SSD, Fast Storage, Users Directory

[wxmanunr]

Hi. I'm considering replacing my aging computer system. SSDs seem to be all the rage, but the price is high on an absolute per GB basis. It seems SSDs work great for OS drives, but not so much for the amount of data I would be pushing. Hence, the need for a goodly amount of storage.

My thoughts were a 256GB OS drive and a RAID 0 (2-4 drives) array for storage. I need the sequential read/write speeds for working with digital media.

My biggest concern is switching the Users and ProgramData directory easily in Windows 7 x64. I have searched and searched, but I cannot find a definitive and easy way to do this. The easiest (but not definitive) solution I've found is just drag and drop the Users/ProgramData directory to the data drive and Windows 7 magically adjusts everything. There is an XML method out there, using audit mode.

Is any of this true?

Do I even bother with an SSD? I would likely be using a MB with a UEFI BIOS, so I could boot on a GPT partition.

wxmanunr

 

[Blitz KriegeR]

An SSD will speed things up a lot, especially if you work with large files in Lightroom. My SSD with Windows/basic apps/drivers is about 50GB installed. Just add the size of the files you work with, trying not to excede 80-90% SSD usage and that will give you the size you're looking for. I use seperate drives to store completed projects and other major apps to save space. Not sure if RAID will really benefit that; too much hassle for me.

Here's the prices you can expect:
-60GB ($90-120, depending on deals, ~100 is good)
-120GB ($160-250, ~210 is good)
-240GB ($350-500, ~425 is good)

What I've listed as "good" is what I've seen recent gen drives go for in newegg sales (M4, Vertex3, Intel 500/300).

Good luck mate!

 

[wxmanunr]

Your experience is close to my workflow. I'd be using Photoshop CS5 x64, Bridge CS5, and Pinnacle Studio/Avid Studio, DPP, BreezeBrowser. Thanks for the input.

wxmanunr

An SSD will speed things up a lot, especially if you work with large files in Lightroom.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Why do you want to move the Users and ProgramData folders? AFAIK the only way to do this is to do a customized Windows install. I did it with Vista, and it ended up being a PITA so after a couple months I formatted and reinstalled, and just move select folders under my profile using the Location tab. You *want* temp folders on your SSD. That's most of what makes Windows "fast" with one.

 

[FishAk]

It's very easy to move the users folders. All but AppData can be moved by simply changing the drive letter in the Locations tab. (to access the Locations tab you must be signed in as the user, and directly in the directory- i.e. Not in Libraries)

With a free program like GetFolderSize or WinDirStat, you can easily see which directories are taking excessive room in your ProgramData, AppData, or any other directory. Many programs work fine if some or all program data is redirected to another drive with a symbolic link. Some programs have trouble, so you have to experiment.

You mention you need the speed because you work with digital media. Are you concerned with scratch files, or the content? A scratch or cache would likely benefit from the short access time of an SSD, while larger content wouldn't see much benefit (for the cost). In both cases, the folder should be moved out of the OS partition. By keeping the OS as small as possible, you can keep several snapshots of it to be sure you have a good version to recover to. Many programs let you chose a directory in the Preferences menu.

I use a some programs for making CGI animations. I want fast access to the runtime folders, but I have a few hundred GB of content. My setup is as follows;

120GB SSD with two partitions. 30GB for OS/programs, 30GB for scratch/cache files, and the rest unallocated for garbage collection. (Everything written to the disk is encrypted and incompressible- hence the need for extra over-provisioning)

4x1TB drives on the ICH10R controller. 600GB in RAID 0 for the runtime content, and large files I am currently working with. (throughput is faster on the 4xRAID 0 HDD array than on the SSD when file size is more than about 32K) The remaining space is set to RAID 10 for about 1.5TB with 3 partitions. 900GB for user and moved program data, 600GB to backup the 600GB RAID 0 data, and the last partition for image files to back up the OS partition. ( at any one time, I have 4 or 5 versions of the OS for easy recovery)

One 1.5TB internal drive divided into three partitions to back up the RAID 10 array.

