What to load on SSD; What to load on HDD

Forgive me if this has been discussed, but my search showed nothing cohesive.

With an upgrade to a smaller SSD and retention of the larger HDD, what should be loaded on the SSD and what relegated to the HDD.

I get the overall picture of OS and frequently used programs on the SSD and data, media, large files on the HDD, but wondered about the specifics in the grey area.

For instance if I use a program a lot, should my data file for that program go on the SSD? That should make the program load more quickly as it has its data close at hand on the faster drive.

I get that pictures and movies go on the HDD, but what about Lightroom? Shouldn't it have its previews on the SSD with the actual photo files on the HDD?

Lots to think about besides alignment and benchmark testing.

Perry

 

Use the SSD as a HDD with smaller capacity. Treat your HDD now as just an external USB 2.0 drive.

IOW, forget about what to load and put everything onto SSD unless you know very well that it is going to be access say less than once a year. When your SSD is full(or close to full), you would decide what can be deleted and/or what needs to be moved out.

As simple as that.

I do the same on my 3 partitions HDD as well. Everything goes to C: and when it is getting filled, I move some less frequently used to D slower tracks). I also have the third partition which only stores ISO images and the like for convenience.

SSD needs no TLC, it is just the size is smaller.

 

Good advice. With one caveat. Depending on how old your SSD is, you may or may not want to set aside a separate, unused partition for it.

 

The unused partition on the SSD is to keep its speed up?

I thought the newer ones did that automatically. Also does it need to be a free partition or simply free space in the C: partition?

I have added a 119 GB C300 (I know they call it a 128 GB but I am more accurate) and currently with my OS and programs it is about 1/2 full.

I am at the end of a 9 hour network load of some photo files and will move other large data files to the HDD today.

So far the choices seem obvious. I do expect to keep my user/My Documents file on the SSD because the files tend to be smaller and accessed more frequently while large media files are going on the HDD.

Perry

 

If your OS/SSD support TRIM, the unused space is more for 'precaution' as free space on the drive(even on the partitioned one) would act as buffer and achieve the same purpose of over provisioning. I have left some space unallocated but only because I know I can extend my C: if I really are running out of space. But so far, I still have enough space on C:

 

A pair of 600 gig intel 320's would solve all my needs

 

I dunno. I install OS and pretty much all my apps on my SSD. Games, data, and general storage go on my HDD. Only time I put data on my SSD is if the files are large and will benefit from a fast load time like VM's. Otherwise, there's no right or wrong way to do it. See what works best for you.

 

So far, your idea is what I am doing. I have partitioned my HDD to a D ata and Files partition and E:Backup partition.

I have put my OS and all my programs, their data files and My Documents (excluding My Pictures and My Music and My Videos) on my C: SSD.

My D has My Pictures, My Music and My Videos. E: will be for backups of all my important data files.

Perry

 

This is exactly what I was going to do, considering I can have 2 Hard Drives in my PC...but...I got scared away from SSD's (again). I'm concerned with all the maintenance things that need to be done to keep the drive running properly.

When I can get a SSD that is as reliable as a standard disk and don't require maintenance, I'll get one. I almost bought a Crucial c300 128GB, but it seems like more people have problems with SSD's than with standard disks. I still feel that: data integrity > data speed.

Am I wrong, are SSDs actually as reliable as a standard hard drive?

 

If you believe in Intel's figure, SSD are MORE RELIABLE than HDD. It is the first 'double nine' I have seen for off the shelf device storage device. Their quoted failure rate is 0.3-0.6% vs any HDD figure that I can search on google is at least 1-2%.

 

maybe it's time to start a poll regarding the reliability of the drives like I've done for the space left

 

too small a sample, not of much use. At the very least, it needs to be done at the etailer level like newegg. Intel said their figures are based on 3 set of data(internal deployment, their corp customers and retail G1/G2 SSD shipped total to about 1M).

 

yeah you're right
it's a cruel dilemma between not having enough data available and argue between ssd and hdd reliability (the little war is nearly in every Solid State Drives (SSDs) and Flash Storage thread here, that's like chicken or egg, it's funny) or having some bias data

 

No maintenance. Earlier SSD's required some because Windows and other OS's weren't set up for them. But with Windows 7 and TRIM, it's pretty much hands off as long as you do a fresh install of Windows.

Even then for Intel, their toolbox auto-tweaks what it needs to, and you can still do a manual TRIM. You shouldn't need to, but I still do it periodically because it only takes a second and ensures it's up to snuff. Some people are just paranoid and are concerned about eeking out another 10% of performance that they think they will actually use when in reality will make little to no difference.

 

My machine is a new quad core Sandy Bridge so that in itself is a speedier experience than I am used to but that plus the SSD makes using a computer a whole new experience.

My job requires me to be as productive as possible (I don't get paid by the hour or the day but by productive activity) so this keeps me from wasting time waiting on electronics.

In fact I like this so much I see an Intel 510 in my future.

Perry