Boot from SSD with programs on HDD

So, I have a Lenovo Y400 laptop. It currently has only a 1TB HDD, which is decent, but nowhere near on par with the machine's other specs. Luckily, it has an mSATA slot, which I hope to fill with a small (~64gb) SSD. Before I order one, however, I have a question:

Every tutorial I have seen tells me to move my Windwos installation, and therefore both Program Files folders, to the SSD. However, 64GB isn't enough for Windows, Ubuntu, and all of my programs. So, is there any way to move Windows to my SSD but make programs install to the HDD by default? I realize that many programs offer a choice as to where they are installed, but many do not, and many cannot be moved very easily.

If this is impossible, is there any way to set up the SSD as a cache without using software that runs inside of Windows? I plan to dual- or triple-boot eventually, and I don't want to be limited in my use of storage because of software incompatibility.

Also: Is 64GB enough? Would 32GB suffice? Should I get something bigger? And is there a significant performance drop between 2.5" and mSATA?

Any help would be very welcome, and will be rewarded with a virtual fist bump.

 

You can use an NTFS symbolic link to "trick" programs into thinking your programs dir is on C: when it's on a different drive. You can use the same trick on the users directory too.

Note that while this will trick most programs, software that needs to interact with your file system on a low level (e.g. backup software) will still be aware of the link.


In terms of size I would recommend at least 120 GB. It's not only a much better $/GB, but for me at least 128GB is plenty to dual boot windows (100 GB) and ubuntu (20 GB) with space left to spare (although I did need to manually install some programs, i.e. Steam, on the HDD).

 

mSATA is slower than a 'regular' 2.5" SSD - even if both are SATA3 (6GB/s) capable. (Because mSATA versions have less nand chips/channels).

Smaller capacities are slower (and less durable) than larger capacities too (and for mostly the same reasons, see below).


An SSD smaller than 240/256GB is not recommended for sustained long term performance and also for the least WA (write amplification) damage to the nand chips...

The reasons that they perform worse are that the controller's channels are not fully populated with the smaller capacities (making them much slower, by default) and also, the nand chips on each channel are not optimally interleaved for performance.

Along with that, no matter what you think you need in terms of capacity, take at least 30% off of the actual (not the nominal or 'advertised') capacity of the model you're interested in for OP'ing (Over Provisioning) duties. OP'ing will give you the sustained performance that you paid for with the SSD with the least WA possible when the drive does it's GC (Garbage Collection) and TRIM routines. Note that OP'ing does NOT make the drive faster... but it does keep it as fast as possible no matter (almost...) what workload you throw at it.

To give an example of how to calculate proper OP'ing:

With an SSD with a nominal 240GB advertised capacity:

240x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 240,000,000,000

240,000,000,000 / 1024 /1024 /1024 = ~223GB actual maximum capacity

223 x .7 = ~156GB of total suggested usable capacity.

Less ~25GB that Windows 7/8 needs as 'free space' leaves you with ~131GB of actual, usable capacity. If you want the maximum sustained performance and nand reliability you paid for. Yeah; from a 'nominal' 240GB SSD...



Highly recommend you DO NOT get such a low capacity and low performance SSD that will most likely disappoint you in a matter of days/weeks vs. a proper and sufficiently sized model.


Note that if you are considering the newer/newest SSD's such as the Crucial M500 series - the minimum capacity goes from 240/256GB to 480GB or higher (the reason is that these new drives are manufactured with higher density nand which results in less nand chips required to hit the capacity points - but still leaves the drive with non-optimally interleaved nand - which needs many nand chips per channel to implement properly; almost like RAID0...).


Hope this helps.


Good luck.

 

I'd also advise going for a mid-size SSD. Need 30GB? Go for a 64GB one. Needs 60GB? Go for a 128GB etc. It's not significantly more expensive, and comes with several perks:
- evolvability (what if tomorrow's OS needs 33GB? what if triple, quadruple booting some day?)
- performance gain (with most models, the bigger the SSD the better the absolute perfs)
- overprovisioning (SSDs greatly benefit from having spare room to ensure optimal, lasting performance... absolutely necessary with some models that perform OOC garbage collection)