Using Solid State drive for file output and conventional drive for processing - your opinion? 5

[bazil2]

(Elementary user)

Could I please ask your opinion on the following ...

I have a computer with 1TB SATA conventional drive and 256GB SSD.

The goal is to process files and output them as quickly as possible.

I was considering installing the processing software on the conventional drive and making the SSD the file output drive.

Would you agree with me that is a good idea or do you think there is more of an advantage in using the SSD for both processing and output?

The machine is running Windows 64Bit, uses 6 core Extreme 4.2 Ghz Intel core IS7 processors and has 16GB of Ram.

Best regards

 

[Noway2]

It all depends on where the system bottlenecks are and how they compare to the throughput and latency of the IO devices. I assume in this case "output"
means write to disk. Will you be able to process data fast enough that getting it to disk will be a determining factor in the system performance?

Here are some additional considerations (from this wikipedia article comparing SSD and HHD)

Data transfer rate:
A)SSD technology can deliver rather consistent read/write speed, typically ranging from about 100MB/s to 500MB/s, depending on the model.
B)Once the head is positioned, when reading or writing a continuous track, a HDD can transfer data at about 100MB/s
Reliability and Lifetime:
A) Each block of a flash-based SSD can only be erased (and therefore written) a limited number of times before it fails. The controllers manage this limitation so that drives can last for many years under normal use
B)Magnetic media also has a limited number of writes, but it is considerably longer than flash memory
Read/write performance symmetry and Free block availability and TRIM:
A)Less expensive SSDs typically have write speeds significantly lower than their read speeds. SSD write performance is significantly impacted by the availability of free, programmable blocks, fewer free blocks cause slower performance.
B) HDDs generally have slightly lower write speeds than their read speeds. HDDs are not affected by free blocks.

Unless profiling says that an SSD will eliminate a performance bottleneck compared to an HDD, it likely wouldn't be worth the cost.

 

[Triton101]

i guess it all depends, the biggest boost that an SSD has for me is the access time and IO for small files.... it kills an HDD, but big file writes would not be a noticeable as small ones from all the specs that get thrown around.
my 2 cents....

__________________________________________________________
Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life. - Confucius

 

[goombawaho]

I think the above boils down to this: SSDs are great for very fast READS of data. The WRITE improvements are not as great.

 

[cdogg]

If you look at most SSD's manufactured in the last 2 years, even the cheapest ones, you will find that they significantly outperform a HDD in BOTH read and write operations (not to mention "severely" crush them in I/O as Triton pointed out, which would be extremely important with large databases).

There are four main categories: Random Read, Random Write, Sequential Read, and Sequential Write. An SDD will absolutely beat any HDD to a pulp when it comes to Random Read and Random Write. There's no question regardless of large or small files. Sequential Read and Write times are different story. A lot of the advantages that SSD's have don't come into play. Most are still 25-50% faster than the fastest HDD's in these two categories, but only a few elite models get as high as 400 MB/s which is 3-4 times faster (see links below). If you have the money and plan on getting an elite model, then this exception doesn't apply to you!

Point is, SSD's have a crazy-big advantage across the board. In some areas, it's insane!

Intel SSD 320 performance against 20 other drives [tab](VelociRaptor is the high-end HDD to use as a reference)
This one shows the I/O advantage [tab](and keep in mind that it's over 3 years old!)
Intel SSD 520 Review [tab](No HDD in these benchmarks, but you can see how fast the newest models are)

-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[technome]

I have a WD 10k SATA, and 2 Kingston SSD 120's ( not the fastest). I only use one SSD, for programs/data and the WD 10k as backup, the other SSD as an image. It is not even worth debating performance of the WD and the SSD, it like having a Volkswagen beatle and a Porche at a race starting line, a complete joke as they are in different leagues. Put both programs/data on a SSD.

A great deal of benchmarks, in Dutch, but benches in English

http://tweakers.net/benchdb/test/556

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[masterworksintl]

We literally just did a blog post on this at

http://www.masterworksglobal.com/blog/ssd-vs-hdd-hard-drives/.

Bottom line: for your application it sounds best to use the SSD for your OS and for processing, and to use your HDD for data archival. Anything that is actively used (read: OS and applications, plus any data that you use frequently) should be on the SSD.

MasterWorks International
HP Authorized Distributor and Reseller

http://www.masterworksglobal.com

 

[goombawaho]

What if it's an older XP machine?? Any data on that?

 

[rclarke250]

XP, doesn't support TRIM, so SSD is not recommended for that OS. The drive would slow down as the it fills up.

 

[goombawaho]

Aren't there 3rd party TRIM products? Sorry to hijack thread.

 

[rclarke250]

Depends on the SSD drive, and yes, Intel does have an after market tool for trim.

 

[cdogg]

XP, doesn't support TRIM, so SSD is not recommended for that OS. The drive would slow down as the it fills up.

TRIM support in the OS is still preferred, but on newer drives it's not as crucial. Newer models tend to have garbage collection management built directly into the drive's controller which is OS-independent. When TRIM support in the OS isn't present to point out the blocks that are no longer in use, the controller's firmware relies on its own algorithms to keep the drive running optimally.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4010/kingston-ssdnow-v-plus-100-review

There is a downside, of course. If a controller's algorithms for garbage management is too aggressive, areas of NAND flash can wear prematurely shortening the drive's lifespan. It's also still important to keep at least 15-20% of the drive free at all times for better wear-leveling. Point is you don't have to avoid using SSDs in XP altogether.

-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

[tab][navy]For this site's posting policies, click [/navy]here.