Curious, What do I do if my SSD fails? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:04 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
stamina1914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
My OS, Windows 7 is saved on my Intel 330 180g SSD. If this fails, do I have to purchase windows 7 again or I own the license and I just download it again to another SSD.
stamina1914 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
CountryBumkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
If you have the license key, you can download and reinstall. Worse case, you call MS and they give you the unlock key.
CountryBumkin is offline  
post #3 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vlad Theimpaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by stamina1914 View Post

My OS, Windows 7 is saved on my Intel 330 180g SSD. If this fails, do I have to purchase windows 7 again or I own the license and I just download it again to another SSD.

Make a backup image of the entire disk (Windows 7 creates 2 partitions during installation) using Norton Ghost or Acronis. Whenever the SSD fails, then you can restore your exact system (as it was when you made the backup image) to a new SSD, again with Norton Ghost or Acronis.

When you fire up the PC with the restored system on the new SSD, Windows will update itself to add the new SSD to its system/driver database (you'll see the standard "New hardware detected"), and after that auto update is done, you'll be back in business smile.gif
lespurgeon likes this.

Vlad Theimpaler is offline  
post #4 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
I know you have visited Asassin's guides so here you go:

http://assassinhtpcblog.com/bioswindows/#guide8

Not too hard to create a system restore DVD or system image. You should retain your windows key code, but a call to MS would get you a legit code provided you already owned a legit registered copy.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #5 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
If it's an option (Z68/Z77/Z87 motherboard) you might want to move your Windows install to a hard drive and use the SSD as a cache with Intel SRT instead of using the SSD as the boot drive.
This should give you the speed benefits of an SSD, but if it fails you can boot off the hard drive as if nothing ever happened, and put in a new SSD cache drive a few days later.
At least that's my understanding of how SRT works. (my board does not support it)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #6 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 9,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Chances are that HDD will fail before the SSD. You end up with the same problem. SSD cache is not worth the trouble, IMO. It is not the same thing. You get slightly faster speed than HDD but definitely not remotely close to SSD speed.
lespurgeon likes this.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #7 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 05:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Chances are that HDD will fail before the SSD. You end up with the same problem. SSD cache is not worth the trouble, IMO. It is not the same thing. You get slightly faster speed than HDD but definitely not remotely close to SSD speed.

yes.

I would not want to suffer the horribleness HDD brings. That's like a nightmare !!!! eek.gif

My tolerance for HDD based OSes has now expired. KILL IT WITH FIRE !!!!




I'd burn the machine before I'd try to turn it on and use it. (seriously)

Very strong DO NOT WANT.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #8 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 05:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
You should always assume that any drive in your system could fail at any time, and keep appropriate backups.
In my experience, when a hard drive is going to fail, you generally have plenty of warning - especially if you run something like Hard Disk Sentinel to monitor your drive health.
When SSDs fail, it tends to be sudden, without warning, and a total loss of all data.

If you use an HDD as the boot drive with an SSD cache, if the SSD fails you can pull the drive out and continue using the system as normal.
If you use the SSD as a boot drive and it fails, you have to start restoring from a backup, just as you would if the HDD failed. Using the SSD as a cache rather than the boot drive at least means you have protection against one type of failure.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #9 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 10:57 PM
Member
 
ikkuranus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You should always assume that any drive in your system could fail at any time, and keep appropriate backups.
In my experience, when a hard drive is going to fail, you generally have plenty of warning - especially if you run something like Hard Disk Sentinel to monitor your drive health.
When SSDs fail, it tends to be sudden, without warning, and a total loss of all data.

If you use an HDD as the boot drive with an SSD cache, if the SSD fails you can pull the drive out and continue using the system as normal.
If you use the SSD as a boot drive and it fails, you have to start restoring from a backup, just as you would if the HDD failed. Using the SSD as a cache rather than the boot drive at least means you have protection against one type of failure.

