Are SSDs just a meme? Why would I pay twice as much for a quarter

I recently bought it for the first time and it it well worth it. It made my laptop smooth and super fast way more than more ram or a better cpu does. It's well worth the money.

>>57710830
people just like to store things they access frequently on the
stuff like games, whatever you want to load quickest

Yes. Only a complete and utter retard would buy one.

>>57710856
I got the same experience as you. Everything is so buttery-smooth on my desktop now.

>whole 10 seconds less of boot time

It's not just boot time, it affects all load times. Spend some time using an SSD (especially games), then switch back to a HDD. There's an enormous difference. HDDs are garbage to me for anything but storing terabytes of movies and music.

>>57710830
Because i have a job

/thread

>>57710830
Get a ssd for your operating system then just get something else for whatever else

SSDs are a meme that last 2 years at best

flash memory in general is a meme

>>57710830
No noise and spin up time is worth it alone for me

>>57710830
I thought so at first too, but my job involves a lot of data extraction and read/write operations. I migrated my system to a new SSD yesterday and the script managed to extract and process more data in an hour on the SSD than it had been able to in 2 days on the old HD. Now I'm hoping that the SSD won't lose data integrity like I heard they sometimes did.

>>57710830
When you bust down the fucking door and need to get some important shit done an SSD will be there for you. Every second counts. Put your OS and important programs on there.

For you impatient gamer types an SSD is also worth the investment.

It's not just boot time, you're shaving seconds and fractions of seconds off everything you do.

>>57710920
You do realize that it's not 2008 anymore, right?

>>57710920
>SSDs are a meme that last 2 years at best
I have my samsung ssd since 2010 and it's still working fine

>>57710946
SSDs have different failure profiles than HDDs. Well kinda.
Two failures:
1. Randomly dying. Shit happens, sometimes they die. Good news is that based on returns (from a french retailer http://www.hardware.fr/articles/927-7/ssd.html) they have a random failure rate 1/10th that of HDDs.
2. NAND exhaustion, IE; limited writes. However, with SSDs made after 2012, this write limit is so colossally huge that it's not worth worrying about. If you pound an SSD at max IOPS 24/7 you should get at least a year out of the thing. For more average heavy use (50GB/day) this shoots up to 35 years. Over a 256GB SSD. For 512 this would double to 100GB/day for 35 years.
And this is for TLC/planar NAND. For the new 3D nand this shoots up to centuries. For MLC or SLC (SLC you won't find anywhere but enterprise thousand dollar SSDs, but MLC is usually the kind of 'pro' tier consumer drives) this increases even more.
SSD endurance is bretty high.

>>57711045
>If you pound an SSD ... you should get at least a year out of the thing
How long for an HDD?

>>57710901
is there much of a difference in watching movies on an HHD compared to an SSD?

>>57710830
Are meme just a meme? Why would I meme meme as meme for a meme the meme and meme 10 meme less meme meme.

>>57711135
3 years

>>57711135
Unlimited really or until the drive randomly fails. Hard drives don't have maximum writes

>>57711209
Let me know when the SSD figure exceeds that of HDDs

>>57711135
No idea. But when I say pound I mean POUND. As in absolutely hammer the poor thing at the highest capability, continuously. As in actively trying to kill it.
Real world workloads are orders of magnitude smaller, even real world heavy workloads.

From google's hard drive studies, they get an annual failure rate of 5-10%, which shoots up after a few years. They hit their drives pretty hard but it's not as hard as the SSD test I'm referring to:
https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
6 SSDs, and it took 18 months to kill all of them. Ones that died first were TLC, ones that lasted longer were MLC.
These SSDs were pounded orders of magnitude harder than a HDD is even capable of doing, you need to understand that SSDs perform so much better that they take much harder poundings.
If you glance at the charts you'll see that the SSDs took roughly a PB (1024 TB) of writes over 250GB before dying. That'd be like a 1TB HDD taking 4PB of writes before dying.

Additionally, write limit deaths are more graceful. The drive software monitors NAND wear and so can warn you when the drive is getting on in years.

>>57711192
Yeah, it starts playing 1/2 second earlier.

>>57711289
id rather get a 50$ 1tb than a $350 1tb ssd

>>57710883
you must own a dozen then

>>57711351
Well duh, HDDs have much better $/GB.
That's the point. SSDs are fast, HDDs are cheap.
If you don't need the speed; eg you just want to store movies and porn, then HDD is what you want.
If you want to run programs, and operating systems, then an SSD is the best choice. Decent little 256GB is enough for OS and a shitton of programs.
Games don't actually benefit from being installed on SSDs. Mostly, anyway.

>>57711384
so should i get a 128-256 gb ssd and just have all my games on a hhd
will that even change anything

>>57711412
Get an SSD for Operating system and programs, and a HDD for pretty much everything else.
128 is a bit small but it'll do fine.

>>57710987
not an argument

>>57710830
Get a job, fag.

>>57711045
>>57711289
As someone who's about to purchase a new laptop and wasn't sure if I should make the switch. This was very informative.
Thanks.

>>57710830

I'll never own a laptop with an HDD again

>>57711447
Cars are dangerous. Especially that model T, with the big spike in the steering wheel. You crash and it just crushes your ribcage, even at like 20mph.

Oh wait, it's not 1910 anymore

>>57711426
>128 is a bit small

No it's not. If you're just putting your OS and programs on it, then 128GB is plenty. Very few people put more than 10GB worth of programs on their computer.

