At which price point will you switch to SSD as your primary desktop storage?

[gevorg]

Not too long ago, the price of hard drive storage was around $1 per GB. Then the prices plummeted to under $0.10, making storage ultra cheap. The SSDs on the other hand are new to the game, and offer more than just speed though. Silent operation, no moving parts, no vibrations, much less heat, and smaller form factor. Price seems to be the main factor that prevents desktop users from switching to SSD as their primary storage. So how far do they need to drop before you make the switch?

EDIT: Note that by "primary desktop storage" I mean every live HDD/SSD on your desktop, not just the boot drive (unless you use boot for both, OS and storage).

A History of Storage Cost

 

[Coup27]

My first SSD was an Intel X25-M G2 80GB. Everything in the UK costs more than the US, but I bought mine through work and didn't pay VAT. Retail though I think in dollars was around $3.20/GB.

My current Samsung is US $1.67 and I think thats exceptional value for the transforming effect it has on my computer.

 

[cmdrdredd]

None of the above really. They need to make SSDs not slow down over time and for it not to matter how full it is and give infinite writes. I know this will never happen with current tech but it's what I want before I can use it as my only storage method. As it is now, I use an SSD for my OS and programs and all my games on another. My 300GB Raptor drive is basically backup and holds my iTunes library, videos, and other random stuff like that.

So while I can say it's primary, I still wish I could ditch my HDDs totally.

 

[jay2nice000]

ssd price are not dropping fast enough!!!! to make it my primary

 

[LurchFrinky]

I like the benefits of SSDs, but I only need about 100GB or so - everything else on NAS which will remain HDD (capacity > > > performance).
But I won't pay more than $40-50 for such a small size. I literally prefer to use thumb drives (Linux) and an old PATA drive until the prices drop.

 

[taltamir]

They need to make SSDs not slow down over time

First off, TRIM completely solves the "degradation" issue.
Second, even if you don't have TRIM the drives do not slow down over time.

They drop in speed, once, form new state to used state after you write a total amount equal to the total size of the drive. Then they slightly fluctuation up and down about that "used state" without further degradation. The word degradation is incorrect here.

for it not to matter how full it is

Modern drives have over-provisioning so that performance is not negatively impacted even if your drive is 100% full.

and give infinite writes.

No component in the computer has infinite lifespan, on normal systems SSDs already last in the hundreds of years, far more then a spindle drive is rated for.

 

[MustISO]

When I can get a high quality 256GB for around $150 I'm in.

 

[taltamir]

When I can get a high quality 256GB for around $150 I'm in.

so... about 2 years from now then.

 

[masteryoda34]

so... about 2 years from now then.

The corsair m4 256GB sells for as low as $200 today: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148443

Hardly will it take 2 more years to reach $150.

As an enthusiast, I will run mixed SSD and HDD for a long time yet. For large amounts of data storage (multi TB) HDD is much cheaper, and the performance is fine for stuff that isn't accessed constantly. For OS drive I'll never go back to HDD.

 

[IGemini]

Completely replacing my storage? It would have to be at parity with current HDD prices, so 10c/GB or less. My next storage drive purchase will be at least 2TB.

 

[corkyg]

I have no SSD pricepoint. That decision depends entirely on when I get a new main computer worthy of a SSD. And that depends on when I muster up the energy to deal with a 3-4 day installation of new hardware, OS, and about 50 programs, all highly customized.

 

[Charlie98]

I will be upgrading my measly 60GB SSD, soon, to a 256GB, that will be enough for everything except movies, which will be going to an HTPC soon. This includes iTunes, Steam, photos and such.

I think we are basically at the $1/GB point, for the most part, anyway, and it looks like the price on consumer SSDs is only going down.

When I originally started checking prices on replacing the 60GB, I figured I would be stuck at 128GB (they were going in the $150 range, on sale,) but now that the 256's are at $250 and less (+/-) I can afford to go up a size and put everything on it.