I agree with the first half of your post but the 2nd is only perceived redundancy as SRT only goes one way. IE the ssd can fail and the system keeps working but if the hdd fails the system no longer boots as a cache drive don't contain a full copy of the os or probably even the boot record for that matter. That being said you just can't compare a raid 1 to SRT.

ikkuranus is offline  
post #10 of 138 Old 10-08-2013, 11:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikkuranus View Post

I agree with the first half of your post but the 2nd is only perceived redundancy as SRT only goes one way. IE the ssd can fail and the system keeps working but if the hdd fails the system no longer boots as a cache drive don't contain a full copy of the os or probably even the boot record for that matter. That being said you just can't compare a raid 1 to SRT.
I wasn't saying that would work at all.

If you are booting off an SSD and the SSD fails, you have to restore a backup to another drive.
If you're booting off a HDD and the HDD fails, you have to restore a backup to another drive.
If you're booting off an HDD with an SSD cache and the SSD fails, you can pull the drive/disable SRT and boot off the HDD instead of the SSD cache and continue using the PC.

This at least means you don't have to worry about the SSD failing suddenly and having to restore a backup or being unable to boot the system until you have a replacement drive. (or booting off a backup, which I would never recommend)
It is not at all any kind of backup system or protection against the HDD dying, but at least leaves your system in a bootable state if the SSD cache dies, rather than the SSD dying when it's the boot drive.

As I mentioned in my previous post, an HDD is likely to give you ample warning before it's about to fail, unlike an SSD which will often fail suddenly without warning.
While SSDs should be more reliable than hard drives, and they certainly are in notebooks where the system is moved around a lot and the drive is constantly spinning up/down, I have a lot of friends whose SSD just died on them for no reason, within the warranty period.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #11 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 05:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
I'm pretty sure I can remove an SSD and swap it out , and restore from back up faster than a HDD system can load from a cold start and load up 10 tabs in chrome.

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #12 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 9,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Use a backup system. SSD cache has zero advantages. It's a stop gap solution when SSDs are extremely expensive. You can just take the SSD out and use the HDD alone. That will be the same effect. Besides, since the SSD cache is always filled up to max and changing, the life span of that SSD is greatly reduced.

I use WHS2011 to back up all my PCs. If one goes bad, I can simply put in a new SSD or HDD and restore from backup.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #13 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Use a backup system. SSD cache has zero advantages. It's a stop gap solution when SSDs are extremely expensive. You can just take the SSD out and use the HDD alone. That will be the same effect. Besides, since the SSD cache is always filled up to max and changing, the life span of that SSD is greatly reduced.
I use WHS2011 to back up all my PCs. If one goes bad, I can simply put in a new SSD or HDD and restore from backup.
Well there's no doubt that it's a stop-gap solution, but an SSD cache gives you most of the performance benefits of an SSD without the storage limitations.
You're right though, once 1TB+ PCI-E SSDs are affordable, few people will be buying hard drives, except for mass storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm pretty sure I can remove an SSD and swap it out , and restore from back up faster than a HDD system can load from a cold start and load up 10 tabs in chrome.
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
Yeah, we get it. You must be doing a full shutdown and boot your PC hundreds of times a day, only have a gig of ram in there, and are constantly having to close applications to free up memory. You also apparently don't have a need for any real amount of storage.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #14 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 08:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
Actually I have two 3TB in RAID 0 with SSD cache for storage biggrin.gif but it's just a temp storage scratch disk.

I have a Flexraid server with 35TB for real storage.

A HDD (even SSD cached) is no where near as good as a SSD only for OS performance. It's very noticeable.

I can barely use a slow SSD anymore, so a HDD is really bad to me. I'm being serious and literal when I say I'd rather burn it than use it. I'd go without a PC and go find another hobby if I had to use a HDD for my OS.

Keep in mind when you have a data drive that also doubles as an OS drive- you are requiring two things from it at the same time and those two things will compete with each other. Lets say I use a big HDD with SSD cache for my OS, and I open a big folder full of movies with tons of files and folders and covers- the time it takes to read all that and the performance required to do it is at the same time competing with all the other normal OS functions related to opening the folder, and anything else going on with that PC at that time. Performance takes mighty hit.

A dedicated OS frees up the headroom and removes the tasking of an OS from your data drive so the data drive performs better as just a data drive. That's part of the reasons why an OS dedicated and Dedicated Data drive (HDD) will load up a big folder full of movies and populate faster than a single combo drive would. SSD cache might help- but it's not the same as a dedicated SSD for your OS.

