HDDs, if anything goes wrong it can be sent in for platter data recovery.
If a SSD drops out from bios, you're fucked.
Contrary to popular belief, when SSDs die, they don't always go into read only mode, hell a lot of people simply lost their SSD on reboot.
What's better for eating, an apple or a filet Mignon?
Depends on what you want to achieve. That said, HDDs only have a few advantages over SSD, mainly price, endurance and non-power data retention.
>You want things to load fast?
SSD doesn't even make a difference in that for 99% of things. We've truly been memed by post-purchase rationalization ever since the first person overpaid for their solid state disk.
HDD for media, SSD for OS and applications.
Why? Speed doesn't matter when you're watching movies, your hard drive will not bottle neck it and storing big media files on an SSD wastes space.
OS and applications on SSD so that they load faster. Don't be fooled into thinking you need SSDs for everything.
>There it is folks. The mandatory "I've never actually owned an SSD but here's my 2 cents" post.
I own one. When I installed it, the only difference between it and my 60MB/s hard drive from 2006 was it loaded PS and GIMP in 5 seconds instead of 25.
"Oh but it boots windows faster?" My Windows already booted in 10 seconds because I'm not a retard.
Now you know what the difference between it and my shiny new $80 two disk 400MB/s RAID 0 array is?
GIMP and PS still load in 5 seconds off the SSD. vs. 6 seconds off the hard drives.
Woo, the was really worth spending $80 for 240GB vs $80 for 2TB.
are you on some kind of payroll or just pants-on-head retarded? The difference in loading times, OS responsiveness and overall UX is fucking abysmal, especially so on lower end devices. I figuratively can't use a laptop unless it has an SSD
>SSD is a meme
>Not using 10k RPM drives
Come at me, bro's.
Depends. HDD can still pretty much saturate a gigabit network transfer for a NAS...
I like my SSD for my main drive, but now that I know I cannot properly whipe free space on an SSD I am annoyed. I don't want to have to do an image, full factory utility wipe, and recover, just to wipe free space.
Well no shit, pretty much. Unless maybe you have studio quality shit you absolutely want to be sure isn't slowly degrading over a long time.
But you can't just factor out price, even f you're well off, ssd's can quickly drain a lot of cash if you want to have terabytes of storage, and you'll need more seperate drives which means higher chance of failures.
btw I have 2 ssds in raid0 and a third for various files
An OS is not important, and honestly my SSDs have 5 year warranties. I'll have already upgraded my rig entirely by then
SSDs may be fast but it's a moot point if you have to reinstall your OS and programs every time you boot.
>you have to reinstall your OS and programs every time you boot.
Wont the raid copy the corruption that will occur when one of the ssd's goes bad? I know it depends on how it dies and that this can occur with a hdd as well, though more often when a hdd has an issue you notice, and it doesn't have as much a chance to corrupt as much shit before it goes out usually.
good bait go౦ԁ bAit thats some goodbait rightthere rightthere if i do ƽaү so my self i say so thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷM HO0OଠOOOOOOଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ Good bait
>"You're saying an i7 2600k is 99% as good as my i7 4770k? BUT IT'S FASTER THAN THE PENTIUM 3 I'M USING OVER HERE SO IT MUST BE JUST AS MUCH FASTER AS YOUR i7!"
Of course if you put a storage device with the performance of a modern hard drive into something that was suffering with something running at 1990's speeds it's going to be a vast improvement. That doesn't change that SSDs are complete memes on desktops. They offer practically nothing over a 7200RPM drive from the last 5 years.
really? longevity 3/10 and 8/10 ? HDDs last about as long as SSDs.
and price per GB 2/10? SSDs are much cheaper these days.
and whats that point about retaining data, and why does it get equally much points as what is most definitely the MOST important aspect of them all, which is speed?
and why does the HDD get a 5/10 in speed? if you compare the speed of a HDD vs an SSD the HDD gets a clear 0. And how the fuck can the SSD only have a 9/10 in speed when its the fastest on the market ...
god damn this chart is dumb
>I optimized my mother's i3 Pavilion and the thing goes from power to Chrome in 20 seconds, with 5400RPM
I have an XPS 8500 that does the same off a previous-gen Caviar Blue.
Really makes me wonder how incompetent SSDfags are that they take 5 minutes to boot unless they shell out 10x more for a SSD.
>I optimized my mother's i3 Pavilion and the thing goes from power to Chrome in 20 seconds
>I have an XPS 8500 that does the same
sure thing guys. make a video recording of it and post it on youtube.
I'm not bullshitting about the i3.