 

[paperwastage]

i bought in at $1/gb for 96GB versions... don think I ever need anything faster than that, as I've been quite conservative on how I install stuff

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

To completely replace spinning platters? When I can get a realiable (but not necessarily blazing fast) 2TB SSD for $50 (around that level of $/GB).

 

[cmdrdredd]

First off, TRIM completely solves the "degradation" issue.
Second, even if you don't have TRIM the drives do not slow down over time.

They drop in speed, once, form new state to used state after you write a total amount equal to the total size of the drive. Then they slightly fluctuation up and down about that "used state" without further degradation. The word degradation is incorrect here.


Modern drives have over-provisioning so that performance is not negatively impacted even if your drive is 100% full.


No component in the computer has infinite lifespan, on normal systems SSDs already last in the hundreds of years, far more then a spindle drive is rated for.

And in a RAID configuration you lose TRIM anyhow...so nothing is exactly solved until that little detail is dealt with. As I said, they need to work the same 3 years from now as they do when I first install it. Then I can really consider removing standard HDDs from my PC entirely.

 

[taltamir]

And in a RAID configuration you lose TRIM anyhow...so nothing is exactly solved until that little detail is dealt with.

1. You don't need RAID on your SSD.
2. I clearly addressed the "even if you don't have trim" possibility.

even if you don't have TRIM the drives do not slow down over time.

They drop in speed, once, form new state to used state after you write a total amount equal to the total size of the drive. Then they slightly fluctuation up and down about that "used state" without further degradation. The word degradation is incorrect here.

3. You conveniently ignored how I rebutted every single one of your claims.

 

[cmdrdredd]

1. You don't need RAID on your SSD.
2. I clearly addressed the "even if you don't have trim" possibility.

3. You conveniently ignored how I rebutted every single one of your claims.

You conveniently forget that Your "slow down when you write to capacity" means it's not working as it did when it was brand new. It's degraded performance and you even said as much.

I don't care if you don't need RAID on SSD a lot of people do it. Not myself, but even still. WHen you can RAID them with no downside...then it will be something.

The whole point is. I want to see an SSD drive with all the upsides and zero downsides. It may happen some day.

 

[taltamir]

You conveniently forget that Your "slow down when you write to capacity" means it's not working as it did when it was brand new. It's degraded performance and you even said as much.

I did not forget it, its a non issue. Its not degrading over time like you said, its a one time drop. And even after that one time drop (which only happens without TRIM) you still get a drive that is massively faster then HDDs.

The whole point is. I want to see an SSD drive with all the upsides and zero downsides. It may happen some day.

None of what you listed are "downsides".

The degradation claim is overhyped BS because it only occurs on TRIM-less systems, does not occur as you described (its not continuous loss to nothingness, its a one time drop), and still results in a drive much faster than a HDD (60% the max speed of said SSD is still a lot faster when the SSD in question gets 100x the random speed and 5x the sequential speed of a spindle disk; being 60x faster in random and 3x faster in sequential is not a "downside"... its a "not as awesome but still awesome upside")

The "no matter how full" claim is BS because there is over provisioning which nearly eliminates the performance drop when the drive is full and furthermore HDD have it far far worse. The more full a HDD is, the slower it is by a far greater margin then SSD slowdowns. Because it is forced to write closer to the center, dropping to 30% of speed of an empty drive is normal... and if actually nearly full it gets catastrophically worse then that as massive fragmentation occurs which results in all random access which destroys the drive's performance. Unlike SSDs, an HDD cannot be over provisioned and as such has no defense against being filled to the brim and having catastrophic performance.

The lifespan claim is BS because every component in the computer has a measurable lifespan and your average SSD currently has a lifespan longer then all other PC components COMBINED. Except for when running high activity server databases (where you just use an eMLC or SLC and get far superior lifespan to HDDs, again).

 

[kbp]

I'll take both of my RAID setups NOW and even next year and blow your spinners away. Without TRIM. Fact is in five years I'd bet the performance is still 80% to a fresh state.
Load up a spinner to 80% and tell me there is no "speed" loss. No latency loss on a SSD at 80%.
Point being, RAIDed SSD's, or single SSD's, still out perform a spinner in every way. Now, and five years from now. TRIM is a bonus but not a deterrent. Set up properly, over provisioning a RAIDed system makes TRIM a very "moot" point.

