SSD users, do you have your user profile and appdata folder on another drive?

[Shmee]

I keep OS, basic files, and some games on SSD. downloads, media, and other games are on my 1TB sata3 WD caviar black, which is a very fast spindle drive

 

[Makaveli]

I voted yes.

I had move these folders over to my ram drive but I found some application complained about the lack of space on my RAM drive only 300mb's and wouldn't install properly. So I moved them to a storage HD and everything is good.

Those folders get updated constantly so I wanted them off my ssd.

YMMV

 

[Ghiddy]

I voted yes.

I had move these folders over to my ram drive but I found some application complained about the lack of space on my RAM drive only 300mb's and wouldn't install properly. So I moved them to a storage HD and everything is good.

Those folders get updated constantly so I wanted them off my ssd.

YMMV

Have you read the entire thread? Unless you have very limited SSD space there's no reason to go out of your way to move frequently used folders off an SSD.

 

[Makaveli]

Have you read the entire thread? Unless you have very limited SSD space there's no reason to go out of your way to move frequently used folders off an SSD.

I've read the thread and very familiar with the topic since i've had this ssd in my rig since 2009. i'm also seen most of the optimization guides posted in the last 3 years.

And yes I'm fully aware that those items don't need to be moved off but its my preference to have less writes to the drive. And I do not see a difference in performance with those folders sitting on a 2nd Hard drive, but I do see less writes to my SSD.

All my browser caches are sitting on my ram drive also which is much faster than my SSD.

Current Host writes are at 1.86TB and the drive has been in use since Dec 2009.

The original poster asked and I provide an answer to my own setup.

I didn't come in this thread needing anyone to ok my choice

To each his own!

 

[Ghiddy]

I've read the thread and very familiar with the topic since i've had this ssd in my rig since 2009. i'm also seen most of the optimization guys posted in the last 3 years.

And yes I'm fully aware that those items don't need to be moved off but its my preference to have less writes to the drive. And I do not see a difference in performance with those folders sitting on a 2nd Hard drive, but I do see less writes to my SSD.

All my browser caches are sitting on my ram drive also which is much faster than my SSD.

Current Host writes are at 1.86TB and the drive has been in use since Dec 2009.

The original poster asked and I provide an answer to my own setup.

I didn't come in this thread needing anyone to ok my choice

To each his own!

No worries, man! I wasn't trying to tell you how you should configure your machine. Just making sure you had read the thread and were aware of the opinions in here that moving stuff off the SSD doesn't really save you from anything.

I personally disable disk caching, and enable in-memory caching, in Firefox (via about:config). Not because of any concerns about SSD wear, but because Firefox constantly writes to disk and my impression is that it's faster to have it not cache to disk, even if it's an SSD.

 

[F1shF4t]

Answered no. I keep most things on the ssd. I use second HDD to keep stuff like games, media (most of which is on nas) and disk images. Games are only on the HDD cause they take a lot of space.

My oldest ssd is an intel G1 80GB, and after two years and 7.5TB writes its till reporting 94% writes left. I won't be even coming close to wearing it out before its completely obsolete. So what's the point of doing these optimizations.

 

[smakme7757]

Everything is on my SSD apart from my appliance servers and my downloads folder.

 

[taltamir]

so no one is concerned about the constant writes to temp folders inside appdata?

I am very concerned... that if I move them away from the SSD my performance will drop. This is why I bought the SSD.

Those files should be placed on the fastest random access drive you have. With 1st gen Jmicron SSD that would be ANY spindle drive since those SSDs were much slower then spindle drives. With current modern SSDs the spindle drive cannot even come close to the random performance of the SSD.

As for write life... in a year and a half I used up 4% of my drive's life or something. I got decades more at this rate. Check my signature

 

[deimos3428]

My profile is back on the SSDs. I had taken it off for a while for reasons I forget (probably space), but one place you do not want to put your profile is an iSCSI LUN.

 

[Golgatha]

I have a 256GB SSD and put everything except my games on there, and I even have 2 games installed on it for great performance. I even run my VMWare install of WinXP from the SSD. Have about 50GB of free space on that sucker now.

 

[Makaveli]

No worries, man! I wasn't trying to tell you how you should configure your machine. Just making sure you had read the thread and were aware of the opinions in here that moving stuff off the SSD doesn't really save you from anything.

I personally disable disk caching, and enable in-memory caching, in Firefox (via about:config). Not because of any concerns about SSD wear, but because Firefox constantly writes to disk and my impression is that it's faster to have it not cache to disk, even if it's an SSD.

just wanted to make sure I was not misunderstood.

And I agree with the last part that is why I moved all my caches to the ram disc.

 

[Emulex]

keep everything on the 160gb boot. i don't really play games everything fits.

 

[exdeath]

You have to write the equivalent data of the total capacity of the drive (including the internal spare blocks) before every sector (eg entire drive) shows 1 write. 1/10000 = .01 %. You'd have to write 25.6 TB worth of temp files to a 240GB drive before the drive showed 1% wear. You'd have to write 2,560 TB to a 240 GB drive for it to fail. Most of the largest writes are initial os and game and application installs which you only do once. If you wrote 1 GB of random crap and temp files every single day, it would take 2,560,000 days for the drive to fail. It would take two months of sustained writes at the maximum transfer speed of 500 MB/sec to reach that... yes 500 MB/s every second for 60 days.


Most of the paranoia is due to early drives and bad firmwares and controllers causing failures, and people who don't understand the technology mistook that for and assumed automatically that it was raw NAND life expectancy which it is/was not.

Most of us here who are really into SSD came from Raptor/Cheetah RAID0 setups where we voluntarily risked higher chance of failure and data loss all along for higher performance, and a consequence have always been in the habit of being diligent in backing up irreplaceable data. With current SSD speeds and the ability to image the *entire drive*, programs and all, at 100s of MB/sec in mere minutes, it's laughable to think people worry about SSD life even *big unlikely IF* they did have to RMA the drive in two years (oh noes it will take 6 minutes to reimage!)

Id be more worried that your SSD still has Windows 7 when everyone else has Windows 10 because you are too scared to format for fear of writes. For more perspective, I GAVE AWAY a Cheetah 15K RAID0 with a Mylex i960 64MB controller due to being obsolete and upgrading several times in a time frame much shorter than the expected life of a SSD.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I keep everything but my games on a 120GB Vertex 3. The games take up 2.3TB of space so I store them on two 3TB Hitachi 7K3000 drives in RAID-0 for 6TB. The array is volume mounted to C: \Games.

Awesome