Install OS (SSD > HDD)
Originally Posted by Mfusick
This isn't really being fair to what he is saying because in order to get to your bullet points you would need to :
In some cases but not all, as I've already mentioned (and you've ignored)Install MS updates (SSD>HDD)
No you don't.Set up server and configure settings (SSD > HDD)
The hard drive isn't the limiting factor in this so no, it isn'tInstall software and set up server shares (SSD>HDD)
See aboveInstall PLEX (SSD>HDD)
NopeRDP session into server (SSD > HDD)
NopeLaunch Plex Server and configure (SSD >HDD)
If you are unclear as to why I say an SSD isn't beneficial on my server in any of these instances, feel free to inquire, or just go back and read the thread as I've already explained it approaching half a dozen times now.
It is impossible to bypass the benefits of an SSD to get to your bullet points, so even if you can't see benefit in those specific bullet pointed tasks you likely would see benefit of SSD > HDD just getting there.
That is only true in some instances. Other examples have been shown where it is not. Just because you choose to ignore them, doesn't make them untrue.
It is a different argument to say there is no benefit at all to having SSD in a server for OS than it is to say the benefit of SSD for a very modest use server or for a very specific type of use might not show it clearly. Assuming you only did those things you bullet pointed, and you did not mind the extra wait times or lower performance of HDD in the initial set up to get to that point, a HDD might make perfect sense if you already had it for free or could save money by using an HDD over purchasing an SSD. We get that. But that's not the same as saying there is no difference at all ever.
If you're suggesting that someone has said an HDD is as good in every server, that's preposterous and no one here has said anything like that.
But in the example I've given to you. (It's a real example. It's my server at home) There is no difference at all, ever.
You are not being fair in your request to him and you fail in your argument if you can't get to the tasks listed in your bullet points without experiencing the benefit of an SSD along the way. That leaves us at a place where it might not be worth it for some for some reasons, but SSD does have clear benefits still.
Nope. Most of the time, but not all of the time.
I had the same arguments two years ago saying SSD was clearly superior in HTPC. Tons of bickering about that, and yet these days it's basically common operating procedure to use SSD in a HTPC for even modest builds. Back then lots of people using HDD defended their personal decision to use them, yet today I suspect many of those same people are happier with SSD. This is the same thing.
I tend to agree that an SSD is probably a better choice for an HTPC, but if someone gave me an example of where it wasn't I wouldn't blindly say their wrong, just so I could continue to make broad generalizations.
As programs like MB3 server or PLEX server grow in popularity and more and more things are designed to be installed specifically and directly on your server, RPD access is required more often, and so SSD will be appreciated more and more until it's just strange to use a HDD for a OS drive.
That's also likely true for the most part, but just because you're using PLEX and/or MB3 doesn't mean that everyone is. In fact there are countless servers throughout the world that are running nothing except their bare server OS. Some of them aren't even being used in peoples' homes. In fact, a handful of servers are even located in datacenters
But let me guess. Those
don't count because those are different
from what you're used to, right?
At this point I think it's strange to use a HDD for an OS drive on a desktop or HTPC isn't it ? It's basically the same exact thing with a server, and all the same benefits and areas that SSD shines you see with a desktop or HTPC you can see with a server too. It's possible to use a server in a way to minimize this, but it's not as likely as it's being presented. It's very unlikely someone could build, own, and/or use a server and not experience a place where SSD >HDD along the way. There is way to much of this being made in an effort to be right, rather than an effort to be reasonable.
Unlikely isn't the same thing as impossible. If it is possible, then your statement, as it applies to everyone and everything, is false. Like I said earlier, if you want to qualify it and say most of the time, then we have no further discussion, but fdor whatever reason, you refuse to budge on that point, despite all evidence to the contrary.
This entire argument and thread has been unreasonable. It's unreasonable to think HDD is =/> SSD generally speaking. And it's unreasonable to present a very specific place where benefit of SSD is not as obvious, and then suggest that SSD is not superior to HDD for nearly everyone and/or most usages. If it's worth it, or if HDD is satisfactory is a totally different argument so don't cloud the two different arguments. I can easily think SSD is worth it, and someone else might not see enough value to bother using SSD. That does not make HDD as good though.
I'm afraid you're the one being unreasonable. Just admit that there are some instances, even if they are really rare, (and you don't approve of them because you think that everyone should be running MB3 and Handbrake and occasionally playing GTA-V on their server or it isn't really being used) where there is no benefit to having an SSD over an HDD.
Plenty of people have admitted that your statement is generally true. Why can't you admit that it is occasionally false?