bit-tech.net

The downside to cheap storage

Posted on 17th May 2013 at 08:16 by Antony Leather with 51 comments

Antony Leather
Casting my mind back 20 years or so, I remember when hard disks were barely breaching the 1GB barrier. Even though programs at the time generally took up a lot less space than they do today, space was very much a premium. I was mainly into flight simulators at the time, and these took up far more space than your average fps did before the millennium. So much so that I would have to uninstall all other games just to run my favourite sims, and even then I’d be running the hard disk with less than 10 per cent space free.

This, of course, meant it was pretty slow, even by standards back then. Thankfully, at the turn of the century, hard disks started to increase in size almost exponentially. By 2002, 40GB was common but you still had to keep an eye on your disk space. At the time I was getting pretty interested in performance too, and generally lived by the rule of having at least 30 per cent space remaining so not to have my hard disk grind to a halt as it chugged through all the data.

Fast-forward another five years and the average hard disk had increased ten-fold again with 500GB drives now relatively affordable. By this stage of course, a vast majority of people had more space than they could ever hope to fill. With 3TB hard disks now available for less than £90 and 1TB models for around £50, for those of us that don’t have gargantuan video collections, running out of storage space is practically impossible. In fact for less than the price of a tank of petrol (in the UK anyway), you can quite easily acquire enough storage to probably last half a decade.

The downside to cheap storage *The down side to cheap storage
I've been itching to make my PC an SSD-only zone since I looked at the first generation of SSDs back in 2008 - Click to enlarge

However, it’s this tipping point, and the fact that SSDs are still relatively limited in size, that got me thinking. Is having an abundance of storage entirely a good thing? I’ve used an SSD as my main boot drive for a couple of years now, and having seen the benefits both in terms of noise reduction and of course speed, I’m keen to make my main PC a hard disk-free zone.

The hard disk is actually the nosiest component too as the CPU, GPU and motherboard are all water-cooled. However, without spending shed loads of cash on 500GB SSDs, I’ve been looking at buying a new 256GB model for my main boot drive, using some of the slower, older ones for storage.

With my combined photo, video and program collection stretching to a couple of hundred gigabytes, my ageing Crucial C300 256GB and comparatively ancient Indillinx-based 128GB Patriot Torqx should manage, and I’ve found 256GB to be enough space for Windows 7 plus numerous programs and games without clearing out the crap every other day, as I usually did with a 128GB SSD.

The downside to cheap storage *The down side to cheap storage
SSD's are still expensive but if you own an older model and are thinking about upgrading, you might find you can ditch your hard disk in the process - Click to enlarge

The result of trying to squeeze my essential data, be it programs or photos, into a smaller amount of space than I’m used to, having dealt with 2TB hard disks for the last couple of years, is that I’ve methodically sifted through my storage to weed out stuff I didn’t really need. I converted many RAW photo files I just wanted to store into JPGs, and reduced the resolution of many too. I ran a duplicate file searcher as well and this saved even more space, picking out photos, videos and other stuff I’d managed to leave in two places as I worked on the files and dumped them into storage.

The total size of all my data was now less than 200GB – 40% smaller than what it was, and it’s now a lot more organised too, just to be able to squeeze everything onto a couple of SSDs. Would I have done this if I was still planning on using my 2TB hard disk for the foreseeable future? Almost certainly not.

I'm strangely grateful to the current limited storage SSD's offer - I actually shudder to think the state my data would be in terms of organisation and wasted space, a couple of years down the line. In short, I think an excess like this makes us lazy, or at least it certainly did me. I was amazed at how much I could trim off my storage needs.

Is your PC a hard disk-free zone? If you haven’t made the move to SSD’s yet, is it storage limits that have put you off? If so could a bit of organising sort things out? Let us know in the forum.

51 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
adidan 17th May 2013, 09:32 Quote
Been hdd free here in my rig for a few years, an external hdd usb is enough for me if i want to save a large quantity of files.