I turned off TrustedInstaller and some other startup bullshit, ran CCleaner which cleared 4GB of stuff, and turned off GUI boot [not a big deal, I saw a youtuber do it]
She almost got a new one, she absolutely hates windows 8 and the updates kept failing and failing. Now she doesn't have to get a new one, let alone go out and buy Win7
My G62 I went into command and turned hibernation off (Win7). I know having to login is really killing my boot time.
I'm not sure about the i3, but I'd assume it does a full shutdown when I press the kill switch
Probably didn't help it with startup but it's the first time in it's 2 years it's been cleaned up.
I was honestly surprised how fast it booted because my assumption was that i3 is a shit CPU. It's still better than the AMD Turion in my 5-year old though
Gotta go fast
>he has no concept that Windows can boot fast off a hard drive
You've been incompetent all your life, haven't you?
>8 seconds considered fastStartup finished in 1.403s (kernel) + 743ms (userspace) = 2.146s
And I'm using DeadIan, a notoriously slow OS
That's why you only use a small SSD as a system partition, and set up your system to automatically create full backups of it every 2 weeks. If you have a bigger SSD that can fit games on it, put those in another partition that is expendable.
- small ssd for system, gets a disk image backup often to a HDD
- large ssd split in half, one partition for system that is backed up to HDD often, another partition for games that can be reinstalled any time and hold no settings or info in their own folders.
>Now you know what the difference between it and my shiny new $80 two disk 400MB/s RAID 0 array is?
That you can put one of them in the laptop, you don't lose two HDDs worth of data if any one of them starts acting up, you are immune to data fragmentation, and you also get gigantic increase in non-sequential data access.
hell I actually killed a HDD once by running 4k random read tests on it too often.
>paying 600 USD for 2TB SSD
>2TB HDD costs 60
Depends on the brand. Seagate and Hitachi are the cheapest, I've a 2TB Seagate and it works just fine, already used for a couple of years to archive anime and related stuff, almost full.
Yea but the one SSD would run the same speed as 10 hard drives. Plus is a shit ton more reliable, better power consumption, better seek time, less heat, more durable, and a ton smaller.
but who cares about speed when your data bytes the dust
>tfw you didn't RAID1 because buying 2 SSD would rape your wallet
I'll take size and cost over speed (to a reasonable amount, not tape tier speed) any day
While I like SSD's for speed and some games, I would NEVER use them for storage. SSD I have now has my Windows partition and a few games installed and that is it.
All my major files are stored on a HDD and linked to windows. All my major programs that require a lot of settings and set up are stored off the SSD as well in case something happens, as well as the majority of my game installs. I also have a second HDD AND a external where I back up my important shit and game saves.
Hell, I had a situation the other day where I had to redo my Windows install, and it only took 2 hours to get it back up due to that setup VS the usual 8-10 hours it did before. Shit was nice.
It means whatever fits your argument better for what I care. That's not the point.
You can RAID1 10x 2TB HDD obtaining a 10TB storage solution probably faster than a single 2TB SSD, for literally the same price.
That's a marketing strategy, they use the same compression 7zip uses, makes no difference. Whether you compress the files before transfering to the tape, or let the tape compress them for you, the size is the same. The only advantage using the tape's own compression is faster read speeds.
>Yea but the one SSD would run the same speed as 10 hard drives.
i dont like it when people put random numbers together. If we're just looking at sequential read/write speeds, SSDs are approximately 4 times faster.
~150 MB/s for an average HDD these days,
~550 MB/s for an average SSD these days.
(a lot of people still have older HDDs in their computers though).
But what really makes the SSD superior is not the increase sequential read/write, or power consumption, or reliability, or quietness. It is the access time that is LITERALLY thousands of times faster.... just have a look at this logarithmic chart.
when i open an application on my computer, which usually takes up ~50 MB, both HDD and SSD would take less than 0.2 seconds to load that shit up. what slows the HDD down so much is the damn access time, which is at only 0.04 MILLISECONDS for the samsung 850 pro.
try downloading AS SSD and do a access time benchmark on your precious HDD mate
Just joined this thread.
How the fuck do people still defend HDD's. Jesus christ, since the beginning of Flash drive's I've been waiting for silent, ultra-fast storage which is 100 times more robust...
HDD's are still cheap, and I would use them for my next home server still, but I will never configure a system without a SSD again.
SSD = OS, Apps, (most played) Games, Project Files, mid-sized storage
HDD = Backups, Media (Pics, Movies, Music Albums,..), all other things you are not touching every week
>You can RAID1 10x 2TB HDD obtaining a 10TB storage solution probably faster than a single 2TB SSD, for literally the same price.
