Keep Browser Temp Files Off The SSD

Like Surly73 said, I would not worry about browser cache on the SSD unless you had too small of an SSD.
 
SSDs are meant to completely replace HDDs in normal usage. there is no reason to do anything different from what you normally would. i would doubt putting cache files on the SSD would lower its lifetime by more then a percent or two.

a usb drive will make it slower then if you had a regular HDD.
 
I love how people buy SSD's and then proceed to disable/move everything that benefits from the SSD most. Guess all the limited lifetime scare mongering when they first came out got a little out of hand. Honestly, if you are still using the same SSD by the time it's beginning to show serious signs of wear, you couldn't afford it in the first place.
 
Skakruk said:
Is 80GB too small?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get anything less that 120GB - but it all depends on your usage. If you are a gamer, then larger is better (otherwise you spend all your time managing the space). If you are only using a few apps, then a smaller drive may be acceptable.

I think 64GB is too small, but 80GB might just be enough (but I'd still get a 120GB).
 
I use a 64GB SSD and I have 25GB free right now and I have a lot of programs installed. Most of my games are installed on a 1TB HD because only a few benefit from SSDs.
 
cre3d said:
I love how people buy SSD's and then proceed to disable/move everything that benefits from the SSD most. Guess all the limited lifetime scare mongering when they first came out got a little out of hand. Honestly, if you are still using the same SSD by the time it's beginning to show serious signs of wear, you couldn't afford it in the first place.
Click to expand...

SHHHHH

They are the ones who say they are no different than a mech drive, and some even sell them cheap to us who utilize them :D :D
 
15GB a week at absolute max.
Click to expand...

Then you should be totally fine. Remember that Intel SSDs say that you can write 20 GB per day every single day for 5 years before wearing out the SSD.
 
I used to worry about stuff like that till I read anandtechs ssd article which basically said in vast majority of cases the ssd will become unusable because the nand loses its charge much before the average person goes through all its write cycles. (Supposedly it loses its charge after 10 years).
 
Are browser temp files and downloaded files related ?

Personally I let the temp files on the SSD, but when I download files with FF (mainly videos) I put the destination on a HDD.
 
munkle said:
I used to worry about stuff like that till I read anandtechs ssd article which basically said in vast majority of cases the ssd will become unusable because the nand loses its charge much before the average person goes through all its write cycles. (Supposedly it loses its charge after 10 years).
Click to expand...

No, that does not make any sense, and is not what Anand wrote. I'm not sure what you meant, unless you are possibly confusing data retention time with endurance.
 
john4200 said:
No, that does not make any sense, and is not what Anand wrote. I'm not sure what you meant, unless you are possibly confusing data retention time with endurance.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find the exact article but here is a quote from anandtech that goes along the same lines.
It's also possible for a flash cell to lose its charge over time (albeit a very long time). Intel adheres to the JEDEC spec on how long your data is supposed to last on its SSDs. The spec states that if you've only used 10% of the lifespan of your device (cycles or GB written), then your data needs to remain intact for 10 years. If you've used 100% of available cycles, then your data needs to remain intact for 1 year. Intel certifies its drives in accordance with the JEDEC specs from 0 - 70C; at optimal temperatures your data will last even longer (these SSDs should operate at below 40C in normal conditions).
Click to expand...

What the article said was that your nand would loses its charge (ability to retain data) before the average person used all the write cycles on the drive.