Currently up to a 250gb ssd which is more than enough, tbh i only moved the 128gb ssd out to put it in my laptop.
DriftCarl 17th May 2013, 09:42 Quote
I had an SSD a few years ago but it broke, so had to go back to my old HDD, but a few months ago I picked up a 60GB SSD for about 40 quid and that's now in my main PC. Windows 7 uses half of that, then my BF3 install uses pretty much the rest, I had had to not install one of the expansions because I don't have enough space, its ok though, I don't like that particular expansion.
I also have starcraft2 and Sim City 5 installed, but these are installed on a 64GB USB 3 key that I may have acquired from work. These games actually run fine from the USB stick.
I am planning my next PC build now ready to order in September/October depending on certain product releases and will be getting a bigger SSD. Maybe also make the step to watercooling for a very quiet PC.
faugusztin 17th May 2013, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
and comparatively ancient Indillinx-based 128GB Patriot Torqx

One of the very few still running ?
Jaffo 17th May 2013, 10:13 Quote
Clicks of death aside, I've always quite liked the noise mechanical hard drives make, going all the way back to the my first, a 20MB Amiga A590.

Using a 120GB SSD now for boot and apps, with a 1TB HDD for games etc. Don't think I'll be changing anytime soon; my Steam folder alone is over 400GB at the moment!

:S
phuzz 17th May 2013, 10:30 Quote
I've got a crazy collection of three harddrives (one 2.5" one because I accidentally ordered the wrong one) and one SSD, with stuff spread across them in no kind of order.
I might have to pick up one large harddrive for storage, which will be set to sleep when it's not being used, and a large SSD for things that I'm not running off my main (windows) SSD, eg Steam.

Then I can add to the pile of unused harddrives on my shelf.
GeorgeK 17th May 2013, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaffo
Using a 120GB SSD now for boot and apps, with a 1TB HDD for games etc. Don't think I'll be changing anytime soon; my Steam folder alone is over 400GB at the moment!

Same here - I was amazed today to notice that my D:\ drive was over 700GB (I could have sworn it was only about 500GB)... I really need to have a sort through and delete some stuff...
Yaka 17th May 2013, 10:50 Quote
I have an epic collection of hdds from when I was 12 in the early 90s first was for my Amiga. Old IDE an scsi drives I just have because I can't be arsed dumping them. At the mo I am using 12 drives via sata to USB dock for diff things.

Also have a few iomega jazz and zip carts with thier clicky drives they were awesome back in the day
p3n 17th May 2013, 11:11 Quote
Get a NAS for storage.... using SSDs for storage in pursuit of sound levels is about as dumb as it gets!
GuilleAcoustic 17th May 2013, 11:18 Quote
Still having a single 160GB 7200rpm HDD in my main rig :D. All data are stored on my Synology NAS (2x 1TB in mirroring). I'm listing pieces to build a new rig to replace my aging and power hungry Q6600 and will move to a 128GB SSD and passive PSU (only need the IGP).

The NAS was my best buy since 2008. It is small, efficient and fast enough for pictures, movies and music storage. Even use it as an svn repository.
GeorgeStorm 17th May 2013, 11:21 Quote
Will be a till I go SSD only in my PC, will have to get a NAS to store all of my media, and even then will have to buy another SSD or two.

Quite a few other upgrades have higher priority right now.
Tynecider 17th May 2013, 11:24 Quote
I now use 2x 60GB SSD RAID0 for boot drive and 2x 120GB RAID0 SSD for games/profile.

I have an external esata spinner (Caviar Black) that has my ghost images of the boot drive and a folder structure with a copies of the games/profiles installed. This is for my desktop and laptops.

If anything goes wrong on the boot array, Its about 15 mins to rebuild the array and restore the image.
If anything goes wrong on the games/profiles array, It takes about an hour to rebuild the array and copy over the data.

For a complete system failure on both arrays I rekon I could restore the system in an hour and a half comfortably (with tea and biscuits)

Images are updated every month as well as any game/profile data.

Hassle free SSD RAID with a quick recovery option, Worked fine for me for years ;-)

Can't see me moving to SSD's for my backup drives anytime soon, Maybe when the price is REALLY low, It would speed up the data transfer!!
Yslen 17th May 2013, 11:27 Quote
I'll need quite a large SSD to be able to ditch my HDD. If I backup most of my steam catalogue onto the NAS I should be able to fit everything on a 500GB SSD.

