Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2231 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

(Hoping this is the right forum for this)

Im about to upgrade my pc and contemplating SSD.   Id welcome advice comments on using EXTERNAL SSD (eg LaCie) on USB 3.0 for cache etc versus
- internal 7200 rpm HDD (c:\...)
- internal SSD (tho this may not be an easy option on the m/c Im likely going for)
- external HDD on USB 3.0
- setting up a RAMDISK (old technology but maybe relevant here?)

Also, would there be any concerns with SDD given a fair amount of write activity on the cache?   I assume that write endurance is not an issue these days?

This would all be on a m/c with 2 GB VRAM, if that is relevant to this question.   And I sail so theres a lot of sim traversing (hence cache activity).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't completely answer your question, but maybe I can help.  I have had my cache on an internal SSD for a long time.  I don't worry about wearing it out because it has a three-year warranty, and by the time it expires I will probably be ready for a better one, anyway.  I have tried putting the cache on a flash drive, and it was slower.  I also have tried a ramdrive, and it seemed no faster.  I don't know a lot about the technical details, but I wonder if an eSATA external SSD would not be better than a USB 3 one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the SSD!

I got 2, Corsair and a new Samsung 840.

I wouldnt get back to HDD ever again. But why using it for cache?

Use it for the whole game..

My Corsair has more than a year, and still a tad faster than Samsung when reading,

My advise is keep your important files backuped on the HDD.

You will love running SL on your SSD!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a Samsung SSD and I am very happy with  it (internal). I also got a significant graphic card upgrade (for me) GeForce GTX 660/PCIe/SSE2 from my old GF 9800, which makes a massive improvement in performance.

I don't know what m/c means but if there is only room for 1 hard drive consider making the SSD the internal one and have an external hard drive (rotating type) for data and backup.

If you go for a USB 3 option verify that the external drive is also USB3 or it will run at USB2 speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have 8 gig of ram I would use the ramdisk option, ok it takes longer to shut down your pc if you have it set to save to hdd on shut down but i find for some reason my inv is loads instantly now and I have a big inv.

I have an ssd and a secondary hybrid drive, the ssd don't seem that much faster than the hybrid drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the only way I'd ever use an SSD is if I got a PC with two hard drives one with a HDD and then the SSD. I will not get just an SSD, I don't trust them, it's good to have a PC with two in case that SSD fails. I know they're good for speed, but they don't last, you can't write to them as much... If you keep your PC cool a nice 1-4TB HDD will last ya, sometimes a good 5 years or so. with an SSD, you'd be lucky to last a whole 3 years as the typical lifespan is more so around 2yrs... I don't recommend just running on a SSD unless you'd have a backup. For me like I said I'd either go with both an SSD and a HDD or I'd just get me a 2TB HDD at the least. Then I'd be sure to get a 16GB or more of Ram and of course get the best graphics card I could handle. With that you could definitely beast on through any game for sure!

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

with an SSD, you'd be lucky to last a whole 3 years as the typical lifespan is more so around 2yrs... I don't recommend just running on a SSD unless you'd have a backup.

The typical lifespan of an SSD is 2 years? I'm not sure how reliable the program I just installed is, but my SSD is about 20 months old now and according to the program its health is perfect and it has another good 8 years in it. That's more than I can say for most f my HDD's.

I have all my programs installed on it, my current work and a small portion of my library.

I guess it depends on how you use it.

SSD.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifespan on any ssd sadly won't last no 8yrs, I'd have a backup ready just in case. I do give them 2-4years tops... Don't get me wrong they're fast but for me I'd wait for them to get better, the life in them is no good.

 

Those predictor softwares don't work, its just a guesstimate they could fail tomorrow. Ssd's are built for speed but they're not build to last, you cannot fully rely on them as you could a HDD.

 

I also know they can only be wrote to so many times and they fail.

 

Predictors are known for having false readings...

 

(Husband has a masters degree in computer engineering and IT.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said I'm not completely sure how reliable that piece of software is, but the two year lifespan seems to be an urban legend. I read about it all over the internet, but I've never seen a single post where someone says their SSD stopped working after that short period of time.