It's really a pretty big difference. Go dedicated SSD all the way, and use a HDD for storage.

SSD benefits show all over the place, not just on restarts (I never restart)

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #15 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 09:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

It's really a pretty big difference. Go dedicated SSD all the way, and use a HDD for storage.

As stated earlier in the thread... the pretty big difference depends on your application.

I have a a storage server with 50TB of spindle drives, and honestly I can't even tell you what the OS drive is other than it isn't an SSD. (pretty sure it's a 2.5 inch 7200rpm drive but I'm not positive) It's basically an appliance. Since I built it three years ago, it's had a monitor connected to it for about 30 minutes (long enough to get OS installed) I've connected to it for a grand total of about 10 minutes via RDP and I've never installed anything on it beyond the OS and storage management software. And it's had to boot twice since the OS was installed (both times due to power outtage)

An SSD drive on that storage server would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Zero. None.

Yes, there are a lot of benefits in a lot of situations, but an SSD drive doesn't magically improve the performance of everything it's near.

The "server" you speak of that is running Win 7 and ripping movies, and doing various other tasks is pretty much a server in name only. You may call it a server but you're using it as a workstation, so using it to justify putting an SSD in a server is a bit misguided.

I have SSDs in both of my laptops, my HTPC and my main computer at home. I think they're great, but they aren't necessarily better in every situation.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #16 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

A HDD (even SSD cached) is no where near as good as a SSD only for OS performance. It's very noticeable.
Again; what are you doing on your boot drive where it's noticeable? Gaming is the only task where it actually matters.

Once the system has booted, my browser, jriver, photoshop and other programs are all loaded into memory and nothing touches the hard drive again.
Other than installing OS updates that require a reboot, my system is never shut down. That's generally once or twice a month, at most.

I am running an SSD, because I game, but for desktop use, it barely seems to matter.
No-one would say that an HDD is better, but SSDs are far from essential outside of a notebook. (where they are essential from a reliability standpoint; though I would use a hybrid drive)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Keep in mind when you have a data drive that also doubles as an OS drive- you are requiring two things from it at the same time and those two things will compete with each other. Lets say I use a big HDD with SSD cache for my OS, and I open a big folder full of movies with tons of files and folders and covers- the time it takes to read all that and the performance required to do it is at the same time competing with all the other normal OS functions related to opening the folder, and anything else going on with that PC at that time. Performance takes mighty hit.
Something is wrong with your OS if that's having a big performance hit on your system. And I manage all my media inside JRiver; it's far better suited to that.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #17 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 9,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well there's no doubt that it's a stop-gap solution, but an SSD cache gives you most of the performance benefits of an SSD without the storage limitations.

Actually, I have one PC built with intel's SSD cache technology. It is no where near the SSD performance my other systems have.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #18 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 9,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Again; what are you doing on your boot drive where it's noticeable? Gaming is the only task where it actually matters.

Once the system has booted, my browser, jriver, photoshop and other programs are all loaded into memory and nothing touches the hard drive again.
Other than installing OS updates that require a reboot, my system is never shut down. That's generally once or twice a month, at most.

Sorry, you are plain wrong there. Browsers actually store a lot of files, including all its cached cookies and files, right in the system drive all the time. So are many system application and other applications that store temporary files. Most installers expand their files in the temp directory first as well. The system drive is busiest drive in the entire PC. The biggest mistake a lot of ppl do is leave little or no spare space available on system drive and lead to a lot of unexplained crashes due to lack of temporary storage space.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #19 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 11:39 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Media Browser is a lot faster with an SSD than with a HDD. Displaying the cover art is instantaneous with a SSD. I did not realize it was an issue on the HDD until after I upgraded to a SSD. Reboots are much faster too (Patch Tuesday struck with a vengeance today, eh?).

All in all, it makes my system more responsive, which makes me happy. The small cost is worth it, imo.
cybrsage is offline  
post #20 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 12:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
Not to beat a dead horse here, but it's a huge myth that SSD only helps with boot times or that it's not need in a server.

I see huge benefits everywhere, including browsing, mediabrowser, internet browsers, installing applications, launching them, etc... Basically everything is faster.

Same for a server. RDP sessions are much snappier (I do this often with my server) and performance of programs is improved just like on a PC.