The 200+ GB of NEF/RAF photos are the issue ^^
RinSewand 17th May 2013, 11:43 Quote
Interesting article - sadly not something I can take entirely to heart due to photography. Out of interest what software did you use to find duplicates? I like the sound of something functional to do that.
rollo 17th May 2013, 11:48 Quote
My steam folder was approaching 600gb at last check so its not just a big video collection that needs space and that's with half the program's uninstalled.

Pure ssd for me will always be a push. Native 1080p video is 200-300 gb not encoded for the work I do. Don't see 1tb ssds hitting £30-£40 anytime soon.
Parge 17th May 2013, 11:49 Quote
Erm you should all just do what I've done - SSD for main boot drive, and then use 2.5" mechanical hard drives for storage - they are almost silent, low power and of course, fine for media. I have the rest of my Steam Collection on a 500GB 7200rpm 2.5" drive - problem solved!
exceededgoku 17th May 2013, 12:07 Quote
How about both?

I don't have much data, but currently run my main OS on a 6x128GB RAID0 SSD but set the partition at 500GB for a large overprovisioning space.

I also have 2 x 3TB WD Red HDDs for all the big stuff (like movies, etc.).

All games and programs are installed on the SSD RAID.

On the SSDs' I'm using about 30-40% of the 500GB space, and on the 3TB drives I'm using about 100MB on one and 200GB on the other.

I have so much space I don't know what to do with it, although I'm the kind of person that likes to have spare capacity... Just because!
exceededgoku 17th May 2013, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by exceededgoku
How about both?

I don't have much data, but currently run my main OS on a 6x128GB RAID0 SSD but set the partition at 500GB for a large overprovisioning space.

I also have 2 x 3TB WD Red HDDs for all the big stuff (like movies, etc.).

All games and programs are installed on the SSD RAID.

On the SSDs' I'm using about 30-40% of the 500GB space, and on the 3TB drives I'm using about 100MB on one and 200GB on the other.

I have so much space I don't know what to do with it, although I'm the kind of person that likes to have spare capacity... Just because!

Oh and sorry I have a 1TB Backup drive that takes incremental backups of the SSD RAID daily in case the RAID fails (although it's been running now for around 3-4 months with no issues).
Shirty 17th May 2013, 12:08 Quote
I don't use SSDs or HDDs in my rig. Punch cards and wax cylinders are the future ;)
steveo_mcg 17th May 2013, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
I don't use SSDs or HDDs in my rig. Punch cards and wax cylinders are the future ;)

I upgraded to cassette tapes some years ago, take the leap man you'll never look back!

Until I had to move my computer to my bedroom the linux install booted across the network and the windows machine only held applications and XP. Since moving the computer my wifi is too slow use use the network as an external hard disk so its back to big drive and as mentioned above photography takes a surprising amount of disk space. I miss you gigabit...
The_Crapman 17th May 2013, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
I don't use SSDs or HDDs in my rig. Punch cards and wax cylinders are the future ;)
Get with the times man. I gots myself one of these beauties :D
zOD1umMX2s8
xaser04 17th May 2013, 12:33 Quote
My main PC is entirely SSD since I swapped out a 500GB HD a while ago for the Vertex 2E I now run as my "Steam" drive.

Realistically I need a boot drive as the C300 64GB model is running quite full.

TBH though, all our main storage is on the NAS and my Steam library is backed up to an external HD. All of my games are ready to go in a few minutes if I really want to play them. I also have BT Inifinity so downloading the ones I don't have backed up doesn't take too long either.

I can understand the requirement to have more storage though as our NAS is starting to get a little clogged with Video. The little thing only has 1TB of storage which is more than adequete for everything but video. My plan is to simply have a second 3TB external HD for video (connected directly to the router), and have the NAS as purely documents / images and music.
wuyanxu 17th May 2013, 12:34 Quote
Even with this much storage, I still maintain a good file management routine and can find files I want easily without having to search.

The key is to having a well thought out file structure, have a temporary folder for files you play with and then move them to correct place once the file is finalised.

Downside to the above method is that Recent files feature in OS's won't work anymore.



Main PC:
M4 128GB SSD for Windows and a few daily programs.
1TB WB Black for games.
1TB WB Green for backup of important data from my NAS and for my Lightroom catalogue.
Lightroom is helped alone with RAM caching programs because WD Green's random access speed really sucks.

