Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Crucial 250 GB SSD Drive £59.99

Grotemobile

By Grotemobile
in EEVA - Reports

Recommended Posts

JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I can resist anything but temptation :)  I've done the deed.  For my wife's laptop and the PC the children use.  Personally I'm waiting until the 1TB models get a bit cheaper...

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickK

NickK

Posted
Posted

Only thing with OS X Yosemite is that Apple programmed it to cause problems other than Apple SSD fitted to the new machines (i.e. TRIM issues)..  I have used a first generation SSD (OCZ Vertex SATAII) for a while but then switched back with the last MBP.

I was using a Seagate hybrid 1TB SSD/HD 2.5" laptop drive at SGLX connected using Firewire 800 as an external drive. The beauty is that I could then switch between the mini and MBP for faster processing. Here's a review: http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_desktop_sshd_review it has a 8GB 'SSD' MLC cache. Infact I could switch out the data on the old SSD and use that.. probably faster :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stash_old

stash_old

Posted
Posted

Dont forget that SSD have a limited life span (even though they are getting better at lasting) so idea use is to place all files that are "read only" on the SSD everything else on normal HDD - thats not easy although there is software out there to organise the files.

Or just live with death of your SSD - which may be a short or long time - a bit like us.

But you can't argue on the speed and that price is very tempting - no I am not going to do it, must not buy one , wedding aniv coming soon - too late price gone back up to £72  :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Singlin

Singlin

Posted
Posted

I put a 500G ssd on my recently acquired refurbished Elitebook Workstation 8760W and the difference blew me away.

I have two more internal 1g normal hard drives where I keep all the files that are important to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Dont forget that SSD have a limited life span (even though they are getting better at lasting) so idea use is to place all files that are "read only" on the SSD everything else on normal HDD - thats not easy although there is software out there to organise the files.

Or just live with death of your SSD - which may be a short or long time - a bit like us.

Traditional spinning platter hard drives don't go on forever either and can have some quite unpleasant failure modes.  If you want to be sure you have your data, take backups.  No excuses.

Unless you're writing lots of data to the same location in the SSD and doing so very regularly, I think the lifetimes suggested by the manufacturers for modern SSDs are getting towards the point where they'll outlast the host machine.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cath

Cath

Posted
Posted

SSD's make such a speed difference :)

We've had one (OCZ SATA-2) in the desktop PC for around 3 years without any failure problem. We've had brand new top brand HDD's that have lasted less than that. Got a fast (SATA-3) SSD in the laptop as well for the past year that has had many terra-bytes of writes/erasures to it (video editing), it's great, totally silent and fast.

As James said, always have a recent back up of your system, then the agony is not so bad when a drive fails.

The only drives we've so far had fail anyway are the HDD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psychobilly

Psychobilly

Posted
Posted

The controller should load balance the writes to the "cells" .... There is (or at least used to be) additional "hidden" capacity to allow the controller to do this even when your running the drive close to full capacity.

There were issues in the early days when drives were small and they were being maxed out... I tend to not let mine go above 75% usage for any length of time...

The newer OS's will make sure that the system settings are optimised for SSD...

On my desktop which uses a "workstation" class MB  I use 256GB SSD/4 TB HDD cached pairs...

Peter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickK

NickK

Posted
Posted

In the old days the SSD had a sustained transfer rate lower than standard HDs - it was the random access that was miles faster. For normal disc operations on a computer - the random access is more important. Once you're into processing large image files and streaming (i.e. recording video or a continuous set of images) then throughput transfer rate is more important.

After a bit the SSD designers noted they could make sustained transfer faster by alternating between the different storage chips.. however it's still the speed of the NAND flash chips that's the problem.. although they're getting faster. The SSHD I have works nicely.. however you can see when you hit the 8GB SSD - although it is faster than the internal mac mini's hard drive.

SLC is better than MLC but SLC was always more expensive. 

One other option is that there was a manufacturer that made a PCI card that fitted into the PC, it had lots of DRAM slots on so you could use all your old DRAM memory in it - the card had a battery backup too. That would be even faster than SSD for processing storage.

I bit the bullet back in 2011 and went for 16GB upgrade for the MBP - with software development, processing of large CCD images (largest was 6GB by the end of it), it has really helped more than having a fast drive.. except when it comes to continuous frame storage.. hence the SSHD..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.