>>57711464
For laptops SSDs have another bonus: Physical resistance. No moving parts to be sensitive to shock or movement.
You can actually move your laptop around and not be constantly worrying about damaging the HDD. While a HDD is active, it's fragile as fuck.
When off and the drive isn't spinning it's pretty tough but while on and doing I/O it's porcelain origami.

File: snapshot_24.14_[2016.09.27_06.53.46].png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>57710830
kill yourself

>>57711488
Well the thing is that 128 has a worse $/GB than 256GB.

>>57711505
where lol?

>>57711495
>>57711464

And another bonus: They use less power. A 2.5inch HDD uses like 7W, but an SSD is closer to 0.5-1W.
Actually quite a significant difference when it comes to laptops.

>>57711495
That's a very true point. That's one I knew and I had heard that the SSD failure rate had gone down but didn't know it was that hard to kill them now.
About to pull the trigger on this laptop.

>can't wait for tfw browsers and IDEs instantly pop up
hnnnng

>>57710830
less likely to have mechanical failure in a portable

also no disk spin up noise

File: 1479841615483.jpg (113KB, 744x726px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 744x726px

>>57711447
We get it, you were in a coma or something. The technology has advanced a lot since 2007. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

wow, haven't been to /g/ in a couple years, and you're still talking about this.
Nothing ever changes.

>>57711505
Maybe. But it's so small that it's irrelevant. I would recommend anyone that is hesitant about SSDs to buy a $35 128GB over a $60 256GB because the total is smaller.

>>57711512
Well on newegg, the 120GB samsung 850 EVO is $89, while the 250GB is $79.
Really not sure why the 250GB is cheaper, but you get my point, surely.

File: poorfags.jpg (110KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 400x400px

>he still doesn't own an nvme ssd

>>57711543
poorfags gonna poor

>>57711550
>a $35 128GB
Kek fuck no, don't buy that cheap chink garbage. Don't buy a kingston v300.
Adata is okay for the low end, so is kingdian.
But kingston- fuck no.

>>57711558
http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=Homepage_SS-_-P1_20-215-016-_-11262016&Index=1

$55 for 250gb

should i get

>>57711558
come on bro. that's obviously a pricing mistake.

>>57711135
Technically HDDs they aren't limited to how much they can write. Some might die early while others last ages with no hitch, also differentiating between SAS and SATA drives can give insight to the MTBF.

It's been found though that once a hard drive passes three years of age, every year following that point will mark a 5-10% increase in chance of failure.

>>57711579
its not
the 120 is more than the 250 on almost all sites

>>57711572
Sandisk and a few other brands had their SSDs priced that low yesterday and you might still find some today.

>>57711579
Nah, it's black friday season so I think there's a sale on the 250but not the 120.

>>57711575
Looks okay. Adata have a decent reputation. If you're unsure, always look at the warranty length.
For that it's 3 years. That's acceptable.

>>57711558
the 120GB model is discontinued. companies often don't adjust prices on discontinued products. please use a current product as an example.

>>57711045
How high is the write limit for the Samsung 850 EVO?

>>57710858
it's time you got one, you don't seem to understand what ssd does to OS experience.

>>57711629
They (samsung) don't make 120GB ssds anymore.
But the kingdian S280 is current; £35 for the 120, £50 for the 250.
This is more representative pricing. It's an extra £15 for double the space.

>>57711648
Dunno. But the average for SATA3 SSDs is around 350MB/s

HDDs are slow and cheap. SSDs are fast and expensive.

Use what you need/can afford. Get over it.

But to answer OP's question, I get much more work done on an SSD since I can do I/O bound tasks faster, the main one being testing expensive DB queries. Also, there is no noticeable lag when opening most programs (except fucking IntelliJ).

If you don't expect to be doing very large or frequent random-access reads/writes to disk, don't get an SSD, but when I first upgraded from an HDD, it felt pretty good.

>>57711648
Oh sorry, write limit not write speed.
It's 3D nand.
I don't actually know what the limit is for sure because no-one's killed one before.
Rumours from samsung put it at 10PB over 128GB.
But the limit is so high I don't know it.

>>57711648
couple petabytes or so tests say

i'm using one for 3 years, wrote only 13.38Tb on it.

>>57710830
I'm not buying my first SSD until they're as cheap per GB as mechanical disks.

use a RAM disk for productivity stuff where speed matters, for most purposes you don't need an SSD, you'll load programs once and it'll sit in RAM

>>57711704
do you grasp concept of inflation?

>>57711728
Not him, but this has nothing to do with inflation.

SSDs would be as affected by inflation as mechanical disks, and I'm not sure what thought process led you to believe differently.

Do you know what inflation is?

>>57711704
The NSA has sent the price of HDDs down by the sheer quantity they have purchased (making economy of scale arguments).
The hard drive floods of 2011 weren't the reason prices spiked- it was the demand of the NSA and cloud computing companies.
Anyway the point is that you're gonna be waiting like 5 years, the problem being that an SSD would save hours, perhaps even days of your life accumulatively in that time.

>>57711723
Protip: you still have to wait for the program to copy into the RAM disk, so you're effectively saving no time at all.

>>57711753
>Protip: you still have to wait for the program to copy into the RAM disk, so you're effectively saving no time at all.
>hurr all i do is open and close programs all day long
>implying programs take all that long to load from an HDD anyway

>>57710830
you are also paying for every single application (outside of the really big ones) opening almost instantly, and if its a laptop not having to worry about killing your drive if you bump it.
imo no laptop in 2016 should still have a hard drive.
and hdds only belong in cheap ass desktops, and nasses and nothing else.