NAS:
4x 2TB F3eco running in disk pool with duplicated folders.
This NAS is a bit noisy, still need to find a place to store it.
Fingers66 17th May 2013, 13:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by p3n
Get a NAS for storage.... using SSDs for storage in pursuit of sound levels is about as dumb as it gets!

^ This.

I have 3 SSD only rigs here and one with an SSD and HD (for video conversion/ripping etc).

All four rigs store their important data on the NAS so they are O/S only installs (plus games on one and office on two).
Spreadie 17th May 2013, 13:59 Quote
256GB SSD boot drive and 1TB storage drive here.

I did entertain the thought of going all SSD but, for the price of a 512GB SSD, you can buy a great NAS box and a couple of HDDs.

That's the way I plan to go in the near future.
gagaga 17th May 2013, 14:09 Quote
Laptop:
Ultrabook with 128GB SSD

Main PC:
Samsung 830 256GB SSD
4x WD Black 500GB 2.5" arranged as 2x 1TB RAID0 (scratch space for video)

Server:
120GB Intel 320 as boot
13x 3TB SATA for storage

Media PCs:
40GB Intel SSDs or 2gb USB sticks (for openelec)
k4p84 17th May 2013, 14:27 Quote
120GB Intel SSD for Win8 boot drive, this is also my scrratch disk area for video editing etc. 240GB Intel SSD for programs and games though there is only 30GB left so I think either Origin or steam will need to go back to HDD. 2 x 1tb HDD for media storage and a 2TB HDD for back ups.
Fingers66 17th May 2013, 14:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
...snip...

I did entertain the thought of going all SSD but, for the price of a 512GB SSD, you can buy a great NAS box and a couple of HDDs.

...snip...

I think this sums it up, why buy large SSD's for storage when you can buy a NAS & redundant HD's that will serve multiple PC's, for a longer lifecycle, for the same price?

A Synology DS212J + 2 x 1TB HD's is roughly the same price as a 500GB SSD (circa £260) for double the storage (if setup in RAID 1) or quadruple the storage (if JBOD).
schmidtbag 17th May 2013, 16:04 Quote
I personally use a 64GB SSD for my linux setup and a 250GB HDD for my Windows setup. I use the HDD for Windows because it doesn't treat SSDs very nicely. I use Windows strictly for gaming, so the noise of the HDD gets swallowed up by the fans and the speakers. In linux, I just shut off the HDD using hdparm.

When the price of SSDs drop a little more I might try RAID-0 with 2 256GB SSDs. My computer has 10 total SATA ports, 6 of them are SATA III. Only 3 are in use. I might as well take advantage of em. My controller scales very nicely with RAID anyway.
TheStockBroker 17th May 2013, 16:10 Quote
I feel the complete opposite to the article...

I'm all about adding additional storage! I just try not to keep that storage in my PC... In my Haswell build I won't have "traditional" storage on-board any more. Just a single SSD.

The amount of data I have is never going to decrease, why would I reduce my storage consumption? I believe the trend will develop to computer users having home servers (as I do), NAS devices(as I used to), or using "the cloud" for storage - particularly as internet connections improve.

I'm looking at buying a 4K TV this year, and I note that Sony supply a dedicated movie server as a companion for their UHDTV's (at least in the US) as this is the only way to reliably deliver 4K content currently. I think this is indicative that my predicted trend is beginning...
r3loaded 17th May 2013, 16:18 Quote
I have a 128GB SSD (Crucial C300) + 1TB Samsung F3, though in practice the F3 is a little redundant. The vast majority of my storage needs are handled by my server, which has 5.5TB of RAID-5 storage for my gargantuan storage needs. It can easily saturate gigabit ethernet too so there's no real slowdown in having my stuff on the server.

When they drop in price, I'll replace the C300/F3 with a single 512GB SSD and that should quieten my system down a little.
schmidtbag 17th May 2013, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStockBroker
I feel the complete opposite to the article...

I'm all about adding additional storage! I just try not to keep that storage in my PC... In my Haswell build I won't have "traditional" storage on-board any more. Just a single SSD.

The amount of data I have is never going to decrease, why would I reduce my storage consumption? I believe the trend will develop to computer users having home servers (as I do), NAS devices(as I used to), or using "the cloud" for storage - particularly as internet connections improve.

