more (ANNOYING) drive questions

over the past couple weeks I have posted several questions about some hard drive issues I've had. I got some good advice and I hope I thanked every one who responded. with me , one question always leads to several more, so here they are. (1) I was interested in a dual boot (windows/ Linux) setup. would a drive like this work http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147247. I would use a standard hdd for my pictures, music, downloads, etc. (2) is sata 3 interchangeable with sata 2. (3) my old hdd is a sanyo 1tb. I don't use or need any where near that much capacity. all told i'm only using 66 gb. should I use another 1tb drive or does it really matter. this computer runs windows 7, amd Athlon II x 4 640, asus mother board, built in 6/2010. thanks

 

(I couldn't get the link to work so who knows what it's pointing to...)

But yes, SATA3 and SATA2 should be interchangeable devices in our Perfect World. A SATA3 Driver's greater thru-put capacity is merely throttled by the SATA2 path, but it's otherwise, operations will complete normally.

There is a 2Tb-capacity limit on a Boot Drive. 32-Bit OS's don't play well with capacities over 2Tb - some refusing to work at all, while some motherboards come with a 'trick driver' that can utilize more of that excess capacity, but I'd always caution against using any translator-driver to do File Reads & Writes because, if you try to move that drive to another system one day, that translator software probably won't or can't be used.

The UEFI BIOSs (ie motherboard) and 64-bit OSs are the usual-necessary factors in using capacities above that 2Tb limit.

If we knew the ASUS motherboard model number AND if you were using a 32-bit or 64-bit Win7, we could provide more definitive answers. The link's drive capacity might be useful, but if it's 2Tb or less, it should be fine on anything.

 

i'll try the link again http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...sp=&AID=10446076&PID=6146962&SID=zhlc5itp07fs , it's a Samsung 840 evo 120mb sata3. like I say I don't use a lot of space on my drive and this alone would probably be enough. I've always been interested in using an open sourse operating system but I need to have windows around too. I am running 64bit windows 7. as far as the mother board it has at least three sata 2 connections and possibly one sata three connection, but I won't be sure until I get it open. this is just an idea I had, no big deal .

 

Ah! Moving to an SSD! I get it. Turn the SSD into your Boot Device, load it up with the operating system(s) and Program Files, learn to change-settings to move TEMP FILE settings to your "data/storage" hard drive and have at it.

 

Hi,

I appreciate having a dedicated system drive is often considered superior by default.
Having SSD will allow quicker boot times for sure.

If you have an SSD drive throwing vast amounts of data at speed to a normal type drive wont this cause bottlenecks, stutters or more wear and tear on the normal HDD? :confused

 

No, because the HDDs still only move as fast as they ever moved - they're not suddenly 'going' at 150mph when they used to only do 20.

And the SSD doesn't drive the HDDs. The Memory Controller does. Just like 'he' always has. He's the one responsible for juggling thru-put capacities and speeds. And each drive-device has their own 'controller' as well, serving as queues for SEND/RECEIVES (Read/Writes) when the motherboard's Memory Controller announces he's full or empty.

 

hey again,
all right i'm getting my ducks in a row . i'm 95% sure I want to go with a 120gb ssd for the OS and a regular hdd for everything else. I would still like to know if the 120gb ssd has enough capacity to dual boot windows 7 and Ubuntu. looking at the initial downloads there should be plenty of space but i'm not sure.

 

Yes, if you load both OSes AND some of their Program File-Applications, you probably will be in the 50-60Gb range total. That's probably 10-15 large programs for each platform, by the way.

SSDs handle "stress and load on capacity" differently than HDDs. I am loathe to recommend anyone load up a boot-HDD more than 60%. Somewhere after 40% capacity, HDDs must spin a lot more to find the shrinking 'empty space' for it's initial attempts at writing "contiguous file blocks". SSDs don't. They take whatever empty recording surface they can find, and dump data there. Continguous or not

So, an 80% filled SSD may not have more of a detrimental effect than a 20%-used SSD. That's exactly the opposite of traditional HDD performance, though.

