SSD vs HDD

[cbennett926]

Hello,

I would like to know what everyone's opinion on SSD or HDD. I will be getting a laptop soonish and don't know which to get. Also on that note, Speed vs Quantity of RAM?

[3Miro]

I have 3 HDD for storage and one SSD for the root file system and fast boot. Most SSD are either too expensive or too small, if you can get an SSD + HDD you can get both speed and size. I think this is best, I wouldn't spend the money on large SSD.

About the RAM, is there a trade-off between speed and size? When it comes to RAM, the more the better, although things above 4GB may be a bit of an overkill (I have a 8GB laptop and 16GB desktop). Currently RAM should be cheap enough to buy enough DDR3 1333.

This is personal opinion of course.

[Paqman]

HDD to store lots of data or are on a tight budget, otherwise SSD for your root filesystem every time. HDD's are obsolete technology, and will be getting phased out over the next few years.

[Lars Noodén]

Unless you have lots of data, I'd say go with the SSD.

[jjex22]

I think the only real trade off is regarding price - there was a lot of uncertainty regarding how many read writes you could do to a SSD before it packed up, but IBM did a test that advised you'd need to write 20GB of data a day for 20 years to their 128GB drive to reach those limits, so that's not a problem! 128GB in 20 years? what do we reckon, your OS?

What it comes down to is cost - With the majority of mechanical hard drives now so ludicrously cheap, SSD's seem silly money by comparison - we've got too used to PC's with massive drives that even 128 sounds piddly - but have a look at what you actually use - If you're using more on a laptop, it's almost definitely music or videos, so you could just copy over what you need?

I use two in desktops - 128's for OS's - data and back up clones are on traditional drives due to cost.

My personal advice is wait - the cost of these devices can only fall... well the cost per GB will - I'd be very surprised if 512GB drives aren't affordable inside 2 years (yes I commited to that online) and it'll move quickly now they're beginning to become more common in new devices.

If you get one seriously read over the read/write speeds of the drive you want - they really aren't all the same!

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, SSDs for / offer a huge increase in performance and reduce noise, weight, and power consumption, so the only real question is whether or not your stuff can fit into the SSD you can afford. If not, you can ask whether or not you're comfortable using an external or whether you'd be best off just working from a large HDD and putting up with the disadvantages. Hybrid drives or replacing the optical drive with a magnetic drive are options, too.

[del_diablo]

SSD. Or get a laptop with dual HD cases instead of the not needed CD-rom drive. So then you got storage and speed.

As for RAM? The entire "speed" bit fall apart quite a few years ago when DDR2 stopped being so bad. So you want amount, a bit over 4, perhaps 6 or 8.

[LowSky]

Make sure you get two DIMMs of RAM to run them in Dual Channel mode. If your buying direct, buy the cheapest RAM option and then head out to a site like Newegg.com RAM is much cheaper there than any PC seller. Installing yourself isn't hard.

As for SSD vs HDD. It's a laptop so options are very limited. SSD speed is amazing but on a Laptop unless its a Sandforce equipped SATA 3 SSD the amazing quickness wont be as fast as you may expect. I have a SSD and I will say for 120GB at $200 I could have gotten a 3TB drive at the time and I kinda wish I did.

The price for the performance isn't worth it in most cases. Just get a 7200RPM drive with 500GB of space or more, and call it a good day.

[del_diablo]

Make sure you get two DIMMs of RAM to run them in Dual Channel mode

Get 3 ramsticks instead, dual channel give you 1-2% performance increase in special cases.

[LinuxFan999]

I think SSDs are terrible. They are faster than HDDs, but they don't last as long, and there are more DOAs (dead on arrivals) with SSDs than with HDDs. I would never recommend an SSD until they become more mature and stop failing so often.

[Lucradia]

Why not have both? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGnTW8EhGSk)

[TeamRocket1233c]

Well, HDD's are slower and more susceptible to drops than SSD's and you can get a decently sized HDD for a decent price, whereas SSD's are faster, use up less power, and are more shock resistant than HDD's due to essentially being SATA or IDE flash drives, although you gotta drop a TON of money on them to get a decently sized one.

So for the most disk space you can get for a decent price, HDD is better than SSD, whereas for higher read/write speeds and greater shock resistance, and if you have the bucks to get a decently sized one, SSD is better than HDD.

[Copper Bezel]

I think SSDs are terrible. They are faster than HDDs, but they don't last as long, and there are more DOAs (dead on arrivals) with SSDs than with HDDs. I would never recommend an SSD until they become more mature and stop failing so often.
How long ago did you try using one? They did at one time have longevity problems, but to my knowledge, they've quite overtaken HDDs (particularly for anything portable, since they're so much more shock resistant.)

[Paqman]

I think SSDs are terrible. They are faster than HDDs, but they don't last as long, and there are more DOAs (dead on arrivals) with SSDs than with HDDs. I would never recommend an SSD until they become more mature and stop failing so often.

That's not true at all. The first generation of cheap SSDs had a very limited lifespan, but current ones have a write life expectation much higher than magnetic drives, and I would be at all surprised if the higher overall MTBF figures turned out to be accurate. As an engineer I would expect a device with no moving parts to beat one with hundreds of tiny moving parts any day, assuming equal build quality in both.

The least reliable components in computers are hard drives, optical drives and power supplies. With the switch to SSDs I would expect to see storage drop off that list.

