• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

SSD endurance....need help.

S

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I asked this in the 750 thread and i got no answer so I guess I'll have to make a new thread. Sorry was hoping to not make a whole new thread :/

1.) Do you think PCIe drives like the Intel 750 will drop by August by a significant amount? I am debating if its best to buy it now or wait til August/September when I build my skylake PC. Intel is the only PCIe drive out with great performance with NVMe but gskill has one coming but date is still unknown so i don't know if that'll even have an effect on pricing at or before August.

2.) I have a 480GB Extreme Pro and its slow to me and i hit the endurance wall like mad and windows starts to stutter. When i pause what I am doing everything returns to normal and if i let the SSD take a few minutes i can go again before it starts to eat shit. This isn't a RAM issue, CPU, or GPU issue (all show to not be at full load/full). It solely happens when the SSD is used a lot for several hours at a time continuously. When the program is paused or finishes using the SSD everything goes to normal again. It also progressively gets worse the longer the trashing goes on so it has to be SSD endurance. The Extreme Pro is also the best SSD out for endurance hence why I bought it and got ride of the 840 that i had, which was even worse. Also i think part of this issue is mixed loads. I know reviews say the Extreme Pro is fairly poor in mixed loads so that could also be a problem I am facing. Plus this has several real world results that save a lot of time and patients over my current drive. The endurance/mixed loads are also a major reason for this drive.

Chris_Lonardo said:
The price per GB of the 750 is right in line with the SM951 AHCI, and will probably also basically be a wash with the NVMe version. The SM951 (AHCI or NVMe) are still OEM-only products with finicky compatibility (not to say that NVMe support is great anywhere, but there's something to be said about retail support of a high-end SSD). Furthermore, the Intel 750 is cheaper per GB than any of the other PCIe options in the test roundup. So, dominant performance, significant new tech and value vs. peers? Seems like Gold to me.

While I'm going to very nicely ask Samsung for an SM951 to test, from what I've heard and read they've been iffy about review samples for non-retail drives, and I'm also a little disappointed at the lack of 1TB option.

In terms of endurance, 219TB Total Bytes Written (TBW)/70GB/day is quite nice, but perhaps not market-leading. Gotta provide some incentive to move up to the P3xxx drives.

Another MAJOR, MAJOR point is that the quoted reliability numbers from manufacturers aren't comparable. Have a look at the description of JEDEC testing standards here- http://www.flashmemorysummit.com/English/Collaterals/Proceedings/2011/20110810_T1B_Cox.pdf

You will often have to go into the fine print on a product's datasheet to find the testing methodology used, but the Intel 750's endurance is quoted on the JESD218 standard, while the crazy enormous numbers shown by Kingston for the HyperX Predator are based on JESD219A. What does that mean in practice as we try to compare these numbers? It means that they're apples and oranges.

Compared to some other SSDs in the test or of interest, and with the above caveats, here's how the Intel 750's 219TB/70GB/day stacks up:

  • Samsung SM951- because it's OEM-only, Samsung won't be held to endurance figures. One reseller, RamCity, apparently warranties it to 72TBW on the 512gb version (methodology unknown)
  • Kingston HyperX Predator - 882TB total (JESD219A)
  • Samsung 850 Pro- 300TB total (methodology unknown)
  • Samsung 850 EVO 1TB- 150TB total (methodology unknown)
  • OCZ RevoDrive 350 480GB - 50GB/day (methodology unknown)
  • G.Skill Phoenix Blade 480GB - 192TB total (methodology unknown)
  • SanDisk Extreme Pro 960GB- >70TB total (methodology unknown)

Samsung's Pro drives are seemingly unkillable, but beyond that, we can't really discern much from these numbers. If you're doing >70GB of writes a day, you're a prime client for a workstation-class drive anyway.
Click to expand...

I have a question on write endurance. I am confused on how they give and read these numbers. Do these count write amplifications? Do I go off my SMART reading? according to the 3K P/E concept I should get ~1400 TB, which is fairly close to what smart would come out to be.

