Poll: SSD vs traditional hard drives

We have a lot of debate about the merits of SSDs (or lack thereof)
I thought we should have a poll of how Jow Forums organizes their storage.

strawpoll.me/17989015

feel free to mention capacities, brands, and what kind of usage/schedule you have.

Attached: dsc0056.jpg (770x578, 123K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/1oOTuY6j7MU
yuki.la/g/63431597
pcworld.com/article/2925173/debunked-your-ssd-wont-lose-data-if-left-unplugged-after-all.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nice try CIA nigger

>no option for OS + key programs + a game (other than current massive AAA ones that don't fit) in ramdisk, games that don't fit and files which are accessed semi often on SSD and then HDDs for everything else

Attached: ssd-hdd-poor-sequential-full-360-degree-read-pattern-rotational-1740062.png (500x552, 155K)

HDD for games I never play, movies and backups of worthless old crap
SSD for everything else

Attached: 1541635838138.png (400x106, 5K)

i keep my mp3s on ssd to avoid the traditional quality loss caused by rotational velocidencity. see you in 10 years faggots!

Having 1TB of storage in my main computer is enough for my needs so I use a single 1TB SSD (that's backed up regularly to an external drive) but for torrented shit that I don't want to keep around forever I use my home server which has an HDD.

I went for the third option, even though it's not strictly true.

I have a NAS which is naturally made up of HDDs in raidz1. That's where I store most of my media files, including backups and miscellaneous data. Since raid isn't backup I also have a 10TB HDD to back it up. Otherwise everything is basically stored on SSDs on various devices.

An SSD in the PCs and a big mechanical NAS in the basement. 100 MB/s transfers limit literally nothing I do, so the tiny SSDs in my PCs don't ever store much.

Networked storage is lovely, you never need to think about which computer your files are on. I wish such an experience upon everyone.

All glory to ZFS. I have two mirrored Z1 NAS boxes, so I can lose an entire machine plus one drive, or three random drives at once without losing any data.

Attached: Clipboard02.png (547x355, 29K)

I store everything on my laptop HDD. Since I do a lot of IO heavy stuff, I changed the IO scheduler to BFQ which works great for my usecase.

Imagine what BFQ could do if you gave it an SSD to work with. If you know what I mean.

What did he mean by this

I fell into SSD meme. Aside from boot time (which is irrelevant for me), I don't see any improvements yet.
I'm using windows10 with SSD a couple of days.

SSD is a meme

My HDD just died and I lost alll the data on it.
Since SSDs go for 10 cents/gb prices now I doubt I'll ever buy another hdd.

SSDs also die, sweatie.
Why would you leave data you care about in a single failure point? Drives WILL always break eventually, why do people act surprised when it inevitably happens?

Why is Windows so retarded?

Don't leave your PC unplugged for too long, SSDs wipe themselves when they run out of power.

Do ssds go "tock tock tock dead" just one day?
What part dies on ssds?

What do you mean?

SSDs die completely out of the blue and the data is not recoverable.

Well, for one, it's using NTFS. Then the whole file structure is just totally bonkers. It makes my mind boggle to look at it.

these have different use cases you dingus

>no option for LTO7 tape RAID 100
saged

SSD for OS and program installs
HDD for general storage everything else
Ramdisk for shit that absolutely must be as fast possible

If I had enough ram I'd install my OS and programs on a ramdisk permanently. Boot up would be slow as fuck each time, but it isn't like I'd need to reboot often enough for it to actually matter. When I build a new PC it'll have 128GB RAM so less than half of that will be for installs. SSD for main install, ramdisk for actually use, HDD for storage shit.

I do this, but I don't really like it. What is the best way to mount the HDD? I just added mine to my fstab file, but it feels a bit off doing so. Like it isn't truly integrated into my system. How do you do it?

I've got a 2 tb m.2 drive with OS and most used programs and some games. A 500gb SSD for all my general files (downloads, pictures, videos, documents, etc) for fast access and some more games. Then I have a 4tb HDD with the majority of my games and not frequently accessed data (movies, series, etc) and an old 2tb HDD with even less frequently accessed data (Linux distros, rarely played games)

So you're a wintoddler?

35 years of Microsoft development. Like all of their products, it's a complete clusterfuck. I still prefer it to Linux and macOS though.