>>57711773
If programs don't take long to load to ramdisk, why are you using a ramdisk?

i just ordered an ssd but now i realized that idk if i have enough SATA 6.0 Gb/s ports can i run it some other way like maybe sata express
i have this motherboard and already have 6 hdds
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132566

>>57711790
because it's the usage that matters you insufferable fucktard

>>57711801
Do you have any idea what happens when you open a program? It loads itself into RAM. By making a ramdisk for the program, you're moving the program to RAM, and then opening the program moves it from RAM to RAM.

>>57711815
>what are files

>>57711815
so you load to the RAM disk once, and then you're all set and it's much faster than an SSD

>>57711793
It has an m.2 socket. But you could get a PCIe card with extra SATA ports.

>>57711822
Yeah, you load the files you're working with into RAM, like video files and such.
But then you could have just gotten an SSD, instead of the 32GB extra RAM.

>>57711801
I didn't know that someone could be so pompous and retarded at the same time.

How do you even breathe?

/g/ in 2016, everyone. Phoneposters and third-world shitters have ruined this board.

>>57711558
the 1tb model has the best $/gb ratio, but you wouldn't recommend that because it's so expensive. i would recommend a cheap 120gb ssd because it has a low entry cost. i don't care about $/gb.

>>57711838
>>57711839
>buy an SSD because all everyone does is open and close programs all day
>don't use a RAM disk even though it's better than an SSD in basically every concievable way except for the initial load on boot
k

>>57711851
My point is that the 250GB is only a little bit more expensive than the 120GB, while the 512 is a lot more expensive than the 250.

>>57711854
>still doesn't understand that RAM is volatile and that programs are loaded from the cold storage regardless if you use a RAMdisk or not

>>57711871
i understand your point anon. please understand mine.

>>57711871
fuck off retard

so what if RAM is volatile, i'm saying the initial load isn't a big deal, once it's loaded it's way faster than an SSD, and using a RAM disk doesn't mean you can't use an SSD too

File: 13-132-566_R08.jpg (71KB, 605x401px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 605x401px

>>57711838
i just spent all my money on the ssd
is there a way i could use the port circled?

>>57711749
sitting on small amounts of money is stupid, that's all what I meant

>>57711898
Dunno. Consider unplugging a HDD.

>>57711854
Modern operating systems will cache program image files in memory without a ramdisk or even any configuration. This takes care of the efficiency that you propose using a ramdisk for.

Other than that, nothing you suggests that you need a ramdisk, or even an SSD.

If all you care about is loading things into RAM once, then you might as well stay with a conventional HDD, because your OS will cache launched programs in memory for a longer time than you probably care for.

>>57711837
Except what happens when the power goes out pajeet?

Storing any type of data on volatile memory that's not purely temporary is a retarded habit.

>>57711908
>>57711898
>>57711838
https://www.amazon.com/HighPoint-Internal-Mini-SAS-SFF8087-Int-MS-1M4S/dp/B001L9DU88/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41Vyk3mwrTL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR135%2C135_&refRID=15980DTYQ7EMSVH5BQV2

could this work?

>>57711917
what do you use most productivity applications for? you use them to process files. IDIOT

>>57711924
>he's worried about his power going out
LOL

and you can still use an UPS FUCKING RETARD

>>57711924
People in first world countries don't need to worry about this.
And don't you understand that you can simply buy a $300 UPS so you don't have to get a $100 SSD?

>>57711940
>process files
Your OS also caches files in memory on first open, that's why memory mapping is a thing.

Please stop talking out of your ass, it's okay to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.

There are many legitimate reasons to use a ramdisk, but your use case has none of them.

>>57711971
(You)

>>57711942
>People in first world countries don't need to worry about this.
Hell, i'm pajeet, had power switched off last time 5 years ago for 1 hour. Unlike FIRSTWORLD we have nuclear plants running.

>>57711971
>consumerist /v/tard never does anything that produces files
and according to your argument that using a RAM disk doesn't matter then neither does using an SSD except for the initial load

>>57711753
>Anyway the point is that you're gonna be waiting like 5 years, the problem being that an SSD would save hours, perhaps even days of your life accumulatively in that time.
I've never had any issues with speed due to my storage media. I just think SSDs would be nice because they're easier to move and whatnot.

>>57710901
This. It isn't just boot times. It's overall performance of the PC. Loading games and programs, opening files. It improves everything. Buy a cheap $40 Sandisk or PNY and see if you can tell the difference.

>>57711975
Nice response, really made me think.

>>57712015
>according to your argument that using a RAM disk doesn't matter then neither does using an SSD except for the initial load
I suggested nothing of the sort, please consider taking some remedial reading comprehension classes, you are in dire need of them.

Let me re-explain for you:
You WILL notice a difference by upgrading from an HDD to an SSD or a ramdisk, but the differences between the SSD and ramdisk are insignificant for an average consumer. You could get the same benefits of a ramdisk by getting an SSD, and not have to set aside large parts of your RAM to do so.
Unless you have a build with over 100GB of RAM that you don't use regularly, the cons of a ramdisk will outweigh the pros.
If a person has an HDD, and they want to upgrade their storage system, an SDD will be a cheap and easy upgrade, whereas upgrading to a ramdisk would involve buying enough memory to actually make a ramdisk usable, a new motherboard to support that memory, and the time to put the whole contraption together.

Do you understand now why SSDs are more suited for average consumer use than ramdisks?

>>57712071
>average consumer use
funny because i was talking about productivity use

>>57711940
So I should spend an extra money on a UPS just so I can get negligible gains from loading programs into a limited amount of volatile memory and have peace of mind?