According to SMART
Power-on hours 5,511
Power cycle 581
Writes 21,133 GB
Reads 74,122 GB
Media Wear out indicator 1.86% (number grows with use)

So that's:
Hours 5,511
Days 229.625
Writes per Hour 3.83 GB
Writes per Day 92.03 GB*
Reads per Hour 13.45 GB
Reads per Day 322.80 GB

*I once peaked 100GB per day average over the entire life of the drive but i don't have this in a laptop anymore so i no longer hibernate on it. Although, I still use a lot of writes even without that. I was at 88 GB or so per day but i went up to 92 GB per day after re install and the never ending game rotation and photos/videos being moved around. My writes will tank once I have a 1.2TB drive so that'll be nice but any who.

So 100%/1.86%=53.76*21,133 GB=1,136 TB Close to that 3k P/E cycle amount of ~1400

This is assuming I understand this right and did this right and the numbers I have are correct. So this is why I am completely confused on this 3K P/E, write amplifications, SMART, and advertised endurance of 70 TB total or 35 TB (480GB?) or whatever?

If SMART reads I am doing 80-100 GB per day I am concerned about the life of this drive if the numbers I have are apples to apples.

Can anyone please educate me on this because i have spent a lot of time reading on this and anandtech reviews and articles on this are odd. They talk about write amplification and rated writes as if those don't include amplification and stuff like that or something. So yea I appreciate some enlightenment on this.

Maybe a hyperx predator m.2 be better? Or two in raid 0? Also to me i think 4K is a big importance to me but i can't be sure so I am dead set on getting the best 4K drive to be safe, which appears to be the 750. Also I must have 1TB so Kingston might be out since its 480 GB only unless I can raid them but then I am going to kill crucial CPU resources with an IRST raid :/
 
i went up to 92 GB per day after re install and the never ending game rotation and photos/videos being moved around.
Click to expand...

Can't help but be curious why you are burning off nearly 100GB writes per day. That's extraordinary behavior for non-server use. Are you using it in some kind of HTPC?

Anyway, if your budget allows it, you might want to look at Intel's DC enterprise class SSDs. They are good for 17 drive writes per day, meaning the smallest 400GB version would be good for 6.8 TB per day, and the higher capacity ones go up from there.
 
Larger the size the better off I will be. I delete games move 10-30GB of pics regularly so that murders the drive because 480GB isn't large enough after OP. Though if I have double the space I would cut my writes down a ton. I do normal desktop work besides games and pictures :/

Also 1k for that 750 is like murder for me being poor and all that but it has the performance i want but i am concern about these writes. If SMART is right and I am only 2% into the drive at 200+ days i could careless if the intel 750 is that way too. Thats why these numbers make no sense.

Also I used to use even more writes when this was in a laptop -_- hibernation with 16-28GB was murder :rolleyes: I don't hibernate 2 plus times a day anymore but I still haven't dropped a lot in writes though but I blame that partly on fresh install and trying a bunch of new games on my new desktop.

My guess would be i am mpre around 50 GB per day now.

EDIT: because according to the thing above my drive is like 60% dead for a 480GB but SMART says 2% :/
 
Last edited:
1) What's the point in speculating here? You'll always get more for less down the road. After posting "me being poor and all that," wait.

2) Whatever you're doing to bottleneck the drive, it's not about the SSD's endurance. Running out of P/E cycles is WAY down the road. Sounds more like it's overheating IMO. Also, you say it's not a CPU issue, but have you checked if 1 core is maxed out when the drive slows?

3) (endurance calcs) I believe you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. As you note in post 3, you've used <2% of the drive's life in the ~year you've had it.

Sorry, I don't mean to pick at your posts. How about some practical advice?

The main issue seems to be that you need more than 480GB of SSD. A 512GB Crucial costs about $200. Add one to your system, and you can stop moving files around so often. Or you could sell the 480 (should be no trouble with 98% life left) & replace with a good 1TB drive.