Yes, but the m.2 is split into 2 partitions, one for Windows and one for manjaro.

Why? It's garbage.

SSDs are cheap enough that I see no reason to use a traditional harddrive if it is less than 4 terabytes.

Are DRAM-less SSDs shit?

It's better for C++ dev and games, and I have no real issues with it. Linux manages to piss me off a lot more every time I use it, and macOS doesn't work well on my desktop.

>C++ dev
How?
>games
Grow up.

If you are buying new, sure, but I've got plenty of older HDDs that I install because why not? I've got 6 free slots anyway.

Why are SSD so big when M.2 are tiny and have just as much storage?

So you can screw them into the standardized slots in the case.

But what about all the ICs you see here pic related, my M.2

Attached: IMG_20190504_1358435.jpg (4056x2704, 1.83M)

Make symlinks to it in your home folder: for example i have ~/videos symlinked to my hdd

Well if you want 2tb ssds you're gonna use the space, or if you use the more expensive types. If its single level it takes more space for the amount of memory it offers.

Attached: SLC-MLC-TLC.jpg (660x275, 22K)

Good to see most of you faggots are reasonable.

Attached: 20190514_134131.jpg (1440x2473, 714K)

Oï you got a loicense for that m8?

It's fine, I'm German

it sort of proves the generally accepted notions
- SSDs are fast, but prone to sudden death
- traditional HD are slow, but large and store data more reliably (slower bit rot)
top choice makes the best of both worlds

>I see no reason to use more cheaper and more reliable storage

>SSDs are fast
you don't ever need that speed in 90% of apps. only gaymers benefit from this.

>poor sequential read
>is still by magnitudes faster

What the fuck is this "prone to sudden death" meme? Pretty sure quality ssds have much lower failure rates than hdds

You're retarded.

It's FUD spread by brainlets who don't have backups. They need their storage devices to go click-click before dying so they can copy their data in the last minute.

If you're rich and want the best, buy the 100TB SSD. Mass storage that is also fast and last very long.

SSD's are either working, or unrecoverable broken. That makes them completely unreliable for storing data.

>by brainlets who don't have backups
Yes you do backups every hour, do you? You always has a risk to lose your data.

nigga, have you ever used an SSD? They're far and away faster than an HDD. This meme needs to die. The only advantage of HDD is that they're cheap and make noise before they fail.

bro just use 2 ssd as redundancy
what are the chances both die at the same time?
eksdeeeee

yeah SSDs save you .5s each loading screen in gta speedruns

Keep telling yourself that, buddy. We'll just be opening programs instantly while you wait for hourglasses and splash screens. We'll also be using our computers normally while updates are running.

What's wrong with partitioning NVME SSD's?
As far as I know, the SSD doesn't care if it's partitioned or not, and there's no drop in performance.

Attached: 1537813365068.png (1054x782, 1.12M)

Wrong. Dead SSDs go into read-only mode and can no longer be bootable. You can remove a dead SSD and recover the data easily.

I have the 250GB 850 EVO which is rated to have endurance up to 75TB of write. I'm already half way there after a few years of use.

Attached: 1533055394232.png (748x541, 41K)

I think it's more that Jow Forums probably has a lot of hoarders where it's the cost instead of the performance or reliability that's the problem. As anther user pointed out there's no real only hdd nas option and ssds in pc. For normies who stream everything these days and back ups on cloud having a sole ssd(s) in their computer is very doable, not that I condone such actions.
What this poll really proves is that "ssds are a meme" is a meme.

get Hwinfo64 and check "drive remaining life"
also leave some space free on your SSD. If it's amlost full all of the time, it won't perform as well.

Other than symlinks, you can mount your /home directory on the HDD and everything else on the SSD.

Largest one I can find in my country is 30 TB. It costs (legitimately) over $9000.

> the SSD doesn't care if it's partitioned or not, and there's no drop in performance
Yes, BUT if you leave some space unpartitioned, garbage collector would work better regardless of how much free space is left on the partition itself.

>75TB before your hdd is kill
I was considering ssd but this is scary.

> Wrong. Dead SSDs go into read-only mode and can no longer be bootable
This is only one of the possible outcomes. Controller can die. One of the chips can die, all data will be corrupt. SSD should go read only in theory, but it happens rarely, because a power spike or firmware bug is more likely to kill it before that.