As for size, I have a 40GB SSD in my netbook and an 80GB in my desktop and I've never felt squeezed for space. All my data is on a 1TB NAS and Ubuntu One. I find it much more convenient to keep it all centralised than spread it out over multiple machines.

[LowSky]

As for size, I have a 40GB SSD in my netbook and an 80GB in my desktop and I've never felt squeezed for space. All my data is on a 1TB NAS and Ubuntu One. I find it much more convenient to keep it all centralised than spread it out over multiple machines.

If you use Windows then you will feel a squeeze with anything under 80GB, hell maybe even a 120GB drive. Windows 7 eats space like candy. 40GB would be fine for a Linux distro. I really wish prices would drop a bit more.

Also dual channel or even tri channel RAM isn't that big of a bonus, but it really helps with on-board graphics.

[Paqman]

If you use Windows then you will feel a squeeze with anything under 80GB, hell maybe even a 120GB drive. Windows 7 eats space like candy. 40GB would be fine for a Linux distro. I really wish prices would drop a bit more.


True, my copy of Windows still languishes on an old 160GB spinny drive for that reason. I use Windows for gaming, and Windows games are ridiculously big.

Tbh, I'm not that bothered though. My main OS gets the benefit of a decent drive. I may upgrade the Windows side to a hybrid at some point, but i'm not exactly falling over myself to spend money on Windows.

[jespdj]

I have a desktop PC with a 120 GB SSD + 2 TB HDD, and a laptop with 128 GB SSD.

The SSDs are great. They are MUCH faster than a HDD. Booting the computer, starting up programs, or anything else for which I/O is needed goes superfast. The whole computer feels a lot faster. No more waiting for the HDD to rattle for tens of seconds when you start up some big program.

I'd highly recommend getting an SSD.

When you install Ubuntu on an SSD, there are some tweaks you can do to for example enable the TRIM command and other things. See this page (http://www.howtogeek.com/62761/how-to-tweak-your-ssd-in-ubuntu-for-better-performance/) for example.

[Henkdroid]

I have a SSD in my ThinkPad, it is only 80GiB~ but it is enough. It does make a rather strange crackly noise, but it is a lot better than a cheap netbook I used to use which made a worrying noise everytime the computer boots.

[Lucradia]

I was serious about that people, Hybrid SSD.

[ubuntu27]

Not many people mentioned Hybrid Disc Drive. What do you guys think about it? It is worth it?

I am planning to buy a laptop on January, and I am leaning towards Hybrid or HD Discs. SSD are just too expensive for me.

[LowSky]

I was serious about that people, Hybrid SSD.

Found them!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148837

Not a bad idea at all. I think I'm buying one just to try out, But I'll wait for prices to drop back to normal. The flooding in Thailand drove prices sky high. I really like the idea of 750GB with 8GB of Flash memory to speed stuff up, but for over $200 its a bit pricey.

[3Miro]

Hm, only 4GB of SSD, I wouldn't expect too much of a performance boost out of that one. If you get 4GB of extra RAM and you don't reboot your machine for a while, you should be able to get even more boost from the kernel's HDD cache.

I think some of the modern Intel chipsets have the ability to connect any SSD (or maybe an Intel SSD) along with a regular HDD and get one to work as the cache of the other. In that setup, you can get ~60GB of SSD cache that would definitely beat the small 4GB.

[LowSky]

Hm, only 4GB of SSD, I wouldn't expect too much of a performance boost out of that one. If you get 4GB of extra RAM and you don't reboot your machine for a while, you should be able to get even more boost from the kernel's HDD cache.

I think some of the modern Intel chipsets have the ability to connect any SSD (or maybe an Intel SSD) along with a regular HDD and get one to work as the cache of the other. In that setup, you can get ~60GB of SSD cache that would definitely beat the small 4GB.

4GB to store the most needed files. And paying for a 64GB SSD plus a hard drive is expensive, and not many laptops can even run two drives. This gives the best of both worlds, a 7200RPM HDD and 4GB of SSD. The newer 750GB model has 8GB of SSD too just to throw out there.

SSD's are good for only a few things, and fast booting and large file transfers are the top two. Seagates drive is a gap filler until SSD prices are closer to HDD prices. Once that happens say goodbye to old spinny. I can't wait for 2TB of solid state for under $100.

[mips]

Found them!

Not a bad idea at all. I think I'm buying one just to try out,

I don't own one but know of several people that do and they reckon they work well.



Hm, only 4GB of SSD, I wouldn't expect too much of a performance boost out of that one.

I think some of the modern Intel chipsets have the ability to connect any SSD (or maybe an Intel SSD) along with a regular HDD and get one to work as the cache of the other.

It's only for the most commonly used files. Think about it for a second, in Linux the entire OS install (minus /home) will fit into 4GB!

SRT technology found in the Z68 chipsets.

[NikoC]

Replaced my 7200 rpm 300gb HDD for a 120gb SSD a couple of a weeks ago and the speed increase is incredible!Boot times, opening programs, updating, etc. go so much faster now!

I don't have that much storage space anymore, but don't need it anyways on this laptop, I only use it for work!

I've also read up on life spans of SSDs and the current generation can last several times the life span of you average computer!

So basically: I would never go back to HDD! Unless maybe as a second storage drive!

[john730]

Hello,

I would like to know what everyone's opinion on SSD or HDD. I will be getting a laptop soonish and don't know which to get. Also on that note, Speed vs Quantity of RAM?

i have a page on this subject: http://www.ssdforgaming.com/ssd-vs-hdd/