Either will cost far less than going to an Intel 750. In addition, you'll save a ton of time and P/E cycles bouncing all that data around.
 
No core is maxed and that would not make Windows stutter, GPU is under light load, it is purely the hardrive and temps are fine. Never once has it over heated. It is solely after an hour or more of none stop trashing it starts to eat shit.

I have ThrottleStop, Task Manager, Netlimiter, and GPUz all open on 2nd of 3 screens and they read out normal or nothing that would cause a stutter/hang of windows. I could run Prime95 or Intel Burn test and not cause windows to stutter like when it comes to opening stuff up. I know its an SSD issue because it progressively gets worse as the work goes on. If its paused and restarted its good for a short time before it gets worse. SSD temps are nice and cool the entire time. I can see them on my screen.

I am buying some sort of high performance PCIe NVMe drive either now or 3 months from now. If the prices don't drop 20% AKA 200 bucks it really isn't worth waiting. If a faster one comes out that might be worth waiting but must be worth while.

Again I am getting a 1TB drive so no matter what option I wont be bouncing data. I said this like 10 times already. I am using a Sandisk Extreme Pro which has the best endurance out of any drive and it tanks. A 1TB Sandisk Extreme will only buy me a little extra time before it starts to tnak like my current drive.

You saying that the SMART is accurate doesn't make sense when you figure the referenced material saying my drive is good for 70TB plus when according to SMART I am good for 1,200 TB????? If SMART said 120TB that would be one thing but 1 PB???? Seriously these numbers dont even come close.
 
Why are you continuously moving games on/off the SSD? I get that it is to small to handle everything you have now, but it seems to me like you should just buy a dedicated drive for your games.

The other option is to get a nice big HDD and use an SSD as a cache drive.

MaxVeloSSD is a good program. I actually just started using it.

$30 for the Pro version that can use up to 256GB on an SSD as cache for a HDD and you can also set it to use up to 4GB of RAM as well.

There is Primocache as well, but it hasn't been updated in quite a while and from the forum posts it looks like the current version has some bugs.
 
cyclone3d said:
Why are you continuously moving games on/off the SSD? I get that it is to small to handle everything you have now, but it seems to me like you should just buy a dedicated drive for your games.

The other option is to get a nice big HDD and use an SSD as a cache drive.

MaxVeloSSD is a good program. I actually just started using it.

$30 for the Pro version that can use up to 256GB on an SSD as cache for a HDD and you can also set it to use up to 4GB of RAM as well.

There is Primocache as well, but it hasn't been updated in quite a while and from the forum posts it looks like the current version has some bugs.
Click to expand...

don't want that. All I am concerned with is why my drive is supposedly getting 20X or more writes than the Extreme Pro Lenardo referenced and 7x or so more than the Intel 750. Is it reading wrong? Do i have a magical drive?
 
100GB of writes and 300GB of reads a day sounds like extraordinarily poor data management. Work smarter, not harder.

I have ThrottleStop, Task Manager, Netlimiter, and GPUz all open on 2nd of 3 screens
Click to expand...

This while thing sounds like you are over analyzing the shit out of everything. How full are you getting the drive? It could be trying to amaze itself because you don't have enough free space. I suspect you also might have some software on the PC causing the hangs and it isn't a drive issue. I am pretty confident if you wiped Windows off the drive and started over your problem would vanish.
 
Last edited:
Personally I write about 20GB a day on my main SSD, mainly downloads. I used to have them on a separate HDD, but that way is faster with what I do with the files after, and it's not too taxing on the drive.

That is a 1TB Crucial M550, but I was doing the same with a 256GB Samsung 830 without any problem, it was just too small.

I wouldn't expect a new, bleeding edge, with no competition, drive, to go down in price anytime soon, however I wouldn't buy it either for what you're doing, a SATA/AHCI drive should not limit you.
 
ocellaris said:
100GB of writes and 300GB of reads a day sounds like extraordinarily poor data management. Work smarter, not harder.



