It does not matter if you use HDD or SSD both have a chance to fail and on SSD failure is usually without warning and catastrophic where on HDD you can in most cases get advance warnings if you watch S.M.A.R.T data and even in case of catastrophic failure you can eventually use recovery services to get most of your data back.
You should keep at least your most important data backed up.
Hi,
I don't see much point in an ssd over 500gb unless it's just I can thing
3tb hdd would be a good data storage and back up disk.
Putting an os and everything on one ssd or hdd just makes it take longer to do system images.
Having system images on the same disk as the data backing up also makes no sense at all either
Hi,
I don't see much point in an ssd over 500gb unless it's just I can thing
3tb hdd would be a good data storage and back up disk.
Putting an os and everything on one ssd or hdd just makes it take longer to do system images.
Having system images on the same disk as the data backing up also makes no sense at all either
How practical an SSD over 500GB is will vary from application to application and from user to user. For an notebook or laptop with only one drive bay, a large SSD will be needed for both the System files (OS and programs) and storage. Reduced weight and power consumption and increased speed is another factor to consider. Of course, cost is a downside. I recently put a 1TB SSD in my notebook since the 500GB SSD that was in there was too small for the data I was wanting to keep on it. I'm also using two more 1TB SSDs for backup drives since they are faster, more rugged, and draw less power. For me, the added cost was well worth it (I have totally sworn off spinners).
When using any single drive for the System and data storage, the System files (OS and programs) should be put on their own partition and the data on another partition. That way, imaging the C: partition won't take as long and the image file will not be as large. Also, imaging is too time and space consuming and inefficient for backing up data. A folder/file syncing program is far superior for that.
If data is kept on a partition other than the C: partition and one has room for them, having system images on the same drive can be convenient for restoration if the C: partition gets corrupted or otherwise goes pear shaped. I keep my images on the data partition of my notebook and have occasionally restored an image using one of those images rather than having to dig out the backup drive and connect it to the computer. Of course, if the entire drive gets corrupted or goes belly up, the images will be lost so it's imperative that the images be backed up on one or more external drives (one should be backing up all data anyway).
It does not matter if you use HDD or SSD both have a chance to fail and on SSD failure is usually without warning and catastrophic where on HDD you can in most cases get advance warnings if you watch S.M.A.R.T data and even in case of catastrophic failure you can eventually use recovery services to get most of your data back.
You should keep at least your most important data backed up.
Depending on an HDD to give you warning before failure and counting on being able to recover data from a failed HDD is like playing Russian Roulette with bullets in half of the chambers. As you kinda sorta said in your last sentence, the only thing that will protect your data is to have it backed up, preferably in two separate places since even backup can fail.
Thank you guys! I will have to take this into consideration. I would mainly like to use the ssd for games, and i was thinking i might just get a usb 3.1 enclosure and run it through that...
Thank you guys! I will have to take this into consideration. I would mainly like to use the ssd for games, and i was thinking i might just get a usb 3.1 enclosure and run it through that...
But not on an enclosure it would be slower than sata.
Are you using a laptop thought this was for the system in you system spec's ?
If so I suppose you haven't much choice beside a large ssd or as you say an enclosure :/
But not on an enclosure it would be slower than sata.
Are you using a laptop thought this was for the system in you system spec's ?
If so I suppose you haven't much choice beside a large ssd or as you say an enclosure :/
Yes, this is for my desktop in my system specs. The problem is that my system is fully loaded, and it would be a large PITA if I would have to plug in another SATA cable...
RAID 1 would probably be more reliable, assuming there are no known issues with the parts used.
However, you should be backing up your data regularly. Drives, solid state or mechanical, can easily fail with zero warning signs, and no array can replace the need for backups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxicrimsonixx
Yes, this is for my desktop in my system specs. The problem is that my system is fully loaded, and it would be a large PITA if I would have to plug in another SATA cable...
RAID 1 would probably be more reliable, assuming there are no known issues with the parts used.
However, you should be backing up your data regularly. Drives, solid state or mechanical, can easily fail with zero warning signs, and no array can replace the need for backups.
You could always move one of the mechanical drives to an enclosure and install the SSD internally.
Hi, I don't see much point in an ssd over 500gb unless it's just I can thing
3tb hdd would be a good data storage and back up disk.
Putting an os and everything on one ssd or hdd just makes it take longer to do system images.
Having system images on the same disk as the data backing up also makes no sense at all either
Hi, I don't see much point in an ssd over 500gb unless it's just I can thing
3tb hdd would be a good data storage and back up disk.
Putting an os and everything on one ssd or hdd just makes it take longer to do system images.
Having system images on the same disk as the data backing up also makes no sense at all either
Hi,
I was referring to that size with the os on it only with just a few programs..
Just a games and data ssd it would be a different story but yeah costs are high seeing I've read games on a fast 7200rpm hdd can be just as good at a fraction of the cost.
Hi, I was referring to that size with the os on it only with just a few programs..
Just a games and data ssd it would be a different story but yeah costs are high seeing I've read games on a fast 7200rpm hdd can be just as good at a fraction of the cost.
and sure fps are the same but as far as loading . . the witcher 3 says hello. you can have a conversation while waiting for that to load off of a platter. somedays it sucks spending 15min of every hour watching a load screen .
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!