I don't see anything reasonable about this.

>>57712081
So I should spend an extra money on an SSD just so I can get negligible gains from loading video games quicker and have peace of mind?

I don't see anything reasonable about this.

File: citylights.png (501KB, 499x621px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 499x621px

Why would I spend extra on an HDD when I can get 6TB of magnetic tape storage for $35?

>>57712033
>I've never had any issues with speed due to my storage media.
I've never had any issues with horses as my transportation.


why is /g/ such conservative shithole, what the fuck? aren't you supposed to be on the "edge"?

>>57712079
The same applies for "productivity" use.

You might consider yourself superior to "average consumers" by falsely considering your hardware requirements to be higher than that of the average consumer, but you would be wrong.

In comparison to the multi-million dollar high-performance data analysis setups where a ramdisk is actually beneficial, your requirements pale in comparison.

Don't kid yourself: your requirements are essentially the same as that of an average consumer.

>>57712091
I wasn't really arguing against or for SSDs, but yeah it sounds infinitely more reasonable than fucking around with a ram disk to load basic programs.

ssd is just meme so you have to work longer
how are you spending your saved 5min over one year?

also
https://www.servethehome.com/firefox-is-eating-your-ssd-here-is-how-to-fix-it/

>>57710830
Find me a 4tb HDD in 2.5" form factor dipshit

>>57712295
>make me buy an extra adapter so I can put a 2.5" drive into a 3.5" slot

>>57710946
If you do something for a living, you should always have daily backups anyway.

No they aren't, install your OS in one

>>57712137
Underprivileged rationalization. Sour grapes etc.

>>57711488
People who play video games do. Windows is 20GB and a game like GTA5 is 50GB. That's 70 of your 120GB used with 50 left. 1-2 more games and some programs and youre out.

>>57711447
>>>/pol/

>>57711500
Nice snapshot, literally kys

>>57712340
If that's what you're doing, then you need to manage your games or buy a large HDD or SSD.

>>57712340
>120gb ssd
>2016
Unless you cant afford a days worth of work at minimum wage to get a bare minimum 250gb ssd, I dont know what you're complaining about.

I Dont know how long or often you're playing gta5, but personally I just delete games I'm not playing. I do this with tb's of space too just because.

>>57710920

I'm still using an SSD I bought in 2010, works fine.
It's not as fast as the 1TB Intel SSD I bought a few months ago, but all I use that old drive for these days is a Shadowplay capture disk.

>>57712274
>lolfirefox
>webdevs in charge of making a browser

>>57712416
all games are shit anyway

They are still too fucking expensive for me.

I'd consider getting a 120gb one but that would be kinda pointless, but 265gb ones are close to 90 bucks so fuck that. I could get another 4tb with that. Probably more.

tfw got the 750 gb SSD for $100 the other day

feels fast man

>tfw HDD is gonna die any day now
>now would be the perfect moment to get a SSD
>but I need the money to get another HDD

A poor mans life is a hard mans life.

>>57712478
Go for a 250GB Kingdian S280
Not S200

>>57712599
Eh. They are still a bit too pricey and I'm not sure I trust the chinks with storage. Even if it is a damn good chink SSD.

Besides, I could get a new HDD still for that money.

>>57711898

no, a ssd must always go in the os drive slot

>>57712618
>os drive slot
since when is this a thing

anyway you should be able to use it in any slot just that some slots may be a slower sata version

>>57710920

I have samsung 830 pros, they have been working great for 4 years, nowhere near their designed usage limits.

>>57712098
Why not do both?

>>57713324
they seem to be discontinued, at least in my country. now you can probably only get junk or expensive as shit enterprise SSDs

>>57710830
The fact I can hurl my laptop against the wall right now and lose absolutely no data is reassuring to say the least

>>57713378
You can get 950 pro now, it's a newer iteration of the same product

Anyway, I've never even heard of an SSD failing. Not saying it doesn't happen, but for example at work we have 50-60 people, we have been using CHEAP ssds for years, not 1 has failed.

>>57710830
If all you're doing is rebooting your desktop I would argue you don't need a fucking computer full stop, never mind a SSD.

>>57713405
neat, i'll look into it for my next pc build, thanks for the tip

>>57712302
>I have a cheap shit case

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>57712295
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Momentus-2-5-inch-Drive-ST4000LM016/dp/B016YFEYK6

The reason to get a SSD is because they are silent.

A passive cooled PC with only SSDs as storage is fully silent even if you directly hold your ear against it.

You try working with 2k/4k footage in premier without an ssd.

>>57713504
What about my CD drive?

I bought one. My boot time is now 3 seconds lower. I did not notice a difference in load times. Fuck SSDs

>>57713570
>Not researching your tech purchases
>Not finding out what sort of IO requirements you have

Yeah sure SSDs are the problem. kys yourself to peaces

I have a ssd but I stopped using it because it was more of a pain having to make sure the ssd didnt fill up than the speedup it gave.

- Booting faster i couldnt care less about, I do that once per month.
- Normal use, not really noticeable since most used programs are cached in ram and only opened once per reboot or so anyways.
- Games, ok. Mostly CPU bound so only a say 50% speedup in load despite being 500% faster. pointless for MOBAs but good for skyrim I guess.
- premiere etc. pretty good here I guess

File: 82062.png (53KB, 650x840px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 650x840px

>>57710920
Samsung 850 Pro stronk, decade's warranty, although if you are going to use with Linux, you'll have to use periodic fstrim.