The software estimates alright, but it's not a random prediction, lifespan of an SSD should be far easier to predict than that of a HDD, which can fail at any given time because of mechanical failure (as I said that happened a couple of times with my own hardware). The SSD firmware makes sure data is spread over all cells in a way every cell is used the same amount of times. The amount of written data is recorded, as is the time it took. Since the lifespan of a single cell is perfectly predictable, the estimate shouldn't be far off.

If you download movies all day long, all year around, the two year might be accurate. With normal use, a couple of GB a day, in my case about 5.8GB as shown in the picture I posted, ten years doesn't sound very far fetched at all.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't back up your important files. You always need to do that. With SSD's that might be even more important, since you won't get a warning "tick...grind...tick...tick" shortly before it fails. Then again, pretty much all parts that can fail on an SSD are also found on a HDD.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

As I said I'm not completely sure how reliable that piece of software is, but the two year lifespan seems to be an urban legend. I read about it all over the internet, but I've never seen a single post where someone says their SSD stopped working after that short period of time.

The software estimates alright, but it's not a random prediction, lifespan of an SSD should be far easier to predict than that of a HDD, which can fail at any given time because of mechanical failure (as I said that happened a couple of times with my own hardware). The SSD firmware makes sure data is spread over all cells in a way every cell is used the same amount of times. The amount of written data is recorded, as is the time it took. Since the lifespan of a single cell is perfectly predictable, the estimate shouldn't be far off.

If you download movies all day long, all year around, the two year might be accurate. With normal use, a couple of GB a day, in my case about 5.8GB as shown in the picture I posted, ten years doesn't sound very far fetched at all.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't back up your important files. You always need to do that. With SSD's that might be even more important, since you won't get a warning "tick...grind...tick...tick" shortly before it fails. Then again, pretty much all parts that can fail on an SSD are also found on a HDD.

I got curious about this last night because I was thinking of getting a SSD. 

Like you all I found were random claims of two to three years with no facts to back them up.

I did however find some actual testing.  The results are very interesting.  The theoretical lifespan of an SSD is actually very high unless you are working it to its limits 24/7/365.

Torture Test of SSD

From everything I read the biggest threat to an SSD is repeated power cycling or sudden power loss but those seemed to be rare instances.

It really looks like they are very dependable.  Unless MizzKittenzz's husband knows some studies that document this two to three year lifespan.  I couldn't find any.  And I really looked.

Lastly, now that I understand how SSD's work, I see how your test program is probably pretty accurate.  It's based on some pretty solid math.

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

I'm not sure if he has the documentation but I know he has a Masters in IT and Computer Engineering, he still stands by waiting on SSD's, he don't trust them currently.

Not trusting them because perhaps they haven't been around long enough to have a proven track record is one thing.

Saying they have a life span of only two to three years based on unsubstantiated claims is another.

Savvy the difference?

 

eta:spelling

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

Its up to you if you want to try them or not but I still stand by the lifespan. Most users do run their PCs all day everyday...

You still stand by the lifespan based on....nothing?

Perrie nailed it right on the head when he said everyone should know for themselves if they want to use an SSD or not (or something along that line). That's no reason for saying things you can't back up. The test Perrie linked doesn't reflect real use, but it's an indicator the SSD does better than the manufacturer's claim. No manufacturer claims a life of only two years I think.

I don't know if most users run their PC every day all day. I was under the - maybe naive - impression that most people went out for school or work and spent some time in bed every day. As you can see in my picture, I have mine on for about eight hours a day in which, going by the numbers, I apparantly turn it off twice a day on average.

Still not a single error or retired block according to the S.M.A.R.T. thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

I'm not sure if he has the documentation but I know he has a Masters in IT and Computer Engineering, he still stands by waiting on SSD's, he don't trust them currently.

If he's like you the documentation is probably irrelevant.

Wooja...reckonhecantreadeither

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying you turn your PC off? That's not smart. Again my husband would know more as he has worked in IT etc for a long time and has many degrees... Just search for ssd RMA and warranty failure and people who lost data... That's your choice but again I still stand by the 2-4 year longevity.

 

Its your opinion that I'm wrong, you too have no proof in that. You can use it if you want but I won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

So you're saying you turn your PC off? That's not smart. Again my husband would know more as he has worked in IT etc for a long time and has many degrees... Just search for ssd RMA and warranty failure and people who lost data... That's your choice but again I still stand by the 2-4 year longevity.