This while thing sounds like you are over analyzing the shit out of everything. How full are you getting the drive? It could be trying to amaze itself because you don't have enough free space. I suspect you also might have some software on the PC causing the hangs and it isn't a drive issue. I am pretty confident if you wiped Windows off the drive and started over your problem would vanish.
Click to expand...

this is fresh install...weeks old Half my stuff isn't even installed.
 
What the fuck? LOL.... Dude... How do you have so much usage on a games drive? I am still using my OCZ Agility 2 240gb that I picked up back in 2010 (5 years old). I use it as my games drive. Still at 100% health according to SSD Life.

39594 hours used
17.6 TB - Read
4.6 TB - Written
 
I used to do a lot of hiberating in the past when it was in my alienware and now its in my desktop but I also shoot a lot of photography so I can go through 10GB in a shoot while messing around and I also store my photos on HDD so when i mess with them I move them over to the SSD since I can't store like 100GB of good photos. The new 1TB drive will stop the need to do that.

Also i think those numbers got to be wrong because either there wrong or i have a magical drive compared to the ones chris references since i am supposed to get 1000+ TBs total writes

I also rotate games a lot...I have almost 1k in steam
 
The endurance numbers aren't like a pre-programmed limit. They're the point after which your warranty's no longer good.

Sandisk drives write into an SLC cache before actually persisting the cache to the MLC. Clearly, what you're doing would overwhelm the cache, and likely overwhelm the garbage collection (TRIM) that needs to happen for the drive to maintain performance- my guess is that this is your real problem. Also, yes, you're tiring out the NAND, you should probably not do that long-term.
 
Chris_Lonardo said:
The endurance numbers aren't like a pre-programmed limit. They're the point after which your warranty's no longer good.

Sandisk drives write into an SLC cache before actually persisting the cache to the MLC. Clearly, what you're doing would overwhelm the cache, and likely overwhelm the garbage collection (TRIM) that needs to happen for the drive to maintain performance- my guess is that this is your real problem. Also, yes, you're tiring out the NAND, you should probably not do that long-term.
Click to expand...

Should I not use a computer then :/

So the warranty for the Intel 1.2TB is only 219TB or whatever? Should I expect more from it? When I get the Intel 750 or whatever drive I'll be doing daily back ups most likely.
 
You could get a 500GB crucial ssd and run it with their storage executive. The MX200 and M600 drives will write in SLC mode and then transfer it internally to MLC area. I say use their cache because unlike other drive cache programs, Momentum Cache will do writes that better fit the drives. And they will be better tuned with new versions. I know crucial is not known for speeds, but they seem to have learnt that they themselves had to d something about their slow speeds and this attempt seems to be in that direction to fix things, ie write in a page boundary, collegiate small writes and such to extend drive life and make garbage collection faster. I think as long as you leave 200GB free on the drive, it wont freeze or have to do garbage collection during use. And its not dedicated SLC cache, its just MLC nand used in SLC mode so speeds are high until 55% or so of the drive is filled at which time it will start to move data into MLC area while using it making it slow..
 
sorry i am not trying to be difficult i just want to know this one question i wrote above so i can make an informed decision. I do not want a jerry rigged solution. I already considered just going for a raid of some extreme pros but i don't think its worth it.

I really want to understand these numbers and why i have such high numbers (reads don't surprise me considering daily AV scans but the writes are huge according to you guys.). So I don't understand how a $1000 SSD can only have 200 cycles before it dies. That is ridiculous. How can it be so low or how can a 1TB SSD have 70 cycles? I am already 45 cycles into my SSD according to SMART but it says i have only 2% wear if that's true.

Can this please be explained because nothing on sites are consistent. How can MLC at the current nm only get 70-200 cycles when supposedly the tech should have 3000 cycles. I don't get how no one has an issue with this conflicting statements
 
SomeGuy133 said:
sorry i am not trying to be difficult i just want to know this one question i wrote above so i can make an informed decision. I do not want a jerry rigged solution. I already considered just going for a raid of some extreme pros but i don't think its worth it.