>>57710830
The boot time is negligible

What makes it nice is that as soon as you log in from cold boot your programs launch instantly instead of shit being slow for a while

Programs overall also launch way quicker

>>57711192
Not really. Movies (more specifically large contiguous files) are the only thing HDDs are decent at because it can read straight through a track on the disk instead of skipping around to random places on the platter (which is where most of HDD's slowness comes from)

For literally everything else though SSDs are better

>>57711723
Quite the contrary, SSDs have made ramdisks pretty much obsolete

ssd's are cheap now. I got a 500 gb ssd to replace my laptops hdd and it is sooooo noticeable. more noticeable than when i doubled the ram to 8gb

now I wanna throw an SSD in my old laptop and see how much nicer it is

don't forget the heat/noise improvements of ssd vs hdd, very noticeable in laptops

>>57712137
Not all of us can justify fucking 1000$ hard drives and shit.

Intel's upcoming next gen of SSD's are apparently 1/5th the speed of RAM

I don't know why anybody would advocate for ramdisks in 2016

2006 maybe

But not now

>>57714222
>>57714161
This

$80 of SSD will store like 30 times more programs than $80 of RAM

>>57714222
>1/5th the speed
>for the low low price of $3000

>>57714253
You're off by a 0 and a half

Intel typically has the cheapest SSDs when they come out

SSDs are great because Photoshop and Firefox starts in like 3 seconds. Fuck yeah.

>>57714274
>the top of the line shit that isn't even out yet
whatever the cost will be you won't be able to afford it

>>57711723
>>57711773
>>57711801
Let's put it this way.

People used ramdisks because they were ridiculously faster than HDDs.

Well, now SSDs are out and are also ridiculously faster than HDDs.

Ramdisks are faster than SSDs, but not noticeably so compared to HDDs.

That combined with SSD's much higher storage capacity (128-256GB vs like 2GB-8GB which would be your typical ramdisk size today) make the SSD the better deal because it can store way more programs than exactly one Photoshop and one Premiere or whatever the fuck.

>>57714317
>muh vidya gayms
>muh animuu~~

>>57714317
Not to mention that using ramdisks means not using that amount of RAM for the rest of your system.

Additionally, ramdisks have no benefit for the OS itself, while OSes can fit on SSDs.

>>57714285
you needed an SSD to do that?

>>57714332
>neither of which were mentioned in the post

How about

>muh OS
>muh programs
>muh IDEs
>muh DAWs
>muh photo editing software
>muh video editing software
>muh 3D modeling software

>muh people using a computer for productive purposes can stuff all of what they use on an SSD rather than one or two of them on a ramdisk

>>57714285
>>57714345
firefox cold starts in like 5 secs on an old hdd for me

Anyone who has not bought an SSD in the past 5 years is a fucking luddite, pure and simple.

>>57714345
>wat is scratch disk
SSDs do well for Photoshop senpai

>>57714371
RAM disks do even better

>>57714345
Yes. Photoshop especially. Firefox only takes forever to start on first run. But it still sucks. Though that's probably because I have a lot of addons and shit because Firefox is pure ass as a browser otherwise. Still, with an SSD it doesn't matter.

>>57714380
You're an idiot.

Photoshop only uses scratch disks when it runs out of available RAM.

Using a ramdisk literally has no effect because it's still using a chunk of your available RAM.

So ironically you've merely given Photoshop even less system RAM to work with

>>57710830
You just reminded me to put FFXIV on my SSD. Shit has ridiculous load times.

>>57714345
It loads up instantly for me. It used to take like 20 seconds before.

>>57714370
>Anyone who has not bought an SSD in the past 5 years is a fucking luddite, pure and simple.

we're all on NVMe now, laggard...

>>57714393
maybe you should invest in some more RAM instead of using an SSD as a bandaid to "fix" harddrive thrashing

File: 65758.jpg (98KB, 640x413px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x413px

>>57710830
No. SSDs are the future.
>more reliable due to no mechanical parts
>faster than your mom's hands
>uses less power
>generates less heat
>takes less space, so you can completely get rid of 2,5" bay
>generates no sounds

>>57714416
4-8GB more fast scratch space is fuck all compared to 128-256GB, and a huge waste of money for that reason.

>$80 for 16GB more RAM
>$70 for a 250GB SSD

Gee which is the better option??

>>57710830
Multiple core CPUs are a meme

They barely even improve performance

>>57714439
>he thinks it's ok to have insufficient RAM because thrashing an SSD doesn't feel unbearingly slow
k

>>57714416
Why is "fix" in quotes?

There literally is no such thing as harddrive thrashing on SSDs

>>57714438
>>faster than your mom's hands
what did he mean by this?

>>57714455
yes there is
>>57712274
>https://www.servethehome.com/firefox-is-eating-your-ssd-here-is-how-to-fix-it/

>>57714466
I don't store my Users folder on my SSD.

>>57714466
That has nothing to do with thrashing.

Thrashing is specifically your PC being slow because the drive is busy seeking different places on the platter.

Literally doesn't happen with SSDs.

>>57714439
>>57714455
>>57714476
Give it a rest man. You're being trolled.

>>57714497
you're an idiot

it's still much slower (just not on the same magnitude as with an HDD) when you're using an SSD to cover for insufficient RAM

>>57714510
But nothing in your article has anything to do with RAM.

>>57710830
Are HDDs just a meme? Why would I pay twice as much for a quarter the capacity of my LTO tape?

>>57714510
You're the idiot.