 

[BFG10K]

The degradation claim is overhyped BS because it only occurs on TRIM-less systems, does not occur as you described (its not continuous loss to nothingness, its a one time drop), and still results in a drive much faster than a HDD...

Actually that isn't true at all: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/...cherryville-brings-reliability-to-sandforce/7

It clearly happens on a TRIM drive, and TRIM was unable to recover the performance.

Furthermore, their 162.5 MB/s sequential write is slower than several HDDs (e.g. Raptor and 1TB/platter 7200 drives) on their outer platters.

 

[Cerb]

If SSDs get cheaper than HDDs, I'll use them, instead. Today, they're almost cheap enough now for me to use one for an OS/apps drive when I upgrade.

 

[BFG10K]

I'll take both of my RAID setups NOW and even next year and blow your spinners away. Without TRIM. Fact is in five years I'd bet the performance is still 80% to a fresh state.
Load up a spinner to 80% and tell me there is no "speed" loss. No latency loss on a SSD at 80%.
Point being, RAIDed SSD's, or single SSD's, still out perform a spinner in every way. Now, and five years from now. TRIM is a bonus but not a deterrent. Set up properly, over provisioning a RAIDed system makes TRIM a very "moot" point.

I think you need to look at some benchmarks before making such sweeping conclusions:

Here the RAIDed Crucial 128MB is reduced to copying at the same speed as Caviar Black, which isn’t even close to being the fastest mechanical HDD. The RAIDed 320 and Force drives are now copying significantly slower than the Caviar Black.

Dropping from 195 MB/sec to 52 MB/sec is not a “very moot point”, and it’s certainly not 80%.

 

[taltamir]

Actually that isn't true at all: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/...cherryville-brings-reliability-to-sandforce/7

It clearly happens on a TRIM drive, and TRIM was unable to recover the performance.

Furthermore, their 162.5 MB/s sequential write is slower than several HDDs (e.g. Raptor and 1TB/platter 7200 drives) on their outer platters.

1. Read the article, this a firmware bug unique to that one controller that simply cannot occur on an OS drive nor will it reasonably occur naturally on a storage drive, rather it requires very specific situation (implausible for a normal user) where you fill the drive to 100% with incompressible data and then overwrite it with more incompressible data to fill the spare area, all done on as a secondary data drive to trigger the bug.
2. You are comparing said bugged result to the speed of an empty raptor 1TB sequential speed... Why not a raptor that is also full to the brim with random incompressible data?
3. You are comparing just the sequential speed.
4. It did NOT occur on a TRIMMED drive... it occurred and then TRIM was unable to fix it.
5. This bug is distinct and different then the so called degradation of SSDs. It is unique to that controller.
6. Before you go "SSDs have firmware bugs therefore they suck"... I have seen worse firmware bugs on HDDs. And for that matter worse firmware bugs than this one on other SSDs too.

Here the RAIDed Crucial 128MB is reduced to copying at the same speed as Caviar Black

1. On sequential only, it will still be much faster overall thanks to random.
2. This torture test is not how drives are used IRL.
3. Notice how the vast majority of SSDs are not adversely affected and have the same speed after said torture test.

 

[her209]

I think you need to look at some benchmarks before making such sweeping conclusions:

-snip-

Here the RAIDed Crucial 128MB is reduced to copying at the same speed as Caviar Black, which isn’t even close to being the fastest mechanical HDD. The RAIDed 320 and Force drives are now copying significantly slower than the Caviar Black.

Dropping from 195 MB/sec to 52 MB/sec is not a “very moot point”, and it’s certainly not 80%.

What's the reasoning why the write performance goes down in a RAID configuration?

 

[taltamir]

What's the reasoning why the write performance goes down in a RAID configuration?

RAID doesn't support TRIM yet.