Let's hit on another SSD topic, how much is enough for primary HD...?

P

Parker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
418
Let's say that you're running dual drives. 1 SSD being your primary OS drive, 2nd being a standard HD. What would be the recommended minimum size for your OS SSD drive? You've also got to factor in space for any updates to windows that usually come out weekly.
 
I'm pretty typical user. Have Vista HomePrem, Office 2007, and a smattering of other apps and games. If you negate the USER directory, move the scratch file to the magnetic drive, and get rid of quite a bit of the "recovery stuff", I am only in the 40GB range. I would thing that 90-120GB should be way more than enough for OS and Apps
 
I make my OS/Apps partition 30gb.
I dont run games, and my user folders are mapped to my network share.
 
64GB should be enough for anyone. My HTPC running windows 7, with all my Steam games and Visual Studio installed, is using about 40GB.

My Linux desktop is only 14GB not counting my home directory. I do have VMs and things stored on a separate drive, weighing in at 140GB, but they'd remain on that drive even if I got an SSD.
 
Personally, I use my C: just for the OS, my D: for "user data" (my profiles and similar), E: for my programs, and F: just as a general dumping spot for storage. With my new 640GB drive, I went a little bigger than last time and used 10GB for C: and 50GB for D: (I've got some unusual plans for some of that space, otherwise it'd probably be 15GB or so). I went with 200GB for my programs partition.

You can change the default "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" locations with an unattended setup. After the install, I only have three directories on my C: drive - Drivers, where my unattended install copied my custom drivers; System Volume Information, which is created automatically and used for system stuff; and Windows, where the OS files are. I'm currently using 5.83GB on my C: drive for XP x64, and I've installed Mirror's Edge, Firefox, and a few other programs using the default locations in the installers. That's also including the system default 2GB pagefile. =)

Keep in mind that everything you move off the SSD will lose the benefits of the SSD. You can install Office on your second drive, or even set the whole Program Files dir there, but then you'll still be accessing all those files off the slower disk. I can't give any good tool suggestions for monitoring this, but make sure you're moving your bottlenecking disk accesses to the SSD for the most improvement. If the stuff you put on the SSD doesn't benefit from the faster accesses and the stuff you leave on the disk would, you're handicapping everything.
 
Last edited:
Stupid question time.
I haven't seen a SSD in person so I'm unsure of the actual size. Would 2 fit in a single drive slot if there's a bracket? :eek:
 
Parker said:
Stupid question time.
I haven't seen a SSD in person so I'm unsure of the actual size. Would 2 fit in a single drive slot if there's a bracket? :eek:
Click to expand...

that all depends on which one you're talking about :D

but they're genrally 2.5" devices
 
I have 3x64gb in a RAID0 array and only have maybe 60gb used with my games, office, CS2, Autocad etc... on it.

But then again I'm lazy and have just a C: drive and install everything on it. Data is stored on the server (pics, vids, docs, dwgs, pr0n, etc...)

I have a 1gb RAMdrive for IE cache, temp folders, etc...
 
Last edited:
I have a fresh install of Win7 beta 7000, with no productivity apps loaded on the drive. It is using about 40GB with the pagefile on a separate drive. I would recommend 80-120GB before jumping on the SSD train for future OS and APP size increases/upgrades/patches. I'm betting around end of this year will be the time to spring for one.
 
ShagnWagn said:
I have a fresh install of Win7 beta 7000, with no productivity apps loaded on the drive. It is using about 40GB with the pagefile on a separate drive. I would recommend 80-120GB before jumping on the SSD train for future OS and APP size increases/upgrades/patches. I'm betting around end of this year will be the time to spring for one.
Click to expand...


If its using 40gb and you dont have anything installed, something is borked? Do you have hibernation enabled?
How much ram do you have?
 
You don't really want to fill your precious 64GB SSD to 40GB though, unless you have an SLC drive, the lifespan of your SSD will be quite low (since you basically have a 20GB SSD at this point).
 
nitrobass24 said:
If its using 40gb and you dont have anything installed, something is borked? Do you have hibernation enabled?
How much ram do you have?
Click to expand...

4GB of ram. I do believe hibernation is enabled. Eventually we will be having a lot more system memory, so this would get even larger as time goes on (i'm dropping in another 4gb in a week).

