and delete it when you no longer want to play it regularly.
Depends on your resources, but having a file server is always a good idea if you can.
>>need to leave a quarter of space unused
Bullshit, 10% is all that's needed for over provisioning.
>copy the file of the game you want to play from the external drive to the internal SSD and delete it when you no longer want to play it regularly
That's just pants on head retarded.
Do the smart thing and replace your optical drive with a 1TB HDD for all your backup and low priority storage needs.
>Do the smart thing and replace your optical drive with a 1TB HDD
Fuck no. Optical drives have far more utility than a HDD.
4U
I put mine on external esata case. Laptop has ssd+HDD. Also good laptops have option for msata+sata+odd.
Well it is far more convenient for me to have mass data storage externally. Perhaps in conjunction with a dock, but I haven't got one yet. I have no use for carrying terabytes of data with me, but a disc drive has a multitude of uses.
>but a disc drive has a multitude of uses.
Like what?
Reading discs, writing discs, formatting discs, and so on.
Its not a meme at all, they're literally twice as fast, and its not 2007 anymore where ssd's fail within a year. But you are right that you only need one 250-500gb ssd and they are expensive
>you only need one 250-500gb ssd and they are expensive
>tfw i got a NIB intel 520 240gb ssd for $55 back in 2015
OP allows themselves to be cucked by slow seek times
>They last longer than HDDs, that's why.
Source?
>A modern SSD will outlive every modern HDD.
Source please. In every thread like this, no one could even begin to confirm it.
>expensive per gigabyte versus hdd
250GB SATA drives can be found for less than £55, that is no longer expensive.
I paid £86 for a 60GB drive in 2011 and I'd do it again.
a challenger appears
It's pretty easy to confirm if you've just used a PC. I haven't had any of my SSDs die on me yet.
VMs.
You're not using them heavily enough. LSI Cachecade (basically hardware RAID equivalent of bcache / ZFS L2ARC) on a busy shared webhosting server will kill an Intel enterprise SSD stone dead in about six months.
I have been using a 64gb ssd for 6 years as the only drive in my laptop and it's still going strong
SMART health status how's a 90% health
I have had countless of TB written and overwritten in my ssd, and since it's only 64 GB most of 5he time I had around 7gb of free space
Where is your God now?
>no sound
>no heat
>no corruption from moving
It's perfect for laptops.
>countless
No, really, let's see a count. Post smartctl -x output.
> expensive per gigabyte versus hdd
Yes, but like 1000 times the IOPS and multiple times the throughput on some models. Much faster.
> need to leave a quarter of space unused or it shits itself faster
> bad for storing anything except gayms and os because of limited write times
Nah. They won't last forever, but neither do HDD. Obviously just have backups and replace when broken, as always.
> why i should have anything bigger than a 250 to 500 gb solid meme drive
Well, you perhaps shouldn't if all you need at this point is bulk storage. HDD are also still fine, and cheaper per GB, so frankly get your other 100TB or whatever with 6-10 HDD.
A webhosting server is hardly a PC. For the vast majority of users, an SSD will last longer.
Don't have my laptop with me atm, will post it later
Meanwhile, these are from 2 years ago when I was proving someone else wrong here too
>"countless"
>less than 20
Nigger detected.
Again, it's on a 64 GB drive that most of the time has less than 10% free space
>need to leave a quarter of space unused or it shits itself faster
Bad news for me then
If I want my pc to be silent and run everything instatnly then i would go for ssd.
If I want storage server used for backup or whatever then I would buy some 3 TB HDDs and make RAID6 Btrfs with compression for better read/write
>It's pretty easy to confirm if you've just used a PC. I haven't had any of my SSDs die on me yet.
Seriously? Do you think that's an answer I expected? Come on.
>be hddfag
>can't leave backup running in background
>can't install windows updates without work/vidya coming to a screeching halt
>file search takes several minutes
>have to leave pc running overnight for defrag
But hey at least I didn't fall for the ssd meme
The best setup is to have 2 SSDs and one or more HDDs.
>M.2 SSD for OS and programs
>second SSD for games and other larger programs that would benefit from the speed
>HDD for media/document/general file storage
What's the point of two separate SSDs instead of one?
M.2 is more expensive and it makes more sense to get a smaller one just for the OS and programs and a larger SATA one for other programs.
SATA M.2 drives cost the same as 2.5" ones. As for high-end NVMe ones, you get those only if you actually have tasks that seriously hammer the drive (or just have extra money to spend), the difference in speed for typical stuff like vidya and OS updates is negligible.
Dunno.