>SSD = OS, Apps, (most played) Games, Project Files, mid-sized storage
>HDD = Backups, Media (Pics, Movies, Music Albums,..), all other things you are not touching every week
this 100 times.
LTO doesn't do any magic with compression. Sure it's in hardware but it doesn't mean you can just double its storage capacity because of it, just like you can't claim a 2TB HDD is 4TB because you ran its contents through gzip.
I'm giving solutions to your problem. 10+ HDDs or 1 SSD
You will have better data storage and recovery of data if you lose a HDD on top of having a larger storage capacity
if your SSD dies its game over
no way i found a cheap one. what do you guys thing? too cheap and probably broken?
They do that probably to force you buy latest models, which only support one generation of tapes below in most cases (eg. LTO-7 drive can read/write only LTO-6 and 7).
I'm looking forward to the Sony tapes that can store up to 185TB in a single cartridge, the prices will drop dead when they finally release that.
What brand is that? this is my 5 years 500GB Hitachi HDD by the way, even though it's old it still kicks over 70 MB/s, though there're some reallocated sectors so I'm looking for a replacement just in case.
Pat yourself on the back, Jack.
And did you just compare the boot time of one OS to another?
Why is this so hard to believe? It's a laptop/ultrabook from '13, lad
Is anyone talking about SSHD?
Can we talk about SSHD?
Both until 1TB SSDs can be bought for $100 a piece. SSDs offer a more reliable form of storage compared to ancient mechanical hard drives and mostly only fail when you use them for servers. The average consumer will die before his SSD does, especially the ones with 512GB of capacity or more.
>The average consumer will die before his SSD does
nice use of wording there anon
Seagate. That one's the ST2000DM001. I also have the 1TB.
Just stay away from the 3TBs. I don't know if they fixed the problems, but they were sketchy as hell.
When the 2TBs came out you could tell they had pretty poor looking HDtune graphs. The 3TBs were horrendous. The 1TBs were perfect. So I was not at all surprised to later hear that 3TBs were failing left and right, a lot of 2TBs were, and nobody had a problem with the 1TBs (I have one with 24k hours on it seeding 24/7 without issue)
There was more than one version of the 2TB ST2000DM001, though. One was a three platter design, and one a newer two platter.
This is my 2TB graph. It's the two platter design. As you can see, it's perfect. So it seems whatever the problem was with the 2TBs is fixed.
I've been thinking about a 0.5TB for the ol laptop but they're around $130 and while I have 30Gb free on my 250 HDD I'm not really gonna be getting more data because I have a backlog of games now.
I'd like to into a gaming PC some day but I have a year of Uni left and ought to be focusing on that anyways.
i'm gonna get two m.2 samsung 950 pros and raid them. will i be able to load my pc before even hitting the power button?
>No reason they'd lose data unless the controller loses its mind
Read about those torture tests. Often they get bricked.
But your and idiot if you try to use one way past its life anyway
Why do you claim there is something wrong with the 3TB ones?
It works just fine
I personally use only SSDs for storage and have 1 512gb 950 pro for my OS and things, and 2 250gb 850 evos in raid 0 for other things. I do this because I
1. Can afford it
2. It makes things faster and more convenient for what I do.
3. I only need about 1tb of storage space
This is what I personally do and you probably won't want this as it costed me over 500$. If you want reliable and large storage with OK loading times, get a good 250$ 6tb HDD, If you want speed and smoother usability with smaller capacities, go with a 500gb or a 1tb SSD depending on your budget. It all depends on what YOU need/want. Don't listen to any of these retards telling you that you should only get an SSD or you should only get an HDD. It all depends on what you do.
>The only reason we aren't seeing it that cheap is demand.
and the only reason people aren't buying ssd's as fast is the price
if ssd's got within the 95th percentile of hdd prices or better, practically noone would buy hdd's anymore
any reason to get a 850 PRO over 850 EVO?
also, does samsung magician actually do anything?
I remember trying it with my laptop a few years back and all it did was fuck with my power settings, after it had acknowledged all the ssd optimization I had already done.
I'm not him but some say disk, others say drive. I think I say drive but I don't remember since I never really have to say it. People either know what an SSD is or have no idea even after opening the acronyme.
im shit at everything /g/ related and i come here sometimes to pick up tips and info so dont bully pls but isnt crosspoint coming this year? isnt it supposed to revolution everything or something along those lines?
this is basicaly the only reason im not upgrading my 10 year old rig.