I suggested 80-120GB because you would most likely want to have plenty of extra space on the drive rather than have to worry about getting low in 3-4 years.
 
Well I don't know if the original question posed included games/apps but it should have. It wouldn't make sense to put the OS on a fast SSD and then all the games/apps on a slow HDD.

Anyways, available SSD sizes are like 30/60/80/120, right?

My windows system currently uses a 60GB drive... its possible to fill up by accident, eg sometimes I'll copy ISO files to it to install stuff and forget to delete them... I dunno a few time I've noticed I was out of space and found some huge ass files I forgot to delete. Assuming you're not retarded like me 60GB is enough.

My main system runs Linux w/30GB SSD, 8GB for OS, 24GB for /home. More than enough.
 
ShagnWagn said:
4GB of ram. I do believe hibernation is enabled. Eventually we will be having a lot more system memory, so this would get even larger as time goes on (i'm dropping in another 4gb in a week).

I suggested 80-120GB because you would most likely want to have plenty of extra space on the drive rather than have to worry about getting low in 3-4 years.
Click to expand...

Well your page file is probably 8gb.....not really needed if you go SSD
And hibernation file takes up a lot of space like 20gb default size so I think if you turn those off you will see your installation size go in half at least.


But yea thats kinda the thing about technology.
you have 3 major properties: Performance, Size, Price.
I have yet to see a product that is the best in all three categories, you usually have to give something up.

Im gonna sell my velociraptors, and get on some Vertexes I'm thinking 3x 60gb Raid0 30gb to the OS, and rest for encoding space.
 
30GB is enough for OS, but I don't see much point in owning a fast drive and put all the stuff I need an slow one...
Therefore I would say 80GB if you wanna make it a tight squeeze and 120GB if you are planning ahead.
 
Alright, so how about a 30G SLC for OS, 120G SLC for gaming/apps, and normal HD for music and various downloads.
 
30GB would be pushing it, 60GB would be comfy, neither with games.
With games, at least 150GB would be needed for me.
 
"Alright, so how about a 30G SLC for OS, 120G SLC for gaming/apps, and normal HD for music and various downloads."

What's the point of SLC? Just wanting to waste your money? SLC is an absolute waste for a desktop system. If you're really concerned about wear just buy an Intel SSD and they guarantee it for 100GB/day for 5years for the MLC drive. Properly designed MLC is fine. People have a bad impression from crappy controllers paired with MLC flash chips. The problem was controller.

Personally I'd go for a single SSD or two equal sized ones in RAID0. The benefit to two separate SSDs is questionable and at best would be very small, unlike when using regular HDDs where separate drives is noticeably better.
 
For me the sweet spot is around 200GB. This more than enough for a desktop system's OS/apps drive but also is serviceable for me as a sole drive on a laptop or netbook.
 
I've been running 74Gb Raptors in my main now, only about 40Gb filled up. Not many games though. For my needs probably a single Intel 80Gb drive would be sufficient, but 120/128Gb could be a better choice with extra capacity. Then if that would become tight then I would get another down the road.
 
I keep around 90 GB worth of programs and textures at any given time, add to that a big scratch disk for CS4 and I was looking at a pair of 120's (or a single 250) to run in the 50% full range. I went for a third & fourth to give myself some more speed. I am in the process of taking out #4 now...

Anyone want a buy a 120 vertex ? lol
 
sgrinavi said:
I keep around 90 GB worth of programs and textures at any given time, add to that a big scratch disk for CS4 and I was looking at a pair of 120's (or a single 250) to run in the 50% full range. I went for a third & fourth to give myself some more speed. I am in the process of taking out #4 now...

Anyone want a buy a 120 vertex ? lol
Click to expand...

YGPM. :)
 
is it a bad idea to have a 40/60gb used in a ssd concerning reliability down the line?
 