Once you try an ssd you'll never go back. Same goes for IPS monitor, mechanical keyboard, logitech g303 mouse and studio headphones

you can DJ with a hdd not a ssd
youtu.be/1oOTuY6j7MU

>took the bait

Attached: yb2akjztlyw21.jpg (518x770, 26K)

SSD is a stupid meme and a racket. It is a fact that HDDs are not only faster or as fast in most usage scenarios but also far more reliable. If data centers use HDDs way more often tan crap SSDS, it is for a reason, they know firsthand that the tiny performance improvements offered by the SSD scheme are demolished when factoring in the dismal low quality of SSDs. If a smartphone out there had a micro HDD it would be blazing fast.

Is this true for gaymen?

GAYMEN?!?

Attached: 1551560662944.gif (413x243, 51K)

Now here comes the SSD retard fanboy

>up to 75TB of write
SSDlets will defend this

This dude's trolling
>If a smartphone out there had a micro HDD it would be blazing fast.
Older iPods did have a tiny HDD. Nothing uses them anymore because SSDs are way better than HDDs.

How smart is SSDs wear protection? Is the wear protection limited by partitioning? If I write more on one partition than the other will the SSD wear unevenly?

What are you using that drive for?

How nu r u

It's much smarter than you give them credit for

yes

Is M.2 better on SSDs of the same model as SATA 3 ones or is it just a meme?

After many many years maybe

>8-way RAID 0 with Seagate drives
As someone that just had a server SSD fail in RAID 0, that's horrifying

SSDs are good OS drives, also good for programs that call to a lot of small local files.
HDDs are the single best and most affordable mass storage.
It's not which tool's better overall, it's what job you plan to use it for.

it's a Jow Forums classic meme

truly legendary thread
yuki.la/g/63431597 (archive)

Attached: 2017-11-18 10.30.11.jpg (4011x2100, 3.73M)

Attached: 1535943917962.png (1021x742, 525K)

The thing on the left in the opening post is an SSD? I have so much shit all over my place, I don't even fucking know what anything is anymore...

I've never seen that in all the SSDs I have recovered data from.
They either go bzzt and die 100% with no recoverable data because of controller death, or they cell blocks wear down and none can be replaced with the spare blocks and you have data corruption in a few places.

In ten years your ssd would be dead

I use m.2 sata on my laptop and back up to tape drives. that way I get the best of both worlds: speed then reliability

>sweatie
What did he mean by this?

Ahhh the famed rotary velociraptor

>Linux box
Root: SSDs (usually 120 gb)
/home/: standard HDDs (320gb to 4 tb)
>Windows box
512 gb SSD
4 tb HDD for clone of SSD and varied extra storage.

I have several WD drives with chayeld porn
WD is the brand of smart people

If a hard drive spins fast enough centrifugal force pushes the data away from the center of platters causing compression. It why you can store more.

>Don't leave your PC unplugged for too long, SSDs wipe themselves when they run out of power.
pcworld.com/article/2925173/debunked-your-ssd-wont-lose-data-if-left-unplugged-after-all.html

Can't fill out the poll because none of the options are what I have.

I had a hard drive die without warning, got a weird switch from windows to a bios type message about failed to create dialog then the drive died.
I've had a memory card go bad, a dialog about repairing the card, and then it was read only mode but I didn't realize at first.

I finally retired a WD 512gb HD (from 07), a 240GB SSD, and 512GB SSD setup for a 512GB M.2 SSD and 4TB WD HD setup. I'm happy with it.

Attached: system2019.png (717x64, 5K)

Yes. Except the "tock tock tock" part - they just go straight to "dead", and your BIOS doesn't even recognise them anymore.

Stop peddling this lie, Samsung. Yes, it's a theoretical possibility - but out of approximately 20 SSD failures I've seen, they just drop dead with zero recovery options, as mentioned by , , and .

>because SSDs use way less power than HDDs
FTFY. And welcome to Jow Forums, enjoy your stay newfriend.

This is actually correct. They have to be, because flash memory is an inherently flawed storage medium.

Pretty much every datacenter caches data on SSD's
But yeah for mass storage no one uses them, too unreliable