I'm looking at buying a 4K TV this year, and I note that Sony supply a dedicated movie server as a companion for their UHDTV's (at least in the US) as this is the only way to reliably deliver 4K content currently. I think this is indicative that my predicted trend is beginning...

Well if you read the entire article, you'd notice that by not having to worry about storage, you don't care about cleaning up, organizing, and optimizing your system. This will gradually take a hit on performance (particularly with Windows) and when it comes to replacing your OS, it becomes extra tedious. If you have 4 2TB hard drives in raid 0 and you're doing a file search for a text document, I would not be surprised at all if a single 500GB hard drive would find it faster. But, if you're filling that storage with 100GB+ movies, then obviously there's not much to optimize. However, the article was focusing on people who didn't have media collections, since media is, IMO, 90% of the storage used in the average home PC.

It is possible to have too much of anything, but over-abundance has greater effects on some things than others. It's even possible to have too much RAM, though with triple channel systems, it's hard to reach the "too much" point.
Cei 17th May 2013, 16:47 Quote
Totally mechanical drive free here...sort of.

The PC has a pair of M4s, 128GB and 256GB. The 128 is used for Windows and Origin, with the 256 entirely for Steam. I have to install/uninstall games as I play them, bar some favourites, but with a fibre connection it doesn't take too long.

So why sort of? I have a Synology NAS with 2TB (RAID backup) for mass storage of music, films and backup. There's a need for large amounts of storage that SSDs can't meet yet.

Same goes for the Mac. It has a 256GB SSD installed as stock (rMBP), but has a 2TB portable USB3.0 drive for iTunes and Aperture. Can't shake those mechanicals yet!
azazel1024 17th May 2013, 17:15 Quote
Nope. I have a 120GB Vertex 3 and a 60GB Vertex as my boot and app drives in my desktop. I also have a 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 with a few "other apps" that I never bothered to migrate, plus some application data, pictures and odds and sods storage. Lastly I have a pair of 1TB Spinpoint F3's in RAID0 as my primary storage array.

The 120GB Vertex 3 is about 50% empty, the 60GB Vertex is 90% empty, the 500GB HDD is about 25% empty and the 1+1TB Array is around 30% empty.

As an amateur photographer as a serious hobby (plus 3 kids) I have about 300GB of that 470 odd formatted space used up with photos on the 500GB HDD. On the 1+1 array I have movies, music and backups of applications (mostly ISOs and install packages).

The 1+1TB Array is mirrored to my server on the servers 2+2TB RAID 0 array. That is roughly 65% space free. Music, applications, photos and movies all reside on the server for easy access to phones, tablets, media players and laptop. I could get away with eliminating the HDDs in my desktop if I wanted too, but then it would leave no backups to what is on the server and especially running RAID0 arrays, the odds are doubled that a disk will bite the dust at some point.

I am hoping this fall to have the spare change to swap out the 500GB and 1+1TB array in my desktop for a pair of 2TB or 3TB disks in RAID0 and use the 1+1TB disks temporarily as a secondary backup in an external enclosure (I currently use a 640GB external HDD to backup photos, music and some key applications. The movies and some other stuff don't get a second backup). Down the line I want to standarize everything as 3+3TB RAID0 in the server and desktop and a single 4+TB disk in an external enclosure for backups.

6TB should last me a ridiculously long time at the rate I am filling the disks. Roughly 5GB a week is the average I am pulling down between everything, or about 250-300GB a year. With about 1.5TB of total space used between everything and lets say 300GB on the high end per year, that is about 13 years to fill it. Even figuring 4k comes along in the next few years, or I rip my collection again as 1080p files instead of 720p and/or my digital camera gets a bump from 16mp image to something like 20 or 24 or 30 over the years, that is probably still AT LEAST 5-7 years of storage.

Even just going with cheaper 2+2TB RAID 0 setup in my desktop and server should still buy me at least 3-4 years. Which is probably what I'll end up doing in the end for cost reasons.