If you have an actual complicated project going, Photoshop is going to use way more than a reasonable amount of RAM as scratch space and shit

Unless you really shill out for an X99 board and its overpriced processors you're going to hit a limit

Meanwhile SSDs are only slightly slower for a fuckload less money than doing that with a lot more space and all

>>57714543
>too cheap to buy good equipment
you sound like a real professional right there

>>57714551
But SSDs are good equipment.

You're clearly not a professional.

>>57714466
>35GB/day if you leave your machine running
I use firefox, run my machine 24/7, and over the past three years, I've only used 13GB/day on average. Not to mention that's total system writes, and I download a shitton of stuff outside of my web browser, in the form of animu, porn, music, games, updates for games, updates for OS, etc.

Something is fucking wrong with that guy's firefox.

>>57714466
Firefox will write the session store regardless of how much RAM you have.

>>57714564
>using firefox in 2016
lmao

>>57714574
>write to RAM disk
>check mate
also this: >>57714575

>>57714564
>shitton
>13GB
come on

>>57714582
So you're filling up your tiny RAMdisk in no time instead. bravo.

>>57714510
But using a ramdisk will give you insufficient RAM because the system won't use that RAM for anything else anymore.

Booting isn't the only thing that uses storage. It's like saying why would I pay twice for a dedicated GPU only to be able to run higher quality screensavers?

>>57714497
you literally just ignored the point >>57714510 made and responded to something he didn't say

SSDs do not have 'thrashing', because there's no speed penalty for accessing data non-sequentially.

The amount of RAM you have is completely irrelevant when you are trying to load data from two places on a disk simultaneously.

>>57714617
Did you get your two posts backwards? Because he literally did say thrashing

>>57714628
Oh, yeah, I did, whoops.

>>57711500
>png
You first.

File: 1470126842593.jpg (55KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x640px

>>57713497
>44mbps transfer speeds

>>57714617
What point is that exactly?

It's a fucking dumb idea to buy more than 16GB or even let's say 32GB of RAM for any use other than running VMs, when you can get an SSD with that money instead. Shit, SSDs will probably be the better choice for VMs too.

>>57713497
Savage

>>57714617
if you had more ram you wouldnt be loading from your disk at all

>>57710915
This is gospel

>>57714643
>moving the goalposts

File: 1479680946345.jpg (36KB, 715x720px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 715x720px

>>57713497
>15mm thick hard drive
>shitgate

>>57712137
kek SSDs are literal junk unless they can get the latency down to 6 microseconds of read and write latency per 4k Page.

>>57714695
Says who?

>>57714651
Yeah, well if you have the budget to buy 128GB or 256GB of ram, a lot of things don't apply.

And in cases where you don't have enough ram to run your computer entirely from memory, you need to load stuff from disk at some point, or it's not going to get into ram in the first place.

>>57711384
Games benefit quite a lot actually, in my experience.

>>57714670
>solution to problem comes with a cost of a huge flaw

>>57714701
says captain autism
>>57714695

>>57710830
10 seconds of boot time? Your entire os runs faster. And any application installed on it.

It's not a meme. Faggot.

>>57710830
SSDs are only a meme if you get the cheap ass ones. They write slower than mechanical hard drives after awhile, I know from experience from a PNY SSD I used for my OS. Winblows would have a heartattack trying to write anything to the drive.

>>57714774
>PNY
found you problem
also learn what TRIM is and how to use it, faggot

>>57714780
TRIM should be handled automatically, retard.

>>57714774
this

enjoy your placebo when your drives wear down fast as fuck

Putting an SSD in my laptop made it fast as fuark.
no regrets

Are Kingston SSDs good?

>>57714816
>kingshit
Go sandisk if you want to go cheap. Otherwise go intel/samsung

File: retard.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>57710830
Spinning disks is stupid on laptops.

>>57714844
>falling for the intel/samsung meme

>>57714438
>uses less power
>has significantly less capacity
keep believing your memes

File: 20161117184337_1.jpg (168KB, 1260x1261px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1260x1261px

>>57714869
>falling for the everything is a meme meme

>>57714439
Can I run my VMs on that SSD?

No fuck off if you're too poor to try it yourself

So ssd for the os and other programs and hdd for all my steam games and media?

Is there any difference between storing a game in a ssd or hdd?

>>57714881
enjoy your killswitch/exploding ssds

>>57714701
>>57714748
Okay be happy with your apple laptops.

>>57714786
It's clearly now handled in your case, dumbfuck.
Works fine on my machine.

>>57714878
>has significantly less capacity
who are you quoting, dipshit?
1TB mSATA Samsung SSDs are like $200 where I live. Cheap as fuck

>>57714929
enjoy your terminal autism

>>57715038
How does it consume less power when it stores less data? If I need to buy multiple SSDs then how does that save power?

>>57715038
dumbass jit

When will hdds become obselete so I can buy 1tb ssd for 50 bucks?

>>57714081
Fstrim is actually unnecessary.

>>57710946
>hoping that the SSD won't lose data integrity like I heard they sometimes did.

Where the fuck are your backups? People who don't back up their data deserve to lose their data, jobs, families, relationships, vehicles, genitalia, vision, and ability to control bowel movements.

>>57710901
This really.

I have couple of computers. I know that I can't go back to hard drive based system installs. They're so fucking slow.

Thats the most obvious part, however the majority of the difference comes from application load times. The latency between clicking the program executable, and it showing up on the screen is affected by the SSD/HDD speed. On HDD, not only is the transfer speed slower, but the latency is slower too(this is why fragmentation is a huge issue on hdd, but not on ssd). The hard drive spin ups also cause system wide freezes.