I really want to understand these numbers and why i have such high numbers (reads don't surprise me considering daily AV scans but the writes are huge according to you guys.). So I don't understand how a $1000 SSD can only have 200 cycles before it dies. That is ridiculous. How can it be so low or how can a 1TB SSD have 70 cycles? I am already 45 cycles into my SSD according to SMART but it says i have only 2% wear if that's true.

Can this please be explained because nothing on sites are consistent. How can MLC at the current nm only get 70-200 cycles when supposedly the tech should have 3000 cycles. I don't get how no one has an issue with this conflicting statements
Click to expand...

I second ocellaris' opinion: you are over-analyzing things. Suffice it to say that the manufacturer warranty for a drive is less than the true longevity of the NAND, but by how much exactly is anyone's guess.

Your current scenario also speaks to poor storage management, as others have also suggested. Assuming that you are not limited to a single SSD for your machine, I would follow the suggestions that others have made and purchase a decent size (perhaps 2TB) drive for data storage and games. Very few games will benefit enough, even in load times, from being stored on an SSD to make it worthwhile over a decent, modern spinner.

I would also strongly consider getting another SSD to use as a cache drive for your photos and videos as you are editing them. Copy the originals to the storage drive when you import them from your camera. Set your photo/video editing program to utilize the secondary SSD while it is processing things, then output your final versions wherever you want for long-term storage. This way, your OS and programs are effectively independent of your photography work, which should cut down quite a bit on the performance slowdowns when you're crunching video or whatever. Both SSDs will likely benefit in the heat department as well (SSDs can and will overheat, further reducing longevity/performance given the right circumstances and I suspect you may be creating those circumstances with your workload).

I have worked with a few semi-professional photographers in my area and this has worked out well for them. The additional cost may even be tax-deductible as a business expense, depending on how you organize all of that in your personal finances.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
sorry i am not trying to be difficult i just want to know this one question i wrote above so i can make an informed decision. I do not want a jerry rigged solution. I already considered just going for a raid of some extreme pros but i don't think its worth it.

I really want to understand these numbers and why i have such high numbers (reads don't surprise me considering daily AV scans but the writes are huge according to you guys.). So I don't understand how a $1000 SSD can only have 200 cycles before it dies. That is ridiculous. How can it be so low or how can a 1TB SSD have 70 cycles? I am already 45 cycles into my SSD according to SMART but it says i have only 2% wear if that's true.

Can this please be explained because nothing on sites are consistent. How can MLC at the current nm only get 70-200 cycles when supposedly the tech should have 3000 cycles. I don't get how no one has an issue with this conflicting statements
Click to expand...

You are looking way too deep at cycle counts. Drives can fail or perform unexpectedly at cycle counts far below what the manufacture lists. I think you are running into situations where your drive is nearly full and needing to do far too much garbage collection for it's own good. Staring at a spec sheet is not going to answer your questions on how a drive will perform after you move 400GB a day on or off the drive for no particular reason. You are OCD with trying to "manage" your data and doing irrational things and expecting they should work perfectly fine.
 
It is not OCD or counter productive to keep my 100s of GB of photos on a HDD and move 1-40GB over to the SSD when I use PS. It is also not odd to delete a game and install a new one when you have 945 steam games, 100+ GOG, 20+ on CD/DVD. I don't have a 20 TB SSD to keep everything on it.

Also to me I don't see how I do 80-100GB writes a day. I honestly don't move that much around. I dump PS files on my drive once a week tops if not less. I shuffle games rarely unless I get some better GPU and I want to test it out and see how it does so I still find this 100GB a day oddly high or at least oddly high if i am going to burn out my SSD in 2 years.

The question still remains how a $1k enthusiast SSD is rated only for 200 cycles.