Edit: found it I think. Here he's talking about writing 7gb of data a day to a ssd:
My personal desktop sees about 7GB of writes per day. That can be pretty typical for a power user and a bit high for a mainstream user but it's nothing insane. If I never install another application and just go about my business, my drive has 203.4GB of space to spread out those 7GB of writes per day. That means in roughly 29 days my SSD, if it wear levels perfectly, I will have written to every single available flash block on my drive. Tack on another 7 days if the drive is smart enough to move my static data around to wear level even more properly. So we're at approximately 36 days before I exhaust one out of my ~10,000 write cycles. Multiply that out and it would take 360,000 days of using my machine for all of my NAND to wear out; once again, assuming perfect wear leveling. That's 986 years. Your NAND flash cells will actually lose their charge well before that time comes, in about 10 years.
.....For a desktop user running a desktop (non-server) workload, the chances of your drive dying within its warranty period due to you wearing out all of the NAND are basically nothing. Note that this doesn't mean that your drive won't die for other reasons before then (e.g. poor manufacturing, controller/firmware issues, etc...), but you don't really have to worry about your NAND wearing out.
Click to expand...

Comes from here.

Maybe you misunderstood me? I'm talking about the drive being useful not specifically about a specific problem (retention or endurance). Granted he didn't say it would become unusable like I said before which is what I inferred from the article but everything else he did say.

So if I take that part out everything else comes straight from the article.
I used to worry about stuff like that till I read anandtechs ssd article which basically said in vast majority of cases the nand loses its charge much before the average person goes through all its write cycles. (Supposedly it loses its charge after 10 years).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skakruk said:
Is 80GB too small?
Click to expand...

I have an 80GB which I use for OS and apps (quite a few apps) except games. Games go on my HDD data partition along with my data. I use Link Shell Extension to move selected individual games to SSD if I'm playing them a lot. In general my 80G partition (including paging and hibernation files) sits between 55-75% full depending on how much I have linked over from HDD.
 
munkle said:
I couldn't find the exact article but here is a quote from anandtech that goes along the same lines.


What the article said was that your nand would loses its charge (ability to retain data) before the average person used all the write cycles on the drive.
Click to expand...


The only "charge loss" issue I'm aware of is an MLC cell losing data BETWEEN writes. If you rewrite the cell it is recharged. This 10 year "loss of charge" only applies if the data in the cells is never refreshed or overwritten, and only makes that 10 year old cell unreadable not unusable.
 
Surly73 said:
The only "charge loss" issue I'm aware of is an MLC cell losing data BETWEEN writes. If you rewrite the cell it is recharged. This 10 year "loss of charge" only applies if the data in the cells is never refreshed or overwritten, and only makes that 10 year old cell unreadable not unusable.
Click to expand...
Problem is that time goes down (10 year retention time) the more you write to it, personally I have some files I have never accessed in over 7 years (pictures, documents) so to me personally that becomes unusable once you start getting up there in write cycles because the retention goes down. (I guess they (the files) only have a year and 1/2 since I copied them on my ssd off my hdd, but after that I haven't touched them and probably wont till I need too) I guess that is for me personally since I keep alot of data for along time that I don't ever touch or open. For someone else they may not care if the drive is at the point it will only retain it for 5 years or less. Now I don't know if it's in a drives firmware to refresh old data or not, never seen it talked about.
 
Last edited:
munkle said:
Problem is that time goes down (10 year retention time) the more you write to it, personally I have some files I have never accessed in over 7 years (pictures, documents) so to me personally that becomes unusable once you start getting up there in write cycles because the retention goes down. (I guess they (the files) only have a year and 1/2 since I copied them on my ssd off my hdd, but after that I haven't touched them and probably wont till I need too) I guess that is for me personally since I keep alot of data for along time that I don't ever touch or open. For someone else they may not care if the drive is at the point it will only retain it for 5 years or less. Now I don't know if it's in a drives firmware to refresh old data or not, never seen it talked about.
Click to expand...

With any medium (SSD, USB Stick, flash card, Hard Drive, floppy disk, optical, even tape) you need at least 1 backup. I recommend at least 2 backups of all important data.
 
Last edited:
I've never really thought about it but how long would data last on a drive that you just throw in a drawer somewhere? Does the disk degrade somehow from time alone or is it only with use?
 
I was thinking more about a mechanical drive, I'm not quite baller enough to put data on SSD's just to put them in a drawer somewhere ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top