Thread: SSD Opinion

You remember why White? And if it's anything like what I was thinking is it not as much a problem now as it was then?

Originally Posted by BrokenApe

You remember why White? And if it's anything like what I was thinking is it not as much a problem now as it was then?

I can't speak for Wile, but this is how it shakes out for me:

The advantage of an SSD is in read and write speeds. NAND Flash is quicker than a spinning disc. Booting an OS or loading a big game is faster.

The advantage of a hard drive is cost. The 256G SSDs you list are $100-$120 (I don't know what that Radeon has that makes it worthwhile - it's 50% more expensive for 240G).

You can get a 1T Western Digital Blue HD for $55. A 1T WD Black for $75. For even more Bang/Buck you can get a 4T WD drive for $143.

Any of those HDDs are more than fast enough to read and stream any media file you might have, or to write them at whatever rate you're ripping or downloading.

So let's say you have a 2 terabyte media library. You can host it (with lots of room to grow) on a $143 HDD, or on some sort of combo (perhaps RAID?) of SSDs that cost at least $800.

There is also, in my head, a lingering issue of long-term reliability. I don't know what the current expected lifetime (MTBF) of SSDs is. That should be less of an issue to people in these forums, because I know that all of you are scrupulous about backups.


Æ

Originally Posted by AetheLove

[...]

There is also, in my head, a lingering issue of long-term reliability. I don't know what the current expected lifetime (MTBF) of SSDs is. That should be less of an issue to people in these forums, because I know that all of you are scrupulous about backups.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

I think it was due to media being more frequently accessed, which would wear out a SSD more quickly.

This is what I was wondering about in terms of long-term reliability. A media library has a very specific disc-use profile.

• The files tend to be medium to large size.
• They are generally written once
• You almost never edit/change the file
• Practically all subsequent file accesses are reads
• For many files, reads will be infrequent
• For some files, reads will be frequent

So the suitability of an SSD for media storage has lots to do with the extent to which reads degrade the device.

For general use computers, that's an odd profile. Most of us probably mix our general-use storage with our media storage.

If writes are what wear out an SSD, then it's all the other stuff you store that will take the toll. In this case, the only downside to storing audio/video/pictures on your SSD is cost. HDDs are cheaper per Gig.

If reads degrade the NAND Flash, then there is a second reason to not store your media on SSDs - or at least to not store that one MP3 you play 5 times a day.

I don't know enough about SSDs, and would be happy for someone who did to chime in here.

It also kinda makes me wonder if there isn't an opportunity for a new kind of WORM storage. I want a block device where I can write a file and then lock down that one segment. Instead of WORM, I want Write Once Read Forever (A Worf drive!).


Æ

You know, I thought I'd never exhaust my vocabulary of invective but today the profanity flowed freely.. 509 sequential read, 468 sequential write... and it would have never happened unless I'd come across an article from someone else with a Gigabyte motherboard like I have using a Samsung SSD which said to use the Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller instead of whatever Gigabyte provided (which btw blue screened and wouldn't work) Before it was in IDE mode and AHCI wouldn't work, posting this here as a reminder to others hopefully it prevents someone else from wanting to beat their head against the desk