Can confirm, still I needed more ssd storage and I got a decent deal on an nvme
Because you have a specific use case that requires more than 500GB to be quickly read
Honestly, I don't see the need for more that 500gb right now unless you game hoard or do a ton of video editing/processing.
Also, the write cycles have now entered the realm where they are equivalent if not superior to normal HDD lifetimes.
Really no reason not to have one at this point.
Why? Need some help saving space?
Use Dism++ to clean out windows' leftover shit. Specifically the SxS folder that build up over time.
Use CompactGUI with LZX to compress your programs and games.
My installed Steam library went from 200GB to 150, and I got a couple GB back on my program files each. LibreOffice for example compressed from 400MB to 200. It all adds up.
My mother has a 32GB netbook with an SSD and doing all that with her files and applications installed alongside 10 1709 left her around 14GB which is fine.
Prove those last 2 points yourself and then we'll talk.
Oh, and when you post your sources, try and not use articles from when SSD's were just coming onto the market senpai.
Anyone know when we might finally see 1TB drives start to fall into lower ranges?
The SSD industry is already pushing 4+ TB. When that started happening to normal hard drives 1TB fell like rocks.
Also worth noting Dism++ and CompactGUI are frontends for built in Windows 10 tools, dism and compact respectively.
I don't think it's the capacity keeping prices up any more, just the supply of chips.
Just bad habits on my part. I have a 120GB SSD constantly downloading files and a browser that gets out of hand (tab-wise) so it's often verging on 0.5-3GB. I don't play games.
It's bizarre that I won't but a larger capacity SSD but in the past week I've spent $150 on alcohol.
>some one explain to me why i should have anything bigger than a 250 to 500 gb solid meme drive
You don't. Most people don't need that much storage space. The speed increase is worth it.
If you need bulk storage then buy a second HDD.
I'm looking for something to replace my 8 year old 500GB HDD that's used mostly for storage (not speed). Is it still better to get a HDD in the current year or are HDD's still more reliable for that application? I'm looking at these HGST Ultrastars on sale here and their Annual Failure Rates are really low
poor HDD users mad that their can't afford superior SSD and complaining they cant move their 500 gb manchild video game library there
enjoy your turtle speed HDD
balanced and professional people use SSD
got get a job and a gf you neets
alpha chad fatass gen z. vs beta hoverhands skinnyjeans millenial nu male
poor SSD users don't know the joy of all night marathon defrag sessions
>2018
>Optical drive
>More useful than a TB disk
Are you fucking kidding?
>a literal physical spinning disk
>bad for storing anything because it's slow
>can't survive physical damage
>but muh hentai collection
explain to me why would you need more than 250gb on your computer
>not streaming gaymes, or better yet, not playing them
You're supposed to use both you faggot.
>SSD for OS, games and scratch drives fro editing
>HDDs for long tern storage/archival
Always keep your OS and data separate as well, that way if your OS gets nuked for whatever reason you still have all your data.
I've been using computers since the 90s and I've had dozens mechanical hard drives fail over the years, whereas I've had ssd for at least 5 years now and not a single one has failed.
I trust ssds more.
Why does Jow Forums seem like it's perpetually 5 years behind technology? It's not just drives, but everything, phones, ports/cables, TVs, monitors, RAM, browsers, etc. I frequently hear opinions on this board that make me think the person must be a time traveler from the past, you don't get that as much from other boards.
apart from the part that it's retarded to plug in something external every time you want to do basically anything, i'll add that in my case, external high quality Toshiba HDD decided to format itself somehow and delete all of my precious pictures and videos from the past.
It also happened a lot of times with the Flash drives as well. I will never trust anything external ever. Right now i have 3 mechanical HDDs as a backup, and i re-backup files like twice a year.
I assume you mean laptop.
For a desktop you might as well load up with a few TB, because why not?
Mkay lemme splain this real quick. Gotta go fast I need to finish taking a shit and go do shit today.
The ideal thing to do is save your fucking money so you can afford more drives. From there there are two ways you can do shit.
1. Run an nvme ssd for main OS and key programs for fastest boot/reboot times.
Then have one additional large SSD for storing *gayms* and then one or two large spinning disks for storing music movies Memes and so forth.
2. Run multiple nvme ssds up to three depending on the board. One has your daily driver OS, one is partitioned for various other distros for playing around with doing certain things and the third one is for *gayms*. Then have one spinning disk or no spinning disks and do an external Nas for mass data
3. You could do like im considering doing. Nvme for main OS. Two large sata ssds one for *gayms* only, since game files are massive now and take a long time to re install or uninstall. Second large ssd is for playing around with many different Linux distros and also virtual disk allocation. Then I am going to either buy a drive rack that has thunderbolt and run 4-6 large spinning disks OR I will simply integrate the spinning disks into the machine and run fewer of them I have yet to decide. I already have several spinning drives for a mini NAS I've been using for years now.