>>57715215
How am I supposed to afford backup SSDs when I paid more than a thousand dollars just for my 4TB SSD?

>>57715135
>buying storage space to store anime
>talking about waste
Kill yourself

Some of the assets I'm working at work chew through RAM and will use far more than 64GB if I try to load the entire thing at once. So much so that I even got approval to get some pcie drives for these programs.
sata3 ssds are so much better than spinning rust that they'll be plenty good for quite a while. Don't think I ever want to use a laptop without ssds ever again, even emmc is better than hard drives.

>>57711572
>>57711659
>>57711572
Is KingDian any good, performance wise and durability?

>>57715306
Imagine I'm a big company like facebook that needs to store the pictures that the users upload.
Let's assume that right now I need 20TB of storage. Will I save money through lower power consumption if I use SSDs compared to HDDs assuming I get HDDs or SSDs for free?

>>57715354
They're fine.

>>57715383
You do realize nobody said that SSDs are a replacement for all HDD solutions?
Are you seriously this motherfucking dumb to sperg about data centres in discussion about typical consumer usage?
Fucking gas yourself.

>>57714644
>SSDs will probably be the better choice for VMs too.

I have several VM larger than 32GB. Samsung 850 500GB is sweet. Fuck spinners.

>>57712137
>why is /g/ such conservative shithole, what the fuck? aren't you supposed to be on the "edge"?

SSD are normie shit. Apparently /g/ are poor as fuck beyond what we might imagine.

>>57715294
Find an offsite backup plan. Also covers you if you have a fire etc and lose your equipment.

Local backup can be done by rotating spinners using swap racks. (If it's connected, it can get taken out if a PSU fails)

Google "hard drive backup rotation" for different methods.

>>57715405
You avoid answering my simple question by attacking my usecases.
I take this answer as a "no".

So why did you claim that SSDs use less power previously? >>57714438
>uses less power

>>57714081
>you'll have to use periodic fstrim

I thought most distros set up a cron job automatically?

>>57710830
nope. Run faster as no moving parts, but at the same time no data integrity.

RAID 0 two 32GB SSD's for your OS, then run a 3TB HDD for your main setup/programs/storage.

>>57715532
You forgot your anti-autism pills.

>>57710830
Absulutely not. SSD is the best investment I ever made. I you really need storage that much, get SSD + HDD, put the OS and programs on SSD and your porn or whatever on HDD

>>57715172
>>57715596
https://ubuntu-mate.community/t/trim-on-samsung-850-pro-still-blacklisted-in-xenial-kernel/5800

Anyone else not using HDDs anymore?
256GB + 1TB SSD here.

>>57715405
>>57716154

>>57716187
I'm thinking about switching to a 1.2TB Intel 750 + 4TB Samsung 850 Evo setup if that makes you feel better.

/g/ is just a bunch of normies doing normie shit on their normie pc.

>pros:
a little faster

>cons:
much smaller capacity
much more expensive
can't even wipe them properly when you want to get rid of it

SSDs are garbage

>>57716273
>can't even wipe them properly when you want to get rid of it
Use encryption. If you want to "wipe" it then just delete the key.

File: 58e2b634aaeb1c489def6d34597a45c3a148e4b9.jpg (3MB, 3867x2578px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3867x2578px

>>57716273
>can't even wipe them properly when you want to get rid of it
What is fireplace?

>>57716273
this

>>57710920
I've been using the same OCZ ssd for over six years and its no where near dieing. Learn how to use your hardware.

>ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls
Fuck you kids. Purge yourselves

>>57715438
they spent all their money on $1000 headphones according to /hpg/

>>57715438
SSDs are mostly useful for laptops and for loading video games. if that's what you want then good for you but real techies know that SSDs are overhyped

File: iqover700.png (40KB, 116x145px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 116x145px

>>57710830
>tfw too smart to fall for the SSD meme

>>57710946
That's very reassuring.

>>57710830
Buy an ssd and find out. (It's not just a meme)

>>57711274
Dude, you're not going do be WORKING that SSD the way he's talking about. Chances are an HDD would fail under that kind of in a very similar time frame.

>>57711192
HDD are perfect for storing music and videos because it such a cheap way to get lots of storage and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference on media. Otherwise SSDs are superior in every way.

>>57714643
>cherry picked AND misquoted
who are you kidding?

File: IMG_7323.png (2MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1536x2048px

>>57710830
>boot time
This board DESPERATELY needs IDs.

>>57716704
No, excellent desktop performance is great to have.

>>57716154
Desktop is running a 480Gb ssd, my thinkpad has a 500Gb ssd and my old intel dual core Vista era Toshiba laptop has a 120Gb ssd running ubuntu. The only thing with a hard drive is my PS4. I started switching over to ssd about 4 years ago and I'm so glad I did.

>>57716154
running 256+1TBssd

But I also need my 4TB hdd. want that to be NAS one day.

>>57718568
listen to this guy: >>57711971

there is no real performance gain outside of opening/closing programs

>>57715532
It's a loaded question. No point in answering it. Who cares about facebook's server. This thread has been about Desktop and laptop use.

>>57710830
It does cost 4 times more per GB than an HDD, but it has a much better data access speed making it at least 5 times faster than an hdd in literally everything. It's used for storing your OS and software, not cold data. If you want to store your backups, pictures, videos, documents or music then use an HDD for it. This means if you don't game you won't need more than 128GB on an SSD (although 64 is enough then, having extra storage can come in handy), and if you are a /v/tard then you should get at least 250GB. If you could waste money on unnecessary additional monitors and meme graphics cards you can also afford an SSD.