If you wonder why I have RAID 0, in part it is just because and nerd points, but I am also running SMB multichannel and a pair of GbE connections on my desktop and server, so with the RAID0 arrays I can regularly hit >>200MB/sec between my desktop and server. I generally hit steady state speeds of around 240MB/sec to the server and around 220-230MB/sec back from the server. I am disk limited pulling from the server and network limited to the server. In part I am vaguely interested in faster 3TB disks in a two disk array and running another cable for a 3 link network setup to run fully disk limited (which should still mean hitting close to 300MB/sec in a lot of cases, especially with the HDD being less fully utilized).
azazel1024 17th May 2013, 17:20 Quote
Oh, to add, my laptop currently has a 500GB HDD and a 32GB SSD as a cache drive. In a few months when money is less tight I plan on yanking the 500GB HDD and slapping in a 120GB SSD. I may also pull the mSATA 32GB SSD as well (I don't think I really need more than about 60GB of total storage on the laptop generally). I am using about 120GB of space on the laptop right now, but there is some HP cruft on there combined with keeping copies of images I've loaded for photoshop/lightroom that I don't really need to be keeping on the laptop (as they are backed up to the server and my desktop)
Cobalt 17th May 2013, 20:25 Quote
I've got a 128GB SSD and two 1TB HDDs and an older 500GB drive that has WinXP installed on it. I'm probably going to have to buy a new 2TB drive as I'm currently floating at about 1.5TB used. I ripped my entire movie collection though and I've got a few hundred tied up in games and about the same in raw video footage for editing.

I could cut down on the games I guess but the way I play I tend to dip in to older games now an again and I think I've played at least some of all of them in the past twelve months. Every now and again I'll become nostalgic for a title and then if it isn't installed I'll go rooting around in the loft for it. I just played the original Call of Duty (THE WW2 game IMO) again for example.
TadZilla 17th May 2013, 20:43 Quote
Gaming PC and HTPC have been hard disk-free zones for 4 years now. However, I'm cheating, as I have a file server with hard disks that hold all my media an other junk...
VaLkyR-Assassin 18th May 2013, 00:04 Quote
I had to get a 2Tb drive earlier this year as I had previously been stuck on 640Gb, which I had managed to fill several months previously and was getting fed up with having to delete stuff. I was having to convert game screenshots, and delete alot of things, but in the end, by steam folder was getting larger and larger, and after downloading games and huge patches, I didn't want to start uninstalling them or backing up to dvd discs. The final decision came when I wanted to install some free online games that were huge, and I couldn't, so I then moved onto the 2Tb drive. It's twice as fast as my other drive in a brief benchmark, so that's one extra benefit over the space, and I was able to install The Secret World, which is over 40Gb by itself, without having to worry about going through my files and either deleting or moving stuff over to an older pc.
Star*Dagger 18th May 2013, 01:03 Quote
With 21.7 terabytes of data, all SSD is not going to happen soon

I couldnt imagine only 200 gigs, I had that much 10 years ago.
pbryanw 18th May 2013, 01:33 Quote
Just a 256GB SSD for me. I used to have a large Steam collection on a second HD, but then I realised that about 75-90% of my collection I was never going to get round to playing. So now I just have 2-3 games in my favourites and then load them onto my SSD when I'm done with my current game.

I also went this route because my WD Green was the noisiest component in my PC, and I wanted my computer to be as near as silent as possible. I'm sure us Silent PC fans/freaks only make up a small percentage of the PC population, but in this respect, SSDs are a godsend.
-Xp- 18th May 2013, 02:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
One of the very few still running ?

Do these comonly fail? I bought a 128GB Patriot Torqx back in 2010 and run it at least 8-12 hours a day in my work laptop. It's never missed a beat, and I don't need any more storage, so I don't plan on chaning it any time soon!
faugusztin 18th May 2013, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Xp-
Do these comonly fail? I bought a 128GB Patriot Torqx back in 2010 and run it at least 8-12 hours a day in my work laptop. It's never missed a beat, and I don't need any more storage, so I don't plan on chaning it any time soon!

Well, first of all they had a whole bad series, called "Lot 6" :
http://geekwith.com/profiles/blogs/patriot-solid-state-drives-far

And then many of the "Lot 2" died as well, probably due some design oversight. My Patriot Torqx 128GB died 1,5 years after i bought it, and got replaced by a Corsair Force F120 (which grandfathered the 10 year warranty of Torqx, at least something good :D ).

There is a reason why Torqx drives pretty much disappeared once the first SandForce controller reached market; Patriot jumped from Torqx to Pyro at the first possible moment and never looked back to their Indilinx design.