There is one caveat. All of these devices die. At some point. HDDs might give some warning. SSDs generally don't. So, if I fill up an SSD to 80%, I'm agreeing, "Go ahead and die, and take that 80% with you."

For me, cloning an SSD is the best insurance over this. While this market is hitting lower price points, I'm still spending twice-the-dollars for the same "120Gb" capacity - Master Drive and Its Clone, in other words.

This is why I often look at a single-OS SSD at an even lower capacity - 90Gb is still overkill for any flavor of Windows and it's 20-largest programs.

Some folks even like a 2-SSD system - a 90Gb Boot & Program Files SSD, and a SMALL 30-60Gb Temp File/Page File SSD. By removing Temp & Page Files from the Boot SSD, this removes the most frequently-changed file types to a cheaper but almost as speedy alternative.

 

I would argue that getting an older (smaller) SSD is asking for it to last no time at all, some older drives often lasted less than a year depending on the quality.

Of course there are many factors that can affect the lifespan, most are caused by user ignorance. The simple act or writing, deleting & re-writing will shorten a drives longevity along with formatting them (unless they support TRIM).

I don't mean to scare anyone away from SSD's, I actually have a Samsung 840 Pro 256GB & love it. But it's always a good idea to know the pitfalls some of which I mentioned above, the main one being lifespan in your case (as you don't require allot of storage). Your typical mechanical HDD has a lifespan of around 5-7 years, if your talking good makes like Western Digital you can probably squeeze a few more years out of them. I have never had a HDD fail on me because I tend to need more space before they do, but I have been using fast low capacity drives paired with a high capacity (green/echo) backup/storage drive & a fast SSD is the natural progression of that.

Overall if you are not looking for ultra high speed why go for something that'll live faster than you need it to & inevitably die young with no real warning? Especially when you can pick up a 500GB HDD from a good manufacturer that will last a long time, not reduce in size unless you get bad sectors & will actually show warning signs of it's demise. On top of that from the sounds of it you'll have trouble filling it :-D

Hope this helps, or at least inform

:major2-BIT-GEEK:major

 

2BIT, yes to everything in there.

The Samsung Pro's have earned my appreciation but I'm always reminded of a Faye Dunaway quote from THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR: "The night is still young..." in discussing a possible doom.

On notebooks where I have little use except for Access Speed, the 250-500Gb SSDs have proven to be effective. I just make sure there's nothing stored that can't be re-created! I have grown more careless, and I know other users have, too. We'll pay for this eventually - these devices die on THEIR schedule, never on ours. That's always how it is, though... ah yes... that Jag XKE... 4 am somewhere south of Reno... grrr...

But I've become fond of the 2-SSD performance - C: as some 90-120Gb SSD, D: as the Temp-Page File, and if I can find even older Sata-II 30-60Gb, that's more than enough. Those are usually over $1-per-gig, but I DO consider those "disposable." When those die, well, I can temporarily shift pointers around and get the computer up and running until I can replace it.

I'm fairly pleased with the recent OCZ problems because these are flushing a lot of cheap refurbs and buying those up like chiclets means "backups for everyone!" at a low enough cost. Now, I just need to get cases with wonderfully stout hot-swap slots for easy cloning!

 

I guess it all boils down to what I want and what I really need. speed (millisec) is not all that important to me, dependability is what i'm after. my thinking was that a solid state drive had no moving parts so it had to be more durable, maybe not. also, you can get two nice middle of the road hdds for what you pay for the 120 gb ssd. I guess i'll study on this alittle more. as far as the dual boot system, I've run up on "virtualization", which is an option I wasn't aware of. wow, the more I look and ask the more I look and ask.thanks

 

I think you have a well-reasoned assessment.

I would add there is a consideration that SSDs - while lacking moving parts - will have recording surfaces deteriorate over time, and faster than the HDD's recording surfaces. Initially, this was a big negative consideration but in the last year with so many SSDs now using the longer-lasting MLC chips, this is less and less a factor (those offering 1 million or even 5 million hours of Read-Writes).

Of course, all of those projected lifespan studies are like synthetic oil... "your actual driving mileage may vary..."