Those numbers are memes, literally.
OMG 1000X TIME FASTER YOU NIGGERS
As with anything tech, those are theoretical numbers that just don't carry over to the real world.
Maybe it'll be the standard in 10 years but it's going to be expensive as fuck and have some bugs in it, to be sure. Compatible motherboards are gonna cost more too. That's the pain of being an early adopter with new technologies.
That said, it's extremely exciting and awesome being an early adopter, too; if you've got the cash to throw down.
they won't make it available to customers till they've milked the old technology for all it's got, same as it was with LED for example, it's been around for a decade before it finally entered the market even though LCD was inferior to it, simply because people bought LCDs and it's all about the money
unless you're planning to wait 10 more years to upgrade, forget xpoint
i want to listen to you because you make sense and are 100% logical.
i wont because i have faith, and faith really fucks with that thinking process of mine.
Example: I want a rig with DDR4 memory, which is apparently 30% faster than DDR3 but:
It costs more
Motherboard costs more
CPU must support it
Yet: Faster, and futureproof as it is the current standard.
Whatever new RAM they are coming out with will be better than DDR4, of course. But everything will cost more, too. Just think of the faggots that bought original 4K tv's and paid $10,000 for one. In a few years' time they became better yet less expensive.
If you are aware of all this and have the cash and really wanna do it, go for it.
Of course everyone wants to build their Dream-Machine, but unless you are set on dropping a few thousand+ then get your head out of the clouds and lower your expectations a little bit, be realistic.
SSD's are faster, quieter, and consume less power. All you need to do is buy one that is reliable, like Intel. NEVER skimp on your storage unit.
HDD's are mature, but inferior.
Just go for the SSD really, it's not like you're running a massive datacenter where there is little to no room for error.
OP asked about better storage, 10k rpm sure sounds fast but 5k rpm would surely proove out to be a more reliable storage, thus a better storage.
Price per gigabyte.
As it is right now, HDDs and SSDs serve two different purposes, much like HDDs and tapes serve different purposes.
You get a 500GB or 1TB SSD for your OS, programs, games, whatever else you might need fast access to, and then you get 4TB HDDs to store all your chinese cartoons and porn that you don't need SSD speeds for. After that, you pick up some tapes for that really long term storage that you very rarely need to access.
>Name one thing HDDs do better.
>Hurr durr it doesn't count because of reasons
While the price might not have an impact on the quality of the hardware, it is very much there, and it is very much something you consider when you go out and buy something.
Even if you take away the issue of money, HDDs still win on capacity, and they'll keep this up for as long as there is a market for them.
Just bought a 120gb M.2 SSD, got it for 40. I don't even need it because my 250gb samsung isn't even filled and I don't trust SSDs with long time storage. But it was cheap and I can't really control myself just kill me please...
RAID5/6 or equivalent HDDs in your NAS, where a single drive trivially saturates 1GbE and a 5+ disk array can fill even a 10GbE pipe or at least come close.
PCIe/NVMe/m.2/u.2/whatever-non-SATA SSD in your workstations/laptop, and maybe one in your NAS for a block cache as well.
This setup plus off-site backup (synced at least daily) is pretty close to the ideal blend of speed, capacity, and cost.
You do realize SSDs can hold data for more than 4 years with the power turned off if left at room temperature right?
Very worn SSDs (ie over 2000 write cycles used) can lose data in about a month buy only if left in extreme temperatures like 60C. But this is a very unrealistic scenario for a typical consumer.
Only data centers using small capacity SSDs have to worry about data retention not you. This is also why data centers prefer 1TB SSDs because they take significantly longer to wear down than say a tiny 256GB SSD.
MLC SSDs have a typical write endurance of ~3K cycles FYI.
I wish all HDDobos would off themselves. Whenever I run a VM off my only two year old 7200 RPM HDD, it's like ≤2009 all over again.
I guess they've gotten accustomed to the hanging, horrible access times and horrific chugging these archaic pieces of shit have to do just to load some thumbnails.
>not using a raid of hdd's
>not backing the raid with an ssd as a cache for quick access to common stuff and responsive writes
the most economical way to use an ssd (for now) is to use them to accellerate a hdd/raid of hdd's
Can't wait till I can move absolutely fucking everything to an SSD.
Hope that Mushkin goes through with their plan to put the 4TB for 500$ on the market this year.
They probably will, kinda like when Crucial suddenly dropped the 1TB for 500$ and forced the market to radically adjust their prices downwards.
This year is going to be interesting regarding storage technology and the prices.