I am not sure why people say things like it does not matter except for boot times, or it does not matter in a server. It matters. The difference is night and day to me.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #21 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Not to beat a dead horse here, but it's a huge myth that SSD only helps with boot times or that it's not need in a server.

I see huge benefits everywhere, including browsing, mediabrowser, internet browsers, installing applications, launching them, etc... Basically everything is faster.

browsing - not on my server
mediabrowser - not on my server
internet browsers - not on my server
installing applications - not on my server
launching them - not on my server
Basically everything is faster - not on my server

Again the thing that you seem to keep overlooking despite it being spelled out for you repeatedly is that not everyone does the same thing with their computer that you do.

I don't do *any* of those things on my server. A lot of people that have put together a dedicated storage server are in the same boat. All it does is share files. If I had any desire to do *any* of that stuff on my server I wouldn't have built it on an Atom platform.

You can "But browsing! But applications! But Candy Crush!" Until you're blue in the face. An SSD won't make an even remotely tangible difference in my server.
Quote:
Same for a server. RDP sessions are much snappier (I do this often with my server) and performance of programs is improved just like on a PC.

I am not sure why people say things like it does not matter except for boot times, or it does not matter in a server. It matters. The difference is night and day to me.

The difference is day and night in your setting. That doesn't mean it applies in every other setting.

The few times I've used RDP on my server its been as quick or quicker than my main Win7 box. And I have no (as in zero, zilch, na-da, none, one less than one) applications that I use on that server.

An SSD is utterly and completely useless on that box in terms of performance. It helps nothing. Now if you want to get into a reliability debate, that's another conversation, but your overly simplisitic generalization that an SDD will improve the performance of everything is flat out, utterly, and quantifiably wrong.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #22 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

browsing - not on my server
mediabrowser - not on my server
internet browsers - not on my server
installing applications - not on my server
launching them - not on my server
Basically everything is faster - not on my server

Again the thing that you seem to keep overlooking despite it being spelled out for you repeatedly is that not everyone does the same thing with their computer that you do.

I don't do *any* of those things on my server. A lot of people that have put together a dedicated storage server are in the same boat. All it does is share files. If I had any desire to do *any* of that stuff on my server I wouldn't have built it on an Atom platform.

You can "But browsing! But applications! But Candy Crush!" Until you're blue in the face. An SSD won't make an even remotely tangible difference in my server.
The difference is day and night in your setting. That doesn't mean it applies in every other setting.

The few times I've used RDP on my server its been as quick or quicker than my main Win7 box. And I have no (as in zero, zilch, na-da, none, one less than one) applications that I use on that server.

An SSD is utterly and completely useless on that box in terms of performance. It helps nothing. Now if you want to get into a reliability debate, that's another conversation, but your overly simplisitic generalization that an SDD will improve the performance of everything is flat out, utterly, and quantifiably wrong.

Great post.

I am extremely "pro-SSD" but have similar feelings to you regarding a SSD in what I would call your typical playback server. I run Plex Server on my server which runs very very well using a leftover (free) 2.5" laptop drive from when I upgraded my old laptop to a SSD (the latter of which I do see a performance improvement with the SSD). SSDs are fantastic but they aren't always needed depending on how you use a specific machine. A server is a great example for some/most people.
assassin is offline  
post #23 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
I do not even know where to begin ^

First,

You really need a separate OS drive in a server, not for performance but for reliability reasons. You should never used your OS drive also as a data drive because with Flexraid and other software type raid set ups if you lose your OS drive you also lose data and can not recover.

If you are going to spend the $ you might as well buy a SSD drive for your OS. My server has a $49 OCZ 120GB Vertex3 in it. It's not a money thing, you can get SSD nearly as cheap as a HDD these days, so it's often worth the small extra costs. You already need a dedicated OS drive anyways from a reliability stand point (important in a server). Perhaps if you have a left over used HDD laying around collecting dust you might make a case for that, but in general if you are going to be buying a drive might as well make it an SSD

I think you might be confusing a NAS with a server. It sounds like you use yours as a NAS.