Heres the point. Unfortunately *gayms* take up a lot of space and certain OS (Windhoes) don't play well with other OS anymore on multi boot drives. So your better off having a dedicated drive for each thing and all you really NEED as far as an nvme drive is a small one for your preferred *main* OS.
You should not need or really use more than 3 ssds and 3 is at the top end. You can do all of this with less. You only really need two spinning drives in raid (for redundancy) for mass storage unless your me but that's unique.
it's because people here jerk off to nostalgia. They felt much better overall in 2009 when they played gaymes carelessly while being fed with parents' wallet, compared to now when they're in debt and can't find job and they fried their brains with excessive masturbation and depression; so tech from 2009 (+/- 4,5 years depending on individual age) seems much more attractive than now.
Of course, people that play gaymes, aren't depressed and masturbate to trap futa loli now will tell you that tech now is great
Store the OS, gayms and programs on a 500gb SSD.
Store everything else on your rsync'd dual drive setup NAS via samba
>>need to leave a quarter of space unused or it shits itself faster
What?
I've literally used SSDs wih 1gb left for video/color editing and there is not even a 1% hit in performance
not using sata to usb for old laptop optical drives, literally a waste of space inside laptops in 2018
hats off to you
I use SSD as storage mostly so that my audio-files doesn't lose bitrate. Having quiet storage in a 100% passively cooled PC is also nice, and I can't complain on the speed either, except from the 840evo that completely shits itself when it starts to get full.
>I use SSD as storage mostly so that my audio-files doesn't lose bitrate
I thought that this meme is dead
>smartctl -x
how can i do this on windows
my 64gb sk hynix ssd in my surface is doing pretty well after a lot of use too
On most SSD controllers, it's recommended to keep some space free (or preferably not allocated to a partition) so they have more unused sectors to play with for wear leveling or handling lots of small writes. Some drives have this space allocated in hardware (e.g. a 240 GB drive probably has 256 GB of Flash chips with 16 GB set aside as spare area), but some rely purely on free space left by the user and will start exhibiting worn-out sectors faster if filled to the brim.
>>copy the file of the game you want to play from the external drive to the internal SSD and delete it when you no longer want to play it regularly
i do this with my nas all the fucking time on my home network, but i only have a 64gb ssd
this but without the snark
an SSD for OS and the most often used programs and a platter drive for everything else is still your best bet
But a 250GB should be enough for an SSD
Basically WD Blue are drives that failed the QC for commercial applications so they try to pawn them off onto consumers.
OP deserves the snark because he's asking something this retarded
What has that much room for a micro PCIe slot? That's like double sized?
That's M.2 type 2280, not miniPCIe.
A 2280 slot isn't that uncommon on motherboards.
Negative. He was asking a specific question about why anyone would go about using a large SSD.
You're the bad one here, dude.
>limited write times
Your hdd will die faster than you'll reach write limit.
that bitch should not be cringing.
Each block has limited number of write cycles, then it craps out. None of existing drives can break the 100k point, so if you got an app that writes something every second, a block will fail within a month. Which is maybe ok if you're a gaymer who don't produce not store anything, but for science and server application that just won't cut it.
>if you got an app that writes something every second, a block will fail within a month
No, it won't. Lrn2 wear leveling
techreport.com
With fucking four year old consumer SSD's.
guru3d.com
9.1Pb on one of Samsung's worst models.
Not to mention they all give SMART warnings before they die, so you can copy over all your data first.
>expensive
>not using DogFish ssds
my brother
He uses his nvme as a boot drive
Because some people here actually know things and don't just blindly jump on the latest band wagon. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better. I know it's a hard thing to grasp for an adolescent mind but you'll get there eventually.
SSD's aren't new. You're exactly the person I was talking about, you have opinions on things based on facts that are 5-10 years out of date.
I see you nigger see no difference between block write and just any arbitrary synthetic test write. Pro tip: real programs don't shit out data in a nice sequence, they write to the same files which sit in the same block.
SSDs are still not good. Better than the beta version but still substandard. I'm not surprised though that soyboys will fight tooth and nail over it.
>they write to the same files which sit in the same block
They DON'T sit in the same block. Lrn2 wear leveling.
It not a new thing, retard.
