Losing a whole year

"otter" wrote in message
...
My hard drive crashed, which isn't entirely bad, since I got to
upgrade to a new SSD, and things are spiffy. However, when I went to
recover my files, I found my backup drive hasn't actually been working
- for about a year! Of course, I am pursuing all recovery options,
but I find myself identifying with this song at the moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlqymYLCb4

Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio for
a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

"NotMe" wrote in message
...
[]
Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio
for
a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

Cheers,
David

In article , NotMe wrote:

Proceed very carefully with the SSD drives. We used them in our studio for
a while and not one lasted over 9 months.

then yours were defective. nothing is perfect, but ssds are extremely
reliable.

As to back up best to have multiples and off site.

no matter what storage system is used.

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger, Resource
Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a 120
GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
Resource
Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
120
GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

It's the writes which kill an SSD. I am running applications with a daily
throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
than putting that data there. Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
on the SSD, and data on the HD.

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
much greater.

Cheers,
David

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
Resource Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
120 GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

It's the writes which kill an SSD.

true, but the number of writes needed to kill it is quite high. even if
you hammer it, it will still last a long time.

I am running applications with a daily
throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
than putting that data there.

that may be an edge case. most people will find ssd to be a *huge*
gain, and an easy way to boost an aging computer. everyone i know with
ssd says they'll never go back to a hard drive, the difference is that
dramatic.

Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes or
files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but keep
writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system & programs
on the SSD, and data on the HD.

i'm suggesting frequently accessed files go on the faster ssd, which
typically means the system and apps. it could mean documents too.

for less frequently used files, such as songs and photos, it will
probably take longer to decide which one to use than it does to
actually load the file, so any speed gain on ssd is lost.

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks is
much greater.

you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.

however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte
count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
Resource Monitor option, to find the processes and files with
highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed
gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is
put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get a
120 GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for
Windows
and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

It's the writes which kill an SSD.

true, but the number of writes needed to kill it is quite high. even if
you hammer it, it will still last a long time.

I am running applications with a daily
throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing an SSD
than putting that data there.

that may be an edge case. most people will find ssd to be a *huge*
gain, and an easy way to boost an aging computer. everyone i know with
ssd says they'll never go back to a hard drive, the difference is that
dramatic.

Perhaps I should clarify I am, of course,
talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is writing the
most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look for processes
or
files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as you like, but
keep
writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest with system &
programs
on the SSD, and data on the HD.

i'm suggesting frequently accessed files go on the faster ssd, which
typically means the system and apps. it could mean documents too.

for less frequently used files, such as songs and photos, it will
probably take longer to decide which one to use than it does to
actually load the file, so any speed gain on ssd is lost.

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it
costs
more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks
is
much greater.

you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.

however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get.

A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".

Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly. We
both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
That's just what I have in one of my PCs.

I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
right now.

One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
those?

Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
display. G

Cheers,
David

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it costs
more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare blocks
is much greater.

you said to get a 120 gig drive if you need 60 gig. you aren't going to
get 50% block failure and there's already a buffer for wear leveling.

however, there will always be the problem that hard drives and ssds
have a nasty habit of filling up no matter how big you get.

A portion of the gain people see will be due simply to re-installing the
OS, and getting rid of unwanted "helpers".

no need to reinstall. just clone the existing drive to an ssd and swap
the ssd into its place. the difference is huge.

Obviously individual usage patterns will differ, but if you have a system
where a lot of disk writes are done, it may pay you to be aware of just
where those writes are going, and organise your disks accordingly.

agreed.

We both agree that a mixture of SSD and HDD is likely to be better than an
SSD alone, particularly where large amounts of data are to be stored,
That's just what I have in one of my PCs.

a ssd/hd combo is a good solution for those with huge amounts of data
because high capacity ssd is not exactly cheap. pure ssd is a good
solution for less demanding needs, such as in a 2 pound ultrabook.
there is no one size fits all.

I think you need to revisit the over-sizing issue, though, as having a
very full disk is never a good idea, and there are drawbacks to having a
very full SSD. I don't have time to point you at particular documents
right now.

full disks are rarely a problem unless it's the main drive and swap
space suddenly fills it to capacity, when things start to go very
wrong.

One technology which I felt was promising, but haven't had time to check,
are those HDDs with a built-in small SSD cache. Have you ever looked at
those?

yes and it's a nice compromise.

Oh, and the biggest productivity gain I made was likely buying a second
display. G

for your ipad?

"David J Taylor" writes:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

Yes, analyse your disk I/O and anything which has a high I/O byte count
put it on HDD not SSD. In Windows-7 you can use the Task Manger,
Resource
Monitor option, to find the processes and files with highest disk
activity. Keep "hot" files off the SSD.

that's backwards. you want high i/o on ssd to maximize its speed gains.
there's very little point in putting occasional use files on ssd,
especially since the cost per gig is much higher. a good balance is put
the system and apps on ssd and media files (movies, photos, etc) on a
hard drive.

I tend to treat an SSD as being a "read-only" device, with as little
writing as possible. It may also help to oversize the drive - get
a 120
GB drive if you anticipate requiring 60 GB of storage (e.g. for Windows
and programs).

that's also a bad idea.

It's the writes which kill an SSD. I am running applications with a
daily throughput of 60 GB, and there would be no surer way of killing
an SSD than putting that data there. Perhaps I should clarify I am,
of course, talking about /written/ data. Careful analysis of what is
writing the most can extend the SSD life by removing that load. Look
for processes or files with a high write rate. Read an SSD as much as
you like, but keep writes to a minimum. That's just what you suggest
with system & programs on the SSD, and data on the HD.

You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.

People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.

Please explain why you think oversizing is a bad idea. Of course it
costs more, but there is a reliability gain as the percentage of spare
blocks is much greater.

Sure, that's a clear win.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message ...
[]
You have to be doing something weird to find the write limit (remember,
they do wear-leveling). I've got several years in my SSD system disk at
home, and using it for temp space is an important part of the job.

People are buying SSDs for the high IOPs (in database terms). Random
reads and writes do spectacularly better on SSDs than on rotating rust.
[]
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

Not weird, but unusual. Data coming in at 60 GB/day, which is compressed
and expands to perhaps 80 GB/day. So even if the compressed data is held
transiently in RAMdisk, that's still 80 GB/day being written to the SSD.
That data is processed by my software, and results in a further write rate
for the processed data of, say, 2 GB/day. Plus the writes for deleting
the raw data, and regular deletes of the processed data - which may be
some tens of thousands of files per day.

What life expectancy for an SSD with this usage?

Hence my suggestion that before moving to an SSD you consider what I/O you
have, and organise your disks accordingly.

Cheers,
David