Also remember I OP like 25% of my SSD So about 180GB or something is not even being used plus the manufacturer OP on top of that.

There is no way i am looking too deep into cycle counts. If I am buying a 1k drive I want to know how long it'll last and how careful I should be with it. I just don't understand how you can merely use an SSD 70 times or 200 times before it dies. That is so instantly disposable it reminds me of a disposable camera.
 
It seems to me that the question regarding cycles is one that should be directed at the manufacturer?

Have you considered picking up a small SSD (120GB/250GB) specifically for Photoshop?
Have you considered picking up a 2-3TB HD specifically for games?

I've had no issues with a gigantic Steam/GoG Galaxy / Origins library on a 3TB drive, in terms of loading times.

Just seems that SSDs / HDs are cheap, and that not all of your workflow requires a fast SSD.
If you have the budget for an Intel 750.... you have the budget for some rotating rust / scratch SSDs.....
 
SomeGuy133 said:
It is not OCD or counter productive to keep my 100s of GB of photos on a HDD and move 1-40GB over to the SSD when I use PS. It is also not odd to delete a game and install a new one when you have 945 steam games, 100+ GOG, 20+ on CD/DVD.
Click to expand...


You don't think it is abnormal, however it is. Also just because you have 1000+ games doesn't mean you need to constantly shuffle them around. There are better ways of utilizing storage for games and photos, however you want to keep doing what you are doing. Most people with tons of games only play a few at a time. With your useage, you must be shuffling games and pictures around daily (which would be another OCD tendency).

Also if you can scratch through 100GB of photos a day, you are either a pro photographer / graphic artist and maybe you should setup a PC to better handle that workload (not using the same SSD for games and work files)?
 
iamwhoiamtoday said:
It seems to me that the question regarding cycles is one that should be directed at the manufacturer?

Have you considered picking up a small SSD (120GB/250GB) specifically for Photoshop?
Have you considered picking up a 2-3TB HD specifically for games?

I've had no issues with a gigantic Steam/GoG Galaxy / Origins library on a 3TB drive, in terms of loading times.

Just seems that SSDs / HDs are cheap, and that not all of your workflow requires a fast SSD.
If you have the budget for an Intel 750.... you have the budget for some rotating rust / scratch SSDs.....
Click to expand...

It is on my to do list to take my 3TB drives and set them up in an IRST RAID 0 for several things.

ocellaris said:
You don't think it is abnormal, however it is. Also just because you have 1000+ games doesn't mean you need to constantly shuffle them around. There are better ways of utilizing storage for games and photos, however you want to keep doing what you are doing. Most people with tons of games only play a few at a time. With your useage, you must be shuffling games and pictures around daily (which would be another OCD tendency).

Also if you can scratch through 100GB of photos a day, you are either a pro photographer / graphic artist and maybe you should setup a PC to better handle that workload (not using the same SSD for games and work files)?
Click to expand...

When you shoot RAW/jpeg combined thats 50MB (IIRC) per picture so its easy to rack up space and its easy to cycle through them with deleting crappy ones when you have a 4k screen. 4k previews are bomb in bridge...CPU dies though :/ So much processing to preview that res vs the 720p preview thats standard or whatever

I only shoot for fun/family events. I do take an occasional class and that requires like 300-1000 shots per project so it gets data hungry.


EDIT: I am looking into how hard it is to have steam on two drives. Put games less than 20GB on HDD and games over 20GB on SSD so that the HDD can just load the game into RAM and the games too large for ram go on SSD.
 
Last edited:
Why move photos from the HDD to the SSD? Just to edit them in PS, then move them back? Seems like a waste to me. How full is the SSD, you cant max out the capacity on these things. Its very easy to tell steam to install games on different drives.
 
