SSD usage tips

Traka

Hey there,

I'm planning a new build in which I'm planning to get a 1TB SSD as main disk and 3TB HDD as storage.

A friend (not from this boards) advised me to actually get 2 SSDs, a smaller one (like 250GB) for system and the big one for the rest of the programs I'll be running; to me this seems to be a bit overkill.

Also, if I recall correctly (really dated information here it may have been changed in the latest win releases) it may actually get me to some troubles with windows default installation path for programs cause even if you set your "program files" directory to another drive (D:\ for example) some files will still be installed in the C:\ drive.

Anyone here can tell if there really is a practical performance improvement in setting it up with 2 separate SSDs (one for system and one for installed programs) and confirm if no problems could arise from it?

Thanks a lot for your help.

The_Valeyard

I've mixed experience with SSD


I used ocz twice both failed.

I have a single 250G SanDisk drive purely for windows and another 1TB ssd for Steam and a normal 4TB for music, photos, games not always played.

wotzgoingon

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I've mixed experience with SSD


I used ocz twice both failed.

I have a single 250G SanDisk drive purely for windows and another 1TB ssd for Steam and a normal 4TB for music, photos, games not always played.

I have a OCZ Vertex 3 for 6 or 7 years now as my main boot drive and never had a moments problem with it.

The_Valeyard

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I have a OCZ Vertex 3 for 6 or 7 years now as my main boot drive and never had a moments problem with it.

I had the Vertex 2, unless vast improvement, id never buy again. But good its working out for you.

BigEejit

I've had 2 x 60GB Vertex 2's die on me, the second one was the warranty replacement the first one that died after 7 months, took fecking ages and i suspect that the replacement was a refurb. Wont be getting another disk from them....

I have a 250GB Samsung Pro for windows, with a 512GB Crucial MX300 (?iirc) for games and a 4TB HGST disk drive for movies/music etc

I would suggest that OP looks into hard disk reliability to see which manufacturer makes the longest lasting disks, because some of them have atrocious failure rates:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/drive-stats-2016-q1-failure-by-mfg.jpg
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/
Backblaze use disks that any consumer can also buy, but they buy them in the thousands. I replaced an old Seagate 2TB that slowly died with a HGST 4TB jobby.

Serephucus

I've been using SSDs for over ten years, and all but one of them is still working perfectly.

The one that failed was a 32GB OCZ Onyx.

As for install locations... There's not really much point, to be honest. A lot of that stems from the days of small SSDs, when people were more paranoid about limiting write cycles. Just use it as you normally would. Windows should take care of the big stuff on its own - disabling hibernation is about the only one I bother with any more, and that's just for space reasons.

Traka

Thanks a lot for the replies guys.
I may have phrased my starting post wrong, my concern was more the "have a separate SSD for system" part than the SSD reliability itself.
For now the build project looks like this "de DOT pcpartpicker DOT com/list/BnXKd6" (graphic card is a placeholder, I'm waiting for MSI's Sea Hawk X).
Based on the information from backblaze it seems that I should have no problems with the storage HDD  and I've seen very good reviews of the Sandisk SSD but what do you guys think of them?

OCZ SSDs were probably the most unreliable of the lot. Some got lucky, such as me, but many others didn't. I worked in a PC parts shop at the time and got quite a lot back.

They used new controllers from SandForce which were fast but the firmware was buggy and not very well tested. Intel used the same controllers in some SSDs but wrote their own firmware to get around the issues.

I wouldn't use OCZ SSDs as a benchmark for other SSDs. Crucial and Kingston have been excellent in my experience.

Hal1

I've 2 crucial m500's in a raid 0 array for the past 3 years. I can't fault them at all. I was thinking of getting a pair of m2 pci ssds for the faster write speed, as there becoming more affordable.