If your SSD works for you, then it is good for you, but i would keep backups, like with any SSD. They can die in a moment (not because of the writes exhausting the write count, but usually due other technical reasons) and in that case there is no way to save your data.

PS: I know Newegg reviews are not a good metric, but there is a reason why half of the Patriot Torqx reviews have 1 star :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220390
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220389
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220388

PS2: Keep in mind, i talk about Patriot Torqx, not Torqx M28 or Torqx 2.
blackworx 18th May 2013, 13:35 Quote
Quote:
The hard disk is actually the nosiest component too as the CPU, GPU and motherboard are all water-cooled.

Mechanical HD's are often the noisiest component in air-cooled rigs too. Certainly you'd have to be running some pretty noisy/shonky fans for it to be otherwise. Even when the HD is not the outright loudest component, the intermittent nature of the sound it generates can make it far more obvious/annoying than even foolish-child fans like Deltas.

Most of the noise from mechanical HD's is just vibrations transmitted and amplified by your case. If you need a spinny HD in your case and don't like the noise, suspend it with knicker elastic.
erratum1 18th May 2013, 14:17 Quote
I've got a terabyte full hard drive, have to wait till they get larger and cheaper i'm not downgrading to smaller space.

Years ago I remember looking at 100gb external hard drives and they were not cheap, just like ssd's are not at the moment.
NethLyn 18th May 2013, 16:46 Quote
Good blog post, but I haven't gone SSD yet, it's all waiting for the next full build. Still had a similar weekend of zapping duplicate and Vista-era backups which meant burning half a pack of blank DVDs and two CDs to make sure everything essential was malware-free following a hack.

That's why I couldn't just rely on another HDD of any type before the PC was cleaned, and I'm just downloading less in general and not having so many games installed unless I'm playing them. Went with USB sticks as they were cheaper and faster than HDDs that were still pricey after the second Filipino floods. I wouldn't go as far as a 64GB USB3 key but I would understand anyone else choosing them over a hard drive at the moment.
south side sammy 18th May 2013, 20:05 Quote
I've made this suggestion in other forums and people try to cut you throat because they're stuck in "the old ways". Thanks for bringing this up.
CraigWatson 19th May 2013, 18:08 Quote
Moving away from my parents' place and into a studio flat with my fiancee has been an experience - I've dismantled and sold my triple-24" Obsidian 800D i7 rig with 16GB RAM, 120GB Vertex 3 and 2x1TB RAID0 and have been using an 11" MacBook Air with 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD for over a year as my main PC.

And I have to admit, it's been a mosty-good experience. I've migrated my 500GB movie collection to my Lacie 1TB RAID1 NAS, and like Anthony I've had to make sacrifices with the data I keep on my MacBook - managed to chop things down to 34GB of music, 11GB of photos and just under 1GB of documents.

I think everyone should have a spring-clean once in a while, people tend to just think "I've got 2TB of disk space, let's just keep everything" but most of the time you don't actually need a lot of space.
Furball Zen 20th May 2013, 20:17 Quote
I have two 40GB Intel X25-M SSD's for 'OS' and everyday programs and four 150GB Velociraptors for the rest including Steam, Impulse (Gamestop/Origin) and anything else. All my pics, videos, DVDs and such will go on my WHS running 4TB of storage when its completed. Ill never go full platterless no matter what. A nearly 99% damaged platted can still get info taken off it it, but a fried SSD has no chance at all if the chips are fubar'd.
Hakuren 21st May 2013, 21:57 Quote
I was very skeptical about SSD before tried some. And after I tried I'm even MORE skeptical

I bought few because I working with very big directories, thinking they will be much faster. Throw at those SSD few directories with 100, 200 or more thousands of files and they choke the same as plate driven HDDs..Recovery time from "choke" is marginally better, but that's about it.

Yes there is burst of performance, but failure ratio is far too high to consider (reluctantly) them for something more than boot drive. I prefer classic plate HDDs plugged into RAID card in R 10 or 60 setup. Linking SSD into anything else than RAID0 is murder because NAND will wear down almost instantly. Running RAID0 for serious jobs (excluding e.g. temp drives for video editing) is suicidal endeavor.