2 external 1.5TB drives that back up the single internal drive. I keep one locally, and the other is kept at a friends house. I rotate those drives every few months or so to keep them somewhat up-to-date. If I propagate a mistake all the way down to the local external drive, there is still a good chance I still have the correct file on the drive at my friends place.

 

[wxmanunr]

I'm beginning to think this solution may be the right way to go. Use the "Include in library" feature to add the giant data files from the RAID 0 array into the 4 default Libraries. It is beginning to make sense why you would want all of the config-type user data to be on the "fast" drive.

wxmanunr

Why do you want to move the Users and ProgramData folders? AFAIK the only way to do this is to do a customized Windows install. I did it with Vista, and it ended up being a PITA so after a couple months I formatted and reinstalled, and just move select folders under my profile using the Location tab. You *want* temp folders on your SSD. That's most of what makes Windows "fast" with one.

 

[wxmanunr]

I need the RAID 0 speed for working with large sequential data files (1GB+) when writing/reading.

Would using the SSD for scratch decrease the lifetime of the SSD? I plan on 16GB of RAM, so I doubt I'd ever run into RAM issues in Adobe/Pinnacle. But, I can see where Adobe Bridge cache function could write a lot of data. Or, maybe it really doesn't matter?

wxmanunr

You mention you need the speed because you work with digital media. Are you concerned with scratch files, or the content? A scratch or cache would likely benefit from the short access time of an SSD, while larger content wouldn't see much benefit (for the cost). In both cases, the folder should be moved out of the OS partition. By keeping the OS as small as possible, you can keep several snapshots of it to be sure you have a good version to recover to. Many programs let you chose a directory in the Preferences menu.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Wearing out your SSD is one of the most prevalent and overblown myths out there. You do not need to worry about it.

 

[wxmanunr]

So, you are saying that I can get 3-5 years out of an SSD without wearing it out? For normal use, of course. That would be great.

wxmanunr

Wearing out your SSD is one of the most prevalent and overblown myths out there. You do not need to worry about it.

 

[pcm81]

Use ghost liveCd, back up your drive then restore it to SSD. RevoDriveX2 is the absolute fastest drive you can find, but it is pricey.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I believe the wear ratings for most SSDs work out such that if you saturate your SATA bus with data writes to the SSD you will wear it out in like 5 years. Smaller SSDs will of course wear out faster, larger ones will last longer.

Nobody is going to be writing to their SSD enough to worry about wearing it out, unless you buy a 30GB SSD and benchmark it constantly. It is a non-issue.

 

[Blitz KriegeR]

As LokutusofBorg (win, btw) said, don't even thing twice about SSD dying due to usage. Wear leveling algorithms and the SSD controller are designed to deal with this kind of thing; it is totally overblown.

As a random side thought... I found this app on the OCZ forums called SSD Life Pro that reads your SMART data and calculates your NAND life based on usage data. According to this app, I've read at total of 20032GB from my SSD, and written 11584GB in 2413 working hours. That calculates to about 8.3GB/hour read and 4.8Gb/hour write. With these stats it estimates my 34nm nand will last till march 2020. Granted that is most likely not accurate, but even half that would be fine with me. I'll have replaced it long before it dies.

Long story short (too late) don't think twice about SSD life based on usage.

Also, I would suggest moving all your data files that you work with to the SSD. Even if you can house it all in RAM, the amount of time it takes to load them up or cache them will drop dramatically. The more you can put on your SSD the better experience you will have, I guarantee it.

 

[wxmanunr]

Thanks for all of the replies/information. I'm looking forward to using an SSD for my OS drive. Now, which one to choose...

wxmanunr

 

[wxmanunr]

I choose the Crucial m4 256GB. With the recent firmware updates, I believe it is was a good choice. I loathe booting machines without an SSD anymore.

wxmanunr

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I just bought a couple M4s for two different machines as well. Very fast, very nice drives. Lovin' it.