I've been pondering this for the last week, since I'm thinking of making the jump to a vertex SSD. Right now I have a 640g caviar black. My vista 32 install on a 60g partition takes up around 15-16 gigs just by itself after 6 months, I have almost all the apps on a seperate 120g partition, and music/downloads/ etc on the rest of the drive. My apps partition is at around 17 gigs right now with most of that being steam games, and not a whole lot of those. A 60 gig is as small as I'd go, and only the stuff that would most benefit from it would be put there, ie: games with long load times and most used applications. I think if you only use up 40 gigs and leave the rest free (and don't use it for downloading stuff) it should last for at least a few years, by then there will be terabyte 600MB/S ssd's for 50 bucks :p . A 120 gig should be alot more comfortable since there's plenty of room for the OS and probably all of your apps and games, and should leave enough room for wear leveling. Definately need to have a larger HDD just for downloading and storing stuff.
 
For a long-term OS only drive, I would probably recommend an SLC drive considering the high amount of system writes. You can offload some of that by putting pagefile on say, a RAM drive or a cheap $100 MLC SSD, but pure system writes alone is easily 20GB/day with doing nothing but surfing.

If I had money to burn (and something I'm actually considering)

-30GB (you have no choice here really) X25-E SLC OS drive
-120GB Vertex MLC application/games drive
-30GB Vertex MLC pagefile/scratch file drive/browser cache
-2TB mechanical storage drive

Of course this basically comes to $1200 for 2.2TB of storage space so you'd have to be pretty loaded, or go on the economy end for your other components.
 
30gb is tight with Vista 64 but much more manageable with Windows 7 64 (7.6gb initial footprint).
 
Last edited:
I would probably go for 120gb use 80 and have the rest for wear leveling. Games add up fast
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
smaller SLC for OS and a bigger MLC for apps and games sounds like a winner combination to me!
Dedicated drives FTW :)
 
The bottom line is that it comes down to what sort of usage is needed. OS, apps and games will all benefit from an SSD, but unless you have a bunch of games installed at once (I don't gamed much lately, but when I did I rarely had more than a few installed at one time), those requirements should all fit comfortably on an 80GB X25-M. Depending on the size of your music collection, stuff it on there too.
If you have a ton of videos or a large video collection, then get a separate drive for bulk storage (i.e. stuff that doesn't need super fast access times) - WD GreenPower drives are great for this, a 1TB goes for $100 and has good transfer rates and low noise/power consumption.

Generally this isn't a hard problem to solve unless you routinely work with lots of high-res Photoshop work, or video editing. Just work out how much you have in games, music, and apps currently, then add a fudge/growth factor and OS space. Based on the OP's vague descriptions, an 80GB X25-M would probably work, and I'm sure a 160GB would definitely cover it. If there's a ton of videos or music, then add the secondary HDD as mentioned.

I agree that SLC drives really aren't necessary for desktop usage, an X25-M is a much better place to spend money, or failing that an OCZ Vertex. Going to an X25-E for example doesn't gain that much over the -M, marginally better access times (essentially imperceptible), and better sequential write speeds, at higher cost for less storage. There's a place for SLCs, but for all but the most specialized cases, an MLC with a good controller is just as good.

Anyone who hasn't should really read Anandtech's SSD articles, particularly this one:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531 which explains the good controller vs. bad controller issue very well and addresses a lot of the lifespan, wear-levelling, etc. concerns. Again in pretty much all but the niche cases, lifespan and performance degredation isn't a big deal (and even less so with the new X25-M firmware).
 
unhappy_mage said:
64GB should be enough for anyone. My HTPC running windows 7, with all my Steam games and Visual Studio installed, is using about 40GB.

My Linux desktop is only 14GB not counting my home directory. I do have VMs and things stored on a separate drive, weighing in at 140GB, but they'd remain on that drive even if I got an SSD.
Click to expand...

640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates

Just sounded so very familiar

My boot drive is a 750gb and it's half full.

It is not my primary storage drive.
 
Half full with what?

OS+Programs+Games?

Or are you including photos+movies+music or something?
 
Since I started moving all of my "data" to the WHS I find the need of storage space for anything beyond os/apps less than important. I'm going with a X25-e for OS/Apps, and 2x30g vertex in RAID0 for VMware hosting. Music, videos, docs, everything else is on the file server.
 
I have 10-12 GBs free out of my 32 GB SSD drive after a little fun with vLite. (this is after removing tons of unnecessary bloat from Vista 64 and doing all the optimisation magic from OCZ forums)
If you want to benefit with games or aps on it too you need 60+.

Imho Intel X25-M or 2x vertex60 in raid 0 is serious minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top