or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Best use for SSD?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best use for SSD?

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
What would be the best use for an Intel G2 80GB SSD -
  1. HTPC boot drive
  2. file server boot drive
  3. overkill for both htpc/server

I think #2 won't help much, but I also think its a fast drive and a HTPC doesn't really need such a fast ssd. But then again its not worth much if I decide to sell it, right?
post #2 of 82
No. 1. My HTPC's boot time with HDD is 1 minutes 35 seconds. With the Crucial SSD, it's 36 seconds.
post #3 of 82
Htpc will draw less power and be quieter.
post #4 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by System View Post

Htpc will draw less power and be quieter.

so will the server... and its running 24/7...
actually, everything is better with SSD...
post #5 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

everything is better with SSD...

Agree
post #6 of 82
If you've got it stick it in the HTPC.
post #7 of 82
IMO you are one SSD short.

I've got a 64GB M4 in both my HTPC and WHS (plus a 128GB M4 in my laptop).
post #8 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by System View Post

Htpc will draw less power and be quieter.

Depends on what the configuration would be if the SSD goes for the server. If the alternative is 1 large drive, then it would be no noisier and it would draw draw more power. If he puts the SSD in the HTPC and it has a data drive, it still would draw more power as you're powering two drives. And sound levels may not be all that much different as you still have a hard drive spinning. It's possible you might save a fraction of a watt since the data drive wouldn't also be performing R/W for system purposes, but I bet you wouldn't notice the difference.

The only way that you'll save significant power or be quieter is if the SSD was the only drive.

My .02, put it in the HTPC. You'd notice the performance improvement more. Boot time or application loading time is more important with the HTPC then with the file server.
post #9 of 82
on a related note, i have a server that I run a mysql server, plus some other 'always on' apps.

If I were to install a ssd on the server, would running a mysql setup adversely affect the drive? Would i see any speed improvements over my network (1gbit wired)?
post #10 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggindude View Post

No. 1. My HTPC's boot time with HDD is 1 minutes 35 seconds. With the Crucial SSD, it's 36 seconds.

1 minute 35 seconds? My Windows 7 boots up in 30 seconds (not counting the dual-boot selector). On a 5400rpm HDD.
post #11 of 82
My 2 cents is that if you plan on leaving both on 24/7 and you don't need a cache drive I would recommend saving the money and going with spinners. If you power down every night or need a cache drive you will like the speed of the SSD's. when the capacities of the SSD's increase to the point of spinners and come down in price I would then make the switch.

I have 2 SSD's leave my HTPC's on 24/7 and really haven't gotten the benefits out of the money spent. They are fast though. JMO
post #12 of 82
Thread Starter 
I will be converting my existing pc to a file server. Its going to have 5-8 hard drives (I plan to fill all the slots) so reducing noise with ssd is not a factor. I'm pretty sure the ssd won't help with server performance since it's just a few clients which will place almost no disk load. The only argument for server use is its a more reliable OS drive and the serve won't die.

It will also be a boot drive on htpc and I'm thinking it might make XBMC load images etc faster.

Quote:


IMO you are one SSD short

Yes, don't have the funds yet. Between hdd's to backup data or ssd, I always end up with more backup.
post #13 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

so will the server... and its running 24/7...
actually, everything is better with SSD...

Everything but reliability....
post #14 of 82
Frequent write is not good for NAND type SSDs. Not only are they slow but wear out will be faster too. So they are not good for a cache drive. Drive controllers mask this slow write by a DRAM write buffer. But in the end data must still be written to flash. Erase operation is even slower. Erase affects SSD operation the most when the SSD is almost full, then it would almost grinds to a halt. HDD has similar problem when full but they are usually much larger size.

Because read speed is very fast, Window7 should turn off pre-fetch; only if Windows recognize the drive is a SSD correctly.

I never turn off my computer, only use sleep mode. So SSD doesn't mean much for me. I use them with carry around notebooks because they are much more rugged.
post #15 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdru View Post

Depends on what the configuration would be if the SSD goes for the server. If the alternative is 1 large drive, then it would be no noisier and it would draw draw more power. If he puts the SSD in the HTPC and it has a data drive, it still would draw more power as you're powering two drives. And sound levels may not be all that much different as you still have a hard drive spinning. It's possible you might save a fraction of a watt since the data drive wouldn't also be performing R/W for system purposes, but I bet you wouldn't notice the difference.

The only way that you'll save significant power or be quieter is if the SSD was the only drive.

My .02, put it in the HTPC. You'd notice the performance improvement more. Boot time or application loading time is more important with the HTPC then with the file server.

Hmm...

For the use-case of an always-on HTPC, is investing in a SSD for the boot drive worth the money? Will I see any real-world performance improvement?

I won't see any gain regarding boot time (as it won't be booting very often). XBMC will basically be always on as well, so application load time isn't critical either... There will be a HDD serving as a data drive, so I won't see much improvement regarding noise/power usage/heat generation...

Is it really worth it?
post #16 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksc318 View Post

Frequent write is not good for NAND type SSDs. Not only are they slow but wear out will be faster too. So they are not good for a cache drive.