Killerxp100 said:
Why move photos from the HDD to the SSD? Just to edit them in PS, them move them back? Seems like a waste to me. How full is the SSD, you cant max out the capacity on these things. Its very easy to tell steam to install games on different drives.
Click to expand...

last time i used steam on multiple drives it was beyond glitchy and finicky. Only certain games would install on certain drives but that's when they first released the feature so maybe its more refined now.

you can cycle through images in bridge much faster on an SSD vs an HDD. when you are loading 50MB images or larger it is only near instant loads on an SSD. when you need to cycle through 100s of images to reject bad ones it goes much faster on an SSD or in RAM. Again i'll reference IBM transaction study.

http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/jelliott/evrrt.html

look at individual productivity section. sub second responses prove to be very important and I can tell you that from experience.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
last time i used steam on multiple drives it was beyond glitchy and finicky. Only certain games would install on certain drives but that's when they first released the feature so maybe its more refined now.

you can cycle through images in bridge much faster on an SSD vs an HDD. when you are loading 50MB images or larger it is only near instant loads on an SSD. when you need to cycle through 100s of images to reject bad ones it goes much faster on an SSD or in RAM. Again i'll reference IBM transaction study.

http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/jelliott/evrrt.html

look at individual productivity section. sub second responses prove to be very important and I can tell you that from experience.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense and it is a great reason to get an SSD dedicated specifically to your photo editing tasks.

Steam works fine when installed on another drive or with game directories split between multiple drives in my experience.

If you have extra 3TB drives floating around, I wouldn't hesitate to use them for your games storage. In fact, why aren't you already doing this? :D
 
MrCaffeineX said:
This makes perfect sense and it is a great reason to get an SSD dedicated specifically to your photo editing tasks.

Steam works fine when installed on another drive or with game directories split between multiple drives in my experience.

If you have extra 3TB drives floating around, I wouldn't hesitate to use them for your games storage. In fact, why aren't you already doing this? :D
Click to expand...

just got a desktop :) had an alienware laptop and removable drive for steam games is glitchy :) I also think that's partly why first time i tried splitting steam 5 years ago it didn't work right. Only like 10% of games could go on other drive..it was weird. Some would not show an extra drive but some would. A lot of people had that issues when the feature first was published.

EDIT: actually i remember now. It gave some weird error message when trying to install to external when base was on C. It said drive did exist or some weird thing that made no sense. It was a common issue.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
just got a desktop :) had an alienware laptop and removable drive for steam games is glitchy :) I also think that's partly why first time i tried splitting steam 5 years ago it didn't work right. Only like 10% of games could go on other drive..it was weird. Some would not show an extra drive but some would. A lot of people had that issues when the feature first was published.

EDIT: actually i remember now. It gave some weird error message when trying to install to external when base was on C. It said drive did exist or some weird thing that made no sense. It was a common issue.
Click to expand...

I have seen Steam fail to realize that my external HDD was attached when backing up a game from my library, but usually just restarting Steam fixes the issue. I always thought it had something to do with the external HDD sleeping when idle. It could be a problem inherent to Steam's method of accessing the file system.

My brother-in-law has had his Steam library on his external HDD for several years now without issue. How long ago were you experiencing issues? They must have figured it out a while back or he may just have been lucky all this time.
 
nah it would be selective. in the same session. Lets say:

Dawn of War shows it can be installed to HDD
I start install
go to next game
Half Life 2
says it cant install.

It would be specific to a game and it would never change with restarts or anything just certain games appeared to not be supported.

The issue was when the feature was first released without having to do manual bypass. It was when i had a g51j laptop with a 720qm and 1TB or 2TB hardrives were brand new 2010/2011?

but none the less we have digressed.

Do you guys think that these manufacture ratings are just super low balls? Like car warranty is 12000 miles even though it'll reach 100000 before something has an issue and needs repair
 
Read this:

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

"All of the drives surpassed their official endurance specifications by writing hundreds of terabytes without issue."

The first out was an Intel SSD, but not because of failure - it honored its media wear-out indicator and ended itself at 700 TB.

The Kingston drive failed at 728 TB.

The only TLC drive went 300 TB before failing a single hash check; after that, it went to 900 TB before dying.

