The OS has been optimised for HDDS that bnefit from algorithms likeelevator seeking.
Using those algorithms on an SSD is of no disbenefit with their lack of seek overhead.
The only real consideration is to try to void hammering SSDs that may have limited write/erase cycles, eg avoid journalling filesytems and swap files.
But even this is becoming less off a problem as flash memory improves.
A straight swap? HHD out SSD in? Going to ssd optimised Windows 7 would of course optimise the ssd.
I like the idea of silent. Do some SSDs plug into a USB port? This would make matters easier for many.
Are there ssd's that do not have limited write/erase cycles? This seems a dumb idea to me. With an ssd it can negate having memory upgrades, as the disks is now in effect a sold state memory extension. If it is swapped and out to the disk (ssd) it should not make that much difference in performance. It will be slower, but not noticeable I would bet on an average pc. It can have a huge disk swap file and performance should not be that degraded. With a hdd, a huge swap file can drag the whole computer's performance down.
A computer that would benefit from more memory using a hdd. Money would be better spent leaving the memory and changing to a ssd.
Having a ssd for the OS and apps and data then having a hdd for data backup, one that powers down when not accessed. Then only once a day, when you backup data, will the second HDD turn. That gives speed and backup.
Yes, if the disk is limiting the perceived performance, as it often is.
Well, your basic differences are here:
However, wear levelling algorithms will mitigate this to some degree.
As ever, if you buy something decent, with known specifications and treat it accordingly, you'll be OK but it will cost more.
If you buy some cheap noname crap, it's unlikely to survive heavy unconsidered use.
Re: SWAP files: I tend to run everything without swap these days (unless I need hibernate functionality). RAM is cheap and in the case of work, the last think I want is a 120 virtual machines bashing the SAN to swap when it can be doing better things.
Re: journalling filesystems: Of course, more and more modern FSs on a variety of OSes support journalling filesystems (also databases tend to do something similar). With SSDs I'd be inclined to kill the journal and run in FSYNC/DIRECT mode for databases as there is no seek penalty with SSDs.
RAM's cheap and upgrading that first would be my preferred option.
True. But heavy swapping is liable to kill a cheap SSD.
Or using an SSD as a front end cache to a hard disk.
That may be difficult to setup and the hdd is still tuning and making noise and wearing out. A decent ssd (a disk) will swap in easily enough without any problems.
In the Enterprise space, yes if you have mega bucks.
It's not deliberate, it's a limitation of the NAND flash memory they use. There are also variants (again, used in the Enterprise space) which can do more erase cycles at the expense of lower density (SLC verses MLC NAND flash).
This is done, but not for optimising swapping (once you're into swapping, performance has fallen through the floor in any case). We do it to increase the filesystem cacheing capability, which is usually a key factor in application performance of large apps. NAND flash drives are cheaper than memory for Enterprise grade systems, and even more importantly in that space, much lower power consumption than DRAM memory. They are around 3 orders of magnitude slower than DRAM memory, but still two orders of magnitude faster than an Enterprise grade HDD. This means you can design a filesystem to make optimal use of the different layers of cacheing, as you move further out from the CPU, something like this...
(One or two other readers will recognise ZFS...)
Well, for backup, you have to think carefully what you're backing for. That only covers one of many possible reasons, that of the SSD failing. SSD failure is not normally something you need to worry too much about (at least with the Enterprise products I'm most familiar with). In particular, at end of life when they've run out of erase cycles, they will fail to write, but you can still read all the data on them. However, this doesn't come as a surprise - SDDs record how far through their life they are, so you can tell when they're nearly done.
That's what I did - maybe an SSD for the job though - expect to pay about £1 per GB.
I really don't think it makes that much difference whether it's optimised or not. This little exchange has led me to update the firmware and enable TRIM on mine - can't say I notice any difference - all still near-instant ;-)
Yep - just put it in a 2.5" caddy, bus powered (100-200mW, or something from memory).
Rob
I suspect that is what happened to the £30 lidl external drives.
Anyway i decided to buy myself a pressie and now have a 750 Gig hybrid in a box next to me. All I need now is to remember where I put my esata case so I can image the drive in my laptop.
Ebuyer shipped it next day Sat delivery for free.
Yup. Ideal in laptops - big performance gain, better battery life.
The SSDs typically have a SATA interface, and hence will go in an external 2.5" caddy. Some like the kingston ones come with the caddy included if you buy the right kit (which is usually cheaper than the plain drive for some reason)
So this ssd will need replacing. They have a time limt. But when?
Are you saying they are so reliable they do not need data backup? A software screwup could erase data on the ssd.
The limit is so high these days that in domestic systems they will far out live the system. Even in data centre use its becoming a non issue.
The disk is solid state, but its no substitute for inadequate RAM if you have the option to upgrade that. Remember if you are using SSD space in lieu of RAM then you are already paging. That still has a performance hit no matter how fast the drive.
No, its still noticeable. In some cases it can also make an old machine faster, but a little more "lumpy" in performance, since the drive can saturate the older SATA controllers, making WinXP stutter a little during paging operations. You can see this as slight glitches in screen redraws.
Not in my experience. If you have a laptop which is maxed out with ram at 1GB, then yes, add the SSD anyway it will make it better. If however you can up the RAM you will still get a better performance gain from the SSD.
Depends on the volume of data. Cost per gig can make SSD unrealistic if you have large video and audio collections, although probably adequate these days for ordinary docs and moderate photo collections.
It appears these ssd's can keep older computers running on for many more years.
Some interesting data here:
For SSDs with up to 20GB of writes per day, Intel indicate a life of 5 years. This is for mainstream drives from 40GB to 600GB, the endurance should increase for the larger ones.
Who said anything that!
Yup, a few years probably. Other factors will probably intervene eventually though.
Do you mean you cannot plug it in?
System goes like the proverbial departing a shovel.
We've bought a bunch of 256Gb units for work. They are really impressive - I now feel I need a faster CPU, 8 cores can't overload this drive. (big C++ compiles with Visual Studio)
Andy
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.