Apparently neither Seagate nor Intel agree with this assessment, since Seagate sells their Momentus drives, and Intel includes in all of its new chipsets its Smart Response Technology, both of which do exactly that - use SSDs for cache drives.
post #17 of 82
i've kicked around the idea of moving my OS to a ssd for a while now.

i have an older core 2 duo and maxed out a 4gb DDR2 ram.

would SSD drastically benefit me? my pc does take about 5 minutes to boot. WMC takes 30 seconds or so to load, and occasionally browsing media browser is slower.

what i have to make bios adjustments in terms of how it recognizes sata drives? i think it is running in ahci but i cant recall. i remember that being the hardest part of initially setting my pc up 5 years ago
post #18 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Apparently neither Seagate nor Intel agree with this assessment, since Seagate sells their Momentus drives, and Intel includes in all of its new chipsets its Smart Response Technology, both of which do exactly that - use SSDs for cache drives.

You have to look at what they are used for and not just because they are called "cache". In both case, the use are for frequent read and not frequent write.
post #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksc318 View Post

You have to look at what they are used for and not just because they are called "cache". In both case, the use are for frequent read and not frequent write.

I sense a little inconsistency there.

You write that SSDs are "not good for a cache drive" and then turn around and write this?

In what way do you think their use as a cache in either the Momentus or as an SRT drive is any different than in any other use as a "cache drive"? Of course they have more reads than writes. They cache the most commonly called files. Just as any cache drive does.
post #20 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Everything but reliability....

explain...
preferably with citations...
post #21 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Everything but reliability....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

explain...
preferably with citations...

Yeah, I was going to ask that too.

I think that might have been a reasonable statement 3 or more years ago.

But in the absence of some current information or data, I'm going to chalk it up as an old wive's tale.

I doubt if Intel and Plextor would be putting their necks out with 5 year warranties (while hard disk manufacturers are dopping back to 1 year) if they didn't have some confidence in the reliability of their drives.
post #22 of 82
Thread Starter 
Wasn't there some calculation that showed even if you write 24/7 to a modern SSD, it'll be years before it develops faults?
post #23 of 82
IDK. But the failure rate of these things are two high to honestly considered them worth the price.
post #24 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

IDK. But the failure rate of these things are two high to honestly considered them worth the price.

And this is based on what exactly?

If you're going to make some claim like that you'd better have some data or study or credible source to back it up.

Or else you should have ended your post after the first three characters.
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

i've kicked around the idea of moving my OS to a ssd for a while now.

i have an older core 2 duo and maxed out a 4gb DDR2 ram.

would SSD drastically benefit me? my pc does take about 5 minutes to boot. WMC takes 30 seconds or so to load, and occasionally browsing media browser is slower.

what i have to make bios adjustments in terms of how it recognizes sata drives? i think it is running in ahci but i cant recall. i remember that being the hardest part of initially setting my pc up 5 years ago

It would normally help with both, but from the sounds of what you are describing it would help neither in your case. You have something going on with your OS or your setup. I am not sure which OS you are using, but f it is anything but before Windows 7 it might be time for a clean install. I would check for trojans, virus and such, I would also look for a misbehaving USB device. I know I have had a couple and they had increased by boot time on my kids computer quite a bit.
post #26 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

And this is based on what exactly?

If you're going to make some claim like that you'd better have some data or study or credible source to back it up.

Or else you should have ended your post after the first three characters.

Check reviews. Especially with OCZ. Intel are one of the few that seem to have reliable SSDs. Problem is.. They are always the most expensive.

It's plenty cheap and fast to buy dual 500GB drives and run them in raid 0.

Even then, I only like the idea of an SSD for cache. Cheap and gives you a pretty decent performance boost.
post #27 of 82
I don't see a lot of reason for a SSD as a boot drive on a file server with slower, larger drives for the main storage. Isn't the point that you're accessing the files on the larger drives anyways? They'd still be the bottleneck in that case. Just my $0.02.
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

Check reviews. Especially with OCZ. Intel are one of the few that seem to have reliable SSDs. Problem is.. They are always the most expensive.

Nonsense.

Tom's hardware did an article a year or so ago and the return rate on hard drives was much higher than that of SSDs.

If you're basing this opinion on Newegg reviews, as I suspect, then we can all safely disregard it.

Do you actually own an SSD? Because there are lots and lots of posters here who happily own multiple ones without any issue, and would never have a pc without one again.
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post


It's plenty cheap and fast to buy dual 500GB drives and run them in raid 0.

You now have 2x the chance of losing your information. If you really want fast speeds and good reliability then get a raptor drive i have had multiple last 5+ years. I am now running a vertex3 which screams, and hasnt crashed and burned. (I know i just screwed myself)
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Nonsense.

Tom's hardware did an article a year or so ago and the return rate on hard drives was much higher than that of SSDs.

If you're basing this opinion on Newegg reviews, as I suspect, then we can all safely disregard it.

Do you actually own an SSD? Because there are lots and lots of posters here who happily own multiple ones without and issue, and would never have a pc without one again.

Yes, I was basing this off reviews. It's the peoples voice of a product. Just as you have done so here is it not?

Yes, I do own an SSD. No. It has not failed on me. Doesn't mean I think it's worth the price. I've only owned an SSD for about 2 months. That isn't a very long time. Meanwhile. I've had some hard drives for about 5 years and not once had an issue with any of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Best use for SSD?