 

Its your opinion that I'm wrong, you too have no proof in that. You can use it if you want but I won't.

Of course I turn of my PC. Every sane person does that. Not turning it off will probably be good for the lifespan of just about every component in your PC, since the temperature will remain more or less constant. Turning it off twice a day will most likely not harm the computer to such an extent that the technical life will be shorter than the economical life though. If my PC lives to a respectable age of 5-10 years, that's good enough, I don't need it to last 20+ years.

The longer it stays on though, the more energy it will use and the more chances there are for virus infection to name some things. Leaving your PC unattended for many hours a day is also a fire hazard.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where SSD's have failed. Isn't that the case for HHD's as well?

It's not my opinion that you are wrong. It is my conclusion after reading many articles on the subject, that you probably are though. If you can provide some proper documentation that indicates otherwise, I might change my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna argue as you think you're right and that's your opinion. Every PC savvy person knows that you do not turn a PC off daily, let alone even weekly... Yes you may save a few cents at the time but in the long run you'll pay more for killing your hard drive.

 

Its hard to explain things to people who don't know what they're even talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

Every PC savvy person knows that you do not turn a PC off daily, let alone even weekly...


Eh... You mean "not weekly, let alone daily" maybe?

Anyway, that's just complete nonsense.


 Yes you may save a few cents at the time but in the long run you'll pay more for killing your hard drive.

Two of my hard drives have failed me so far. On both accounts it was the heads coming off. Leaving your computer on all day, every day will not prevent that. I don't know where you live, but leaving your computer on all day costs quite a bit more than a few cents.

Please don't tell me you also leave the car running when you don't use it. It will lengthen the life of many expensive components in the engine, but is it economical? Your TV, do you leave that on as well? Maybe your stereo equipment?

Let's say my computer draws 5W when in sleep mode. I don't use my computer 16 hours a day. Let's assume the PC goes into sleep mode the second I don't use it. 5x16x365=212000Wh=212kWh. 212x€0,25=€53,-. So every two years you can buy a brand new SSD.

It doesn't really matter anyway, since in either sleep or hibernate mode, your hard drives are powered off.

So let's say you keep your computer idle. Instead of my low estimate of 5W, let's say the computer uses 50W. Then we're at €530 a year. You could buy a whole new computer after two years.

EDIT, oh I see Maddy sneaked in while I was editing...

Link to post
Share on other sites


MizzKittenzz wrote:

I'm not gonna argue as you think you're right and that's your opinion. Every PC savvy person knows that you do not turn a PC off daily, let alone even weekly... Yes you may save a few cents at the time but in the long run you'll pay more for killing your hard drive.

 

Its hard to explain things to people who don't know what they're even talking about.

Modern hard drives spin themselves down when idle. Mechanically, that's the same as powering down. Most computers have standby modes in which they draw minimal power. In the old days, one could make an argument that power cycling had some detrimental effects, as the rapid thermal shift of the electronics from room to operating temperature (a difference of 50C or more at times) and back again stressed the chip and system interconnections. But the quality of chip and system construction has improved dramatically over the years, and power cycling is done automatically to conserve energy, so there's really no way to avoid it. Anyone watching the GPU thermometer in their computer when launching SL will see the temperature shoot up, then see it drop back down after quitting. That stress is no different than turning the computer on and off.

My iMac draws nominally 150W during casual usage, spiking to 250W when I'm in SL. When I walk away from it, and it goes to sleep, power consumption drops to three quarters of a Watt. That is effectively off.

If you are operating a computer in a very high humidity environment (outdoors on a summer evening, as I often do when star-gazing), there may be some benefit to leaving it on and disabling sleep. The higher power consumption will keep the computer interior warmed above the dew point, slowing deterioration of moisture sensitive components.

You may not consider me PC savvy, but I see no harm in shutting down a computer when it's not going to be used. And if it's as efficient as my Mac, I see no harm in leaving it on either. Having a degree in something (I have a degree in something!) is precious little indication of one's actual knowledge. If you can learn something in four years, may not be difficult and probably doesn't change.

As for it being hard to explain things to people who don't know what they're talking about, I don't believe that's true. I do it all the time, and I'm lazy!

But trying to explain things to people who won't listen?

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2231 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...