Long live HDDs, SSDs will be roting in dustbin of history sooner than later. Biggest irony of SSD idea is that they are perfect for storing rarely accessed and not very mobile data (e.g. movies). But you can't store 10000 episodes of your favourite series on it, because it will cost more than building Large Hadron Collider. Pathetic ratio of failures/cost/size will kill SSD as it is road to nowhere from the start - similar to electric cars powered by battery packs.
schmidtbag 21st May 2013, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
I was very skeptical about SSD before tried some. And after I tried I'm even MORE skeptical

I bought few because I working with very big directories, thinking they will be much faster. Throw at those SSD few directories with 100, 200 or more thousands of files and they choke the same as plate driven HDDs..Recovery time from "choke" is marginally better, but that's about it.

Yes there is burst of performance, but failure ratio is far too high to consider (reluctantly) them for something more than boot drive. I prefer classic plate HDDs plugged into RAID card in R 10 or 60 setup. Linking SSD into anything else than RAID0 is murder because NAND will wear down almost instantly. Running RAID0 for serious jobs (excluding e.g. temp drives for video editing) is suicidal endeavor.

Long live HDDs, SSDs will be roting in dustbin of history sooner than later. Biggest irony of SSD idea is that they are perfect for storing rarely accessed and not very mobile data (e.g. movies). But you can't store 10000 episodes of your favourite series on it, because it will cost more than building Large Hadron Collider. Pathetic ratio of failures/cost/size will kill SSD as it is road to nowhere from the start - similar to electric cars powered by battery packs.

I haven't heard of SSDs failing from corruption in a long time. What controller do you use? Is the firmware updated? What filesystem do you use?
Spreadie 22nd May 2013, 10:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
I was very skeptical about SSD before tried some. And after I tried I'm even MORE skeptical

I bought few because I working with very big directories, thinking they will be much faster. Throw at those SSD few directories with 100, 200 or more thousands of files and they choke the same as plate driven HDDs..Recovery time from "choke" is marginally better, but that's about it.
I've been using SSDs for four years and haven't had one fail. I accept that my experience alone cannot be taken as a representative sample, but neither can yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
Yes there is burst of performance, but failure ratio is far too high to consider (reluctantly) them for something more than boot drive. I prefer classic plate HDDs plugged into RAID card in R 10 or 60 setup. Linking SSD into anything else than RAID0 is murder because NAND will wear down almost instantly. Running RAID0 for serious jobs (excluding e.g. temp drives for video editing) is suicidal endeavor.
In the context of Antony's article, if data safety is your thing, why not use an SSD for boot/OS and have everything else on a RAID1 NAS?

Why would you use RAID0 for serious jobs anyway? A single SSD wil outstrip a mechanical striped array. RAID10 requires four drives as a minimum, and would still be slower and no safer than a couple of SSDs in RAID1, closing the value gap somewhat, although I don't think people are suggesting SSDs should replace HDDs for all storage needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
Long live HDDs, SSDs will be roting in dustbin of history sooner than later. Biggest irony of SSD idea is that they are perfect for storing rarely accessed and not very mobile data (e.g. movies). But you can't store 10000 episodes of your favourite series on it, because it will cost more than building Large Hadron Collider. Pathetic ratio of failures/cost/size will kill SSD as it is road to nowhere from the start - similar to electric cars powered by battery packs.
You were doing ok until that last paragraph - complete nonsense.
LightningPete 15th July 2013, 15:17 Quote
but hard disks are amazingly cheap for backups. SSDs are too expensive for everyone to have if we wanted to backup say the 400gb of space that we take up with our stuff.
Gaming aside (which can re - installed, music, videos, photos, documents and other things sometimes to be backed up (specially if you have a large music collection [converted from other audiable sources if your 25+ years of age]) and SSDs dont cut it or feel too expensive to buy an SSD to simply lie dormant.

I have a larger than normal tower. I love big towers, makes for messing around or upgrading inside so much easier.
The harddrive isnt going out anytime soon, but admittily it is in decline
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
CM Storm NovaTouch TKL Review

CM Storm NovaTouch TKL Review

24th October 2014

Corsair Gaming H1500 Review

Corsair Gaming H1500 Review

23rd October 2014

CM Storm Resonar Review

CM Storm Resonar Review

22nd October 2014