Does a full SSD impact performance today 2018

[Comixbooks]

I'm not using the drive for Win 10 just storage for Steam Games ect...I keep a little space for when a game has to update or patch ect....

 

[Deleted member 245375]

The general recommendation by myself is still the same even with SSDs: don't fill a drive more than 85% full, regardless of the OS, the file system, etc, just do whatever you can to keep it under that 85% full point.

Also: SSDs aren't really suited (yeah, I know, bring it on, I have the flame retardant suit on already) for storing big huge chunks of files like massive multi-gigabyte data files. They really are better suited for smaller chunks of data so, if possible install game data on physical mass storage like hard drives and keep the game executables on the SSD/NVMe/etc faster storage for obvious reasons. It's not always easy to do, sometimes it requires creating links to data files stored elsewhere but it's possible.

These days I'm kinda surprised that game developers aren't making such aspects part of the installers, like it'll ask you where you want the game executables to be installed and where you'd like the game data to go, that sort of thing. Would be a big benefit to performance in most respects for that to occur actually because then you'd be able to access the executables and the game data simultaneously across multiple drives, something you can't do with just one.

 

[M76]

What is the reason behind SSD drives not made for Huge files? Does it just wear them down faster?

Literally the first time I'm reading this and I call bs on it.

SSDs have no problems with large files. The only difference is that using SSDs is not as beneficial for large sequential reads/writes as for accessing small files. But it is still much faster than a spinning drive. The only small drawback is that deleting huge files may cause slowdown.

But putting game data on another drive is ludircrous. You want short loading times for games, if all you put on an SSD is the executable then you get no benefit. It's not the access to the executable that needs to be fast, it's the access to various data files that needs to be fast for quick loading.

Personally I haven't seen any drawbacks to a full drive on newer drives. They have overprovisioning built into them.

 

[MickeyBailey]

Literally the first time I'm reading this and I call bs on it.

SSDs have no problems with large files. The only difference is that using SSDs is not as beneficial for large sequential reads/writes as for accessing small files. But it is still much faster than a spinning drive. The only small drawback is that deleting huge files may cause slowdown.

But putting game data on another drive is ludircrous. You want short loading times for games, if all you put on an SSD is the executable then you get no benefit. It's not the access to the executable that needs to be fast, it's the access to various data files that needs to be fast for quick loading.

Personally I haven't seen any drawbacks to a full drive on newer drives. They have overprovisioning built into them.

Deleting large amounts of data regardless of a single file or millions of small files will cause slowdown until the garbage collection is complete on an SSD.

BTW any of the problems associated with NAND SSD's in this thread do not apply to 3DXP based SSD's (currently only Optane drives).

These days I'm kinda surprised that game developers aren't making such aspects part of the installers, like it'll ask you where you want the game executables to be installed and where you'd like the game data to go, that sort of thing

That would be nice when the QLC drives start to release. QLC will have very low endurance and it would be beneficial to partition installs into WORM and more write intensive payloads. Then again, having some form of MLC, SLC, or Optane cache for a QLC device takes care of that transparently (I envision Optane/QLC hybrid devices once QLC and 3DXP both ramp up).

 

[Ranulfo]

These days I'm kinda surprised that game developers aren't making such aspects part of the installers, like it'll ask you where you want the game executables to be installed and where you'd like the game data to go, that sort of thing. Would be a big benefit to performance in most respects for that to occur actually because then you'd be able to access the executables and the game data simultaneously across multiple drives, something you can't do with just one.

Yes, lets give game devs something else to do and make it more complicated to install games and uninstall them. I mean, Steam/Origin/Uplay never screw up installs and need to run a repair/redownload files. Devs never write crappy code either. There are games where I want them all on a ssd for fast loading times. There are games where it doesn't seem to matter much or at all.

 

[MickeyBailey]

Yes, lets give game devs something else to do and make it more complicated to install games and uninstall them. I mean, Steam/Origin/Uplay never screw up installs and need to run a repair/redownload files. Devs never write crappy code either. There are games where I want them all on a ssd for fast loading times. There are games where it doesn't seem to matter much or at all.

It's not complicated, two paths, one for static content, one for files that will be changed relatively often or where files will be written to often.

 

[kdh]

Windows NTFS will slow down once you get over 85% but for specific work loads. But that's an NTFS thing, not an SSD thing.

 

[likeman]

Ssds don't care about the filesystem level stuff (ssds work at LBA layer) the issues with an ssd been nearly full are long gone (using TLC based ssd that has SLC Cache once filled up do slow down drastically once the 8gb or so has been used up, why I just get MLC based ssds)

fragmentation can still be an issue but even a ssd in a degraded state (really trim would have to be disabled) is far faster then a hdd