Also,

Mediabrowser 3 and Plex both have server client applications that must install on your server. The cache of album art is much faster with an SSD, so the performance is much better. Installing or uninstalling anything is faster. Restarts are faster. Launching a program is faster. RDP sessions are much snappier and faster. If you don't care- that's cool. But not caring is different than saying it's not true.

Last,

HDD is better than SSD at nothing. Not one single thing. My saying an SSD improves everything is accurate, and certianly more accurate than saying :
Quote:
SSD is utterly and completely useless on that box in terms of performance. It helps nothing. Now if you want to get into a reliability debate, that's another conversation, but your overly simplisitic generalization that an SDD will improve the performance of everything is flat out, utterly, and quantifiably wrong.

Saying that just proved you have no clue what you are talking about. ^

Being ok with the performance of a HDD is different than saying there is no difference between SSD and HDD in a server (or PC). Be clear about what you are saying. Not caring or feeling you need an SSD is not the same thing as wrongfully saying I am wrong- or SSD is not better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Great post.

I am extremely "pro-SSD" but have similar feelings to you regarding a SSD in what I would call your typical playback server. I run Plex Server on my server which runs very very well using a leftover (free) 2.5" laptop drive from when I upgraded my old laptop to a SSD (the latter of which I do see a performance improvement with the SSD). SSDs are fantastic but they aren't always needed depending on how you use a specific machine. A server is a great example for some/most people.

I think you say "great post" to every post that disagree's with me and it makes you look foolish in some cases.

You really think that was a great post ? He clearly said there is no difference with SSD to HDD which is very wrong. Surprised you agree with that or thing it's a "great post" rolleyes.gif
StinDaWg likes this.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #24 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I do not even know where to begin ^

First,

You really need a separate OS drive in a server, not for performance but for reliability reasons. You should never used your OS drive also as a data drive because with Flexraid and other software type raid set ups if you lose your OS drive you also lose data and can not recover.

If you are going to spend the $ you might as well buy a SSD drive for your OS. My server has a $49 OCZ 120GB Vertex3 in it. It's not a money thing, you can get SSD nearly as cheap as a HDD these days, so it's often worth the small extra costs. You already need a dedicated OS drive anyways from a reliability stand point (important in a server). Perhaps if you have a left over used HDD laying around collecting dust you might make a case for that, but in general if you are going to be buying a drive might as well make it an SSD

I think you might be confusing a NAS with a server. It sounds like you use yours as a NAS.

Also,

Mediabrowser 3 and Plex both have server client applications that must install on your server. The cache of album art is much faster with an SSD, so the performance is much better.

Last,

HDD is better than SSD at nothing. Not one single thing. My saying an SSD improves everything is accurate, and certianly more accurate than you saying :
Saying that just proved you have no clue what you are talking about.

Mfusick you are taking a beating today. I think he was saying you can't just assume that everyone uses a "server" like you do. Some use it more as a "NAS". Some, like me, use it as a bit of a hybrid. In any event he was pointing out that you can't make a blanket statement like you did (and continue to do) because it doesn't help everyone.

I would gain zero if I took my laptop hard drive out and installed a SSD. Everything already works perfectly (including Plex Server on my phone and tablets) so I would be out the $50-$100 that it took to get a SSD with literally no gain ---- BASED ON HOW I (not you) USE MY SERVER.

That bolded part is the key point that he was trying to make. Everyone is different.
assassin is offline  
post #25 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I think you say "great post" to every post that disagree's with me and it makes you look foolish in some cases.

You really think that was a great post ? He clearly said there is no difference with SSD to HDD which is very wrong. Surprised you agree with that or thing it's a "great post" rolleyes.gif

Seriously dude knock it off.
assassin is offline  
post #26 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Seriously dude knock it off.


I should say the same to you.rolleyes.gif

I just do not agree that there is no difference with SSD vs HDD on a server (any server). You or he might not actually care about the difference and find HDD acceptable but there is still a very real difference. Not sure how you think I am taking a beating.
StinDaWg likes this.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #27 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 140
II have rack of Proliant DL380s at work, and they all boot from piddly little SD cards. HP ships them configured that way because nobody cares about the speed of a server's boot drive.
Chronoptimist likes this.
EricN is offline  
post #28 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 02:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I do not even know where to begin ^

First,

You really need a separate OS drive in a server, not for performance but for reliability reasons. You should never used your OS drive also as a data drive because with Flexraid and other software type raid set ups if you lose your OS drive you also lose data and can not recover.