The Corsair hit 1.1 PB (that's 1100 TB) before dying. Another Kingston lasted to 2.1 PB, and the Samsung 840 Pro went 2.4 PB before dying.

There is an endurance test being done on a Samsung 850 Pro. It's still going at 3 PB; it didn't even get any reallocated sectors until 2 PB (which the 840 Pro mentioned above did at 600 TB).

So, yes, the manufacture ratings are seriously low balls. If I were you I would just get a large Samsung 850 Pro (512 GB or 1 TB) and stop worrying.
 
well that makes more sense and makes me feel much better about any SSD and especially the 750.
 
Use Junction command to point to another directory and install there... Subst command will create a new drive letter for a directory and junction will create a new directory for any directory on any drive. You could move ALL your steam files to another drive and just use junction c:\steam z:\steambackup and c:\steam would point to what is on drive z: in the steambackup directory.. There is a program that uses these functions AND adds some minor changes to explorer so normal operations like move work as expected without breaking symbolic links. Windows use symbolic links everywhere which is why you cant just copy something and expect it to work. It is also how you think windows is using 100GB on a 64GB drive.. they use symlinks to duplicate files and it shows up in multiple places.
 
evilsofa said:
Read this:

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

"All of the drives surpassed their official endurance specifications by writing hundreds of terabytes without issue."

The first out was an Intel SSD, but not because of failure - it honored its media wear-out indicator and ended itself at 700 TB.

The Kingston drive failed at 728 TB.

The only TLC drive went 300 TB before failing a single hash check; after that, it went to 900 TB before dying.

The Corsair hit 1.1 PB (that's 1100 TB) before dying. Another Kingston lasted to 2.1 PB, and the Samsung 840 Pro went 2.4 PB before dying.

There is an endurance test being done on a Samsung 850 Pro. It's still going at 3 PB; it didn't even get any reallocated sectors until 2 PB (which the 840 Pro mentioned above did at 600 TB).

So, yes, the manufacture ratings are seriously low balls. If I were you I would just get a large Samsung 850 Pro (512 GB or 1 TB) and stop worrying.
Click to expand...

I forgot about those endurance tests. I am glad to see they went as well as they did. The Samsung Pro numbers are particularly impressive.

Use Junction command to point to another directory and install there... Subst command will create a new drive letter for a directory and junction will create a new directory for any directory on any drive. You could move ALL your steam files to another drive and just use junction c:\steam z:\steambackup and c:\steam would point to what is on drive z: in the steambackup directory.. There is a program that uses these functions AND adds some minor changes to explorer so normal operations like move work as expected without breaking symbolic links. Windows use symbolic links everywhere which is why you cant just copy something and expect it to work. It is also how you think windows is using 100GB on a 64GB drive.. they use symlinks to duplicate files and it shows up in multiple places.
Click to expand...

Steam has the function built-in now to repair the links on the system. I'm not sure how long, perhaps it was always there and I just never noticed, but now I download all of my games on only one PC, then either restore from a backup or for new builds, I just copy the Steam directory then let it repair itself on the new system. I have an addiction to tweaking my PC, so this actually happens fairly often, probably much more often than the average user would ever be bothered with.
 
Just for the love of God stay away from 840 non pro it is shit, looking back I would of probably gone crucial for bulk data store
 
Romale23 said:
Just for the love of God stay away from 840 non pro it is shit, looking back I would of probably gone crucial for bulk data store
Click to expand...

yea i dont touch those evos. I had the drive prior to evo and it sucked. Thats why i went extreme pro but i need/want something better.
 
yea i copy and do something else like check emails read news work on other things and come back later. Also sometimes I use the RAM for PS but i am unsure yet if that really helps. I think i am at a CPU bottleneck and not an SSD bottleneck when at 4k

try running 4k previews and CPU melts -_- it is so ridiculous on the amount of CPU needed. I think you need an 8 core CPU for 4k to be honest but its just so nice to see high res samples i can't help it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top