>>57718666
some idiot said SSDs use less power, it's only relevant if it's less power per amount of storage, so the data center example is just a way to contextualize this, if all else was equal then would a company like facebook prefer SSDs because of the supposedly lower power consumption?

>>57710830
Trolls post some version of this thread almost every day
>/g/ falls for it every day
For fuck's sake people... You're like /r9k/ and NEET threads, except they now at least understand that they're troll threads.

>making your computer fast, energy efficient, cooler and quiet is a meme
wew lads

>>57718709
Ask Facebook. Literally no one cares about your convoluted question in the context of this thread.

>>57718731
you would care if SSDs were more power efficient like you claimed, but now you dodge the question as if you think you're fooling anyone like the underage dimwitted kid you are

>>57718719
current /g/ is 90% people who visit only for a few hours to ask a tech support question and post facebook junk

>>57718719
SSDs are overrated and there is nothing wrong with RAM disks, different tools for different purposes

>>57714887
Yeah, actually, SSDs make VMs fast as fuck too

>>57715294
Obviously you don't back up to SSDs. Or HDDs for that matter.

>>57718755
Nah, wrong guy. What point are you trying to make? Just spill it already instead of asking stupid loaded questions.

>>57716273
>can't even wipe them properly when you want to get rid of it
Why not?
Just write over it

Also they're way easier to physically destroy since they're mostly plastic

Just drill through each chip

>>57718832
anon claimed SSDs are more power efficient. another anon said not really because the power usage is higher when taking the storage size into account. so we're wondering if they are still more power efficient if you compare say sixteen 256 GB SSDs to a 4 TB HDD?

File: ACHEDEEDE.png (32KB, 485x662px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 485x662px

>>57718912
http://ark.intel.com/products/88735/Intel-SSD-DC-P3608-Series-4_0TB-12-Height-PCIe-3_0-x8-20nm-MLC
>Power - Idle 11.5W

HDDs still win at GB/watt. SSDs win at IOPS/watt and sequential read speed.

File: 1478482039797.gif (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

Does ssd count how many gbs were writtien since the beginning?

Is it possible to check it?

My ssd is 1yo and it works visibly slower.

I have vm with 10gb open always when pc is on.

Now I wonder if vm has 10gb of fixed space does ssd recognize whole vm as one big file and everytime in vm 1kb change is whole vm rewritten on ssd?

I am confused

plz explain

Is an SSD ok if I am dual-booting on my laptop?

File: crystaldiskinfo.png (860KB, 999x683px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 999x683px

>>57719298
I don't think so.

File: idle-power-consumption-samsung-850-pro-512gb-ssd-custom-pc-review-588x361.jpg (41KB, 588x361px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 588x361px

>>57718999
Not sure why I'm responding to a troll desu.

>>57718781
Sure there is.

>doesn't make the OS itself faster
>only has room for a couple big programs
>takes away RAM from the rest of the system

>>57719298
I'm pretty sure it's a part of SMART, or at least part of whatever SSD software there is for your respective disk (Samsung Magician will tell you)

>>57719416
I have Total Host Writes 10k gb and totl host reads 12k gb

is it bad for 1yo ssd

?

Power on hours 999, but my pc is usually on 12-16h/day

>>57714786
TRIM is automatic, you just need to deallocate some space off the drive so that it can keep free blocks around

>>57719460
Cunningham's Law
"the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer."

>>57719520
Considering SSDs can write PBs now before hitting a write limit, you're doing fine anon

>>57719520
Anon it's too late. If you keep that up your SSD is only going to last a few decades.

File: 1478390266732.jpg (49KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 657x527px

>>57719564
>>57719541
are those stats from crystal info from beginning of ssd life or does format change anything?

Power on Hours 999h seems pretty unrealistic because only in last month I had pc turned on for 300h and I have energy saving turned off.

>>57719639
You don't need to worry about your SSD if you do backups. If it fails buy a new one. By the time it fails it's obsolete anyway.

>>57719728
Here where I live 250gb ssd cost half of month salary senpai.

If you're counting pennies, don't worry about an SSD. For the rest of us, it's a nice quality-of-life upgrade.

>>57710830
>why would I upgrade my computer
Beats me anon

>boot times

Are you a normie? That's not the reason to use SSDs.

>>57710920

>>"flash memory in general is a meme"
>average poster on /g/

>>57710830
Quick question. It's true that Ssd stop working faster, compared to hdd, and you have to change those very often?

>>57722422
No. It's a myth.

> some shitty 7200 rpm 500gb hard drive i got for 15$
> boots into wincocks desktop in less than 10 seconds
> ssd faggots pls kys

File: e0b490b0e0b5c5290679798ea55e8c15.png (811KB, 1508x682px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1508x682px

>>57719639

You're good mate, I had my 500gb model running for 24/7 for a year and a half with a few days of downtime hare and there, I'm currently using it for a home media server.

>>57714640
>wanting your pics to develop artifacts over time to the point where they become useless
faggit

/g/ worships Thinkpads so it's highly relevant that an SSD extends their useful life and uses less power than spinning rust. SSDs make old Pads yung again.

Thinkpads often fit multiple drives so are ideal notebooks for an SSD OS drive with porn on a spinner in the caddy, more porn in a dock, and yet more porn in USB external enclosures connected to the dock.

>>57710920
My 256MB flash drive from 2005 still works perfectly.

>tfw the day is coming soon that SSDs will be cheap enough to be used for all storage purposes, including home servers