Ageed, not that it has any bearing on this discussion at all.

Quote:
If you are going to spend the $ you might as well buy a SSD drive for your OS. My server has a $49 OCZ 120GB Vertex3 in it. It's not a money thing, you can get SSD nearly as cheap as a HDD these days, so it's often worth the small extra costs. You already need a dedicated OS drive anyways from a reliability stand point (important in a server). Perhaps if you have a left over used HDD laying around collecting dust you might make a case for that, but in general if you are going to be buying a drive might as well make it an SSD


You're making another assumption. I used a drive I had on hand (new system pull) I didn't buy a new one specifically for the purpose of building my server. And there is a big difference between saying you need an SSD and it makes sense to get an SSD. There is also a big difference between saying it will improve performance, and it will likely improve performance.

You seem to have very little interest in what the intended use is, but a great deal of interest in telling folks how you think they should use it just like you. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.

Quote:
I think you might be confusing a NAS with a server. It sounds like you use yours as a NAS.


I think you might be trying to invent a distinction that doesn't really exist. And the only real distinctions you can make between a file server and a NAS would almost certainly put my setup in the "File Server" category anyway.

Quote:
Also,

Mediabrowser 3 and Plex both have server client applications that must install on your server. The cache of album art is much faster with an SSD, so the performance is much better. Installing or uninstalling anything is faster. Restarts are faster. Launching a program is faster. RDP sessions are much snappier and faster. If you don't care- that's cool. But not caring is different than saying it's not true.

I don't run either on my server, so I'm not quite sure why you continue to bring those up. No doubt, Plex and MB3 can benefit from an SSD. But not if they aren't used in my system. Not everyone uses the same programs you do. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.

Quote:
Last,

HDD is better than SSD at nothing. Not one single thing. My saying an SSD improves everything is accurate, and certianly more accurate than saying :
Saying that just proved you have no clue what you are talking about. ^

You haven't named a single thing that an SSD would improve on my server. Not one single thing. You've listed a gazillion things that would make a difference on your system. Zero for my system. If it won't improve my system you are empirically WRONG in stating that an SSD improves everything. It simply doesn't. And an HDD is better than an SSD when I don't have to buy an SSD because I have an extra HDD sitting around.

Quote:
Being ok with the performance of a HDD is different than saying there is no difference between SSD and HDD in a server (or PC). Be clear about what you are saying. Not caring or feeling you need an SSD is not the same thing as wrongfully saying I am wrong- or SSD is not better.


I've been very clear about what I'm saying. Let me leave no doubt this time... It isn't a matter of lowered standards. I'm not saying HDD performance is good enough so an SDD doesn't do me any good. I'm saying for my particular application, an SDD will not show any tangible benefit whatsoever. None. Zero. You've continued to bring up points that I've already addressed, but you've yet to address my point, that is: There is NOTHING on my server that will show any tangible benefit from an SSD.

Quote:
You really think that was a great post ? He clearly said there is no difference with SSD to HDD which is very wrong. Surprised you agree with that or thing it's a "great post" rolleyes.gif


You clearly have a reading comprehension problem becasue I most certainly DIDN'T say that.

What I did say was that there would be no performance difference in my system, not that there isn't a difference. If you can't understand the distinction between the two, I don't think you're really qualified to weigh in on the discussion to be perfectly honest.

To reference the "why are posts down on AVS" thread, this is the reason. Some posters don't bother to read what a poster is asking, and instead of looking at that person's particular situation and weighing in accordingly, they seem to think that gross generalizations based purely on anecdotal evidence are perfectly fine advice to give.
Chronoptimist likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #29 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 02:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
assassin is offline  
post #30 of 138 Old 10-09-2013, 02:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 234
To add one more little bit of advice and expand upon what was already said,

Using an SSD to cache an HDD does not add any redundancy.

RAID adds redundancy, but only for the specific case of a drive failure. It does not protect your data in the event of other hardware failure, virus infections, accidental deletions, partition corruptions, or anything else.

There is simply NO substitute for a good backup regimen for your important data.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off