1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blogs The downside to cheap storage

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Meanmotion, 17 May 2013.

  1. The_Crapman

    The_Crapman Don't phone it's just for fun.

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    4,369
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Get with the times man. I gots myself one of these beauties :D
     
  2. xaser04

    xaser04 Ba Ba Ba BANANA!

    Joined:
    27 Jun 2008
    Posts:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    137
    My main PC is entirely SSD since I swapped out a 500GB HD a while ago for the Vertex 2E I now run as my "Steam" drive.

    Realistically I need a boot drive as the C300 64GB model is running quite full.

    TBH though, all our main storage is on the NAS and my Steam library is backed up to an external HD. All of my games are ready to go in a few minutes if I really want to play them. I also have BT Inifinity so downloading the ones I don't have backed up doesn't take too long either.

    I can understand the requirement to have more storage though as our NAS is starting to get a little clogged with Video. The little thing only has 1TB of storage which is more than adequete for everything but video. My plan is to simply have a second 3TB external HD for video (connected directly to the router), and have the NAS as purely documents / images and music.
     
  3. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,610
    Likes Received:
    234
    Even with this much storage, I still maintain a good file management routine and can find files I want easily without having to search.

    The key is to having a well thought out file structure, have a temporary folder for files you play with and then move them to correct place once the file is finalised.

    Downside to the above method is that Recent files feature in OS's won't work anymore.



    Main PC:
    M4 128GB SSD for Windows and a few daily programs.
    1TB WB Black for games.
    1TB WB Green for backup of important data from my NAS and for my Lightroom catalogue.
    Lightroom is helped alone with RAM caching programs because WD Green's random access speed really sucks.

    NAS:
    4x 2TB F3eco running in disk pool with duplicated folders.
    This NAS is a bit noisy, still need to find a place to store it.
     
  4. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    664
    ^ This.

    I have 3 SSD only rigs here and one with an SSD and HD (for video conversion/ripping etc).

    All four rigs store their important data on the NAS so they are O/S only installs (plus games on one and office on two).
     
  5. David

    David Take my advice — I’m not using it.

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,427
    Likes Received:
    2,322
    256GB SSD boot drive and 1TB storage drive here.

    I did entertain the thought of going all SSD but, for the price of a 512GB SSD, you can buy a great NAS box and a couple of HDDs.

    That's the way I plan to go in the near future.
     
    Last edited: 17 May 2013
    lp rob1 and YEHBABY like this.
  6. gagaga

    gagaga Member

    Joined:
    14 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    10
    Laptop:
    Ultrabook with 128GB SSD

    Main PC:
    Samsung 830 256GB SSD
    4x WD Black 500GB 2.5" arranged as 2x 1TB RAID0 (scratch space for video)

    Server:
    120GB Intel 320 as boot
    13x 3TB SATA for storage

    Media PCs:
    40GB Intel SSDs or 2gb USB sticks (for openelec)
     
  7. k4p84

    k4p84 New Member

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    72
    Likes Received:
    5
    120GB Intel SSD for Win8 boot drive, this is also my scrratch disk area for video editing etc. 240GB Intel SSD for programs and games though there is only 30GB left so I think either Origin or steam will need to go back to HDD. 2 x 1tb HDD for media storage and a 2TB HDD for back ups.
     
  8. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    664
    I think this sums it up, why buy large SSD's for storage when you can buy a NAS & redundant HD's that will serve multiple PC's, for a longer lifecycle, for the same price?

    A Synology DS212J + 2 x 1TB HD's is roughly the same price as a 500GB SSD (circa £260) for double the storage (if setup in RAID 1) or quadruple the storage (if JBOD).
     
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I personally use a 64GB SSD for my linux setup and a 250GB HDD for my Windows setup. I use the HDD for Windows because it doesn't treat SSDs very nicely. I use Windows strictly for gaming, so the noise of the HDD gets swallowed up by the fans and the speakers. In linux, I just shut off the HDD using hdparm.

    When the price of SSDs drop a little more I might try RAID-0 with 2 256GB SSDs. My computer has 10 total SATA ports, 6 of them are SATA III. Only 3 are in use. I might as well take advantage of em. My controller scales very nicely with RAID anyway.
     
  10. TheStockBroker

    TheStockBroker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    107
    I feel the complete opposite to the article...

    I'm all about adding additional storage! I just try not to keep that storage in my PC... In my Haswell build I won't have "traditional" storage on-board any more. Just a single SSD.

    The amount of data I have is never going to decrease, why would I reduce my storage consumption? I believe the trend will develop to computer users having home servers (as I do), NAS devices(as I used to), or using "the cloud" for storage - particularly as internet connections improve.

    I'm looking at buying a 4K TV this year, and I note that Sony supply a dedicated movie server as a companion for their UHDTV's (at least in the US) as this is the only way to reliably deliver 4K content currently. I think this is indicative that my predicted trend is beginning...
     
  11. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    I have a 128GB SSD (Crucial C300) + 1TB Samsung F3, though in practice the F3 is a little redundant. The vast majority of my storage needs are handled by my server, which has 5.5TB of RAID-5 storage for my gargantuan storage needs. It can easily saturate gigabit ethernet too so there's no real slowdown in having my stuff on the server.

    When they drop in price, I'll replace the C300/F3 with a single 512GB SSD and that should quieten my system down a little.
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well if you read the entire article, you'd notice that by not having to worry about storage, you don't care about cleaning up, organizing, and optimizing your system. This will gradually take a hit on performance (particularly with Windows) and when it comes to replacing your OS, it becomes extra tedious. If you have 4 2TB hard drives in raid 0 and you're doing a file search for a text document, I would not be surprised at all if a single 500GB hard drive would find it faster. But, if you're filling that storage with 100GB+ movies, then obviously there's not much to optimize. However, the article was focusing on people who didn't have media collections, since media is, IMO, 90% of the storage used in the average home PC.

    It is possible to have too much of anything, but over-abundance has greater effects on some things than others. It's even possible to have too much RAM, though with triple channel systems, it's hard to reach the "too much" point.
     
  13. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Totally mechanical drive free here...sort of.

    The PC has a pair of M4s, 128GB and 256GB. The 128 is used for Windows and Origin, with the 256 entirely for Steam. I have to install/uninstall games as I play them, bar some favourites, but with a fibre connection it doesn't take too long.

    So why sort of? I have a Synology NAS with 2TB (RAID backup) for mass storage of music, films and backup. There's a need for large amounts of storage that SSDs can't meet yet.

    Same goes for the Mac. It has a 256GB SSD installed as stock (rMBP), but has a 2TB portable USB3.0 drive for iTunes and Aperture. Can't shake those mechanicals yet!
     
  14. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Nope. I have a 120GB Vertex 3 and a 60GB Vertex as my boot and app drives in my desktop. I also have a 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 with a few "other apps" that I never bothered to migrate, plus some application data, pictures and odds and sods storage. Lastly I have a pair of 1TB Spinpoint F3's in RAID0 as my primary storage array.

    The 120GB Vertex 3 is about 50% empty, the 60GB Vertex is 90% empty, the 500GB HDD is about 25% empty and the 1+1TB Array is around 30% empty.

    As an amateur photographer as a serious hobby (plus 3 kids) I have about 300GB of that 470 odd formatted space used up with photos on the 500GB HDD. On the 1+1 array I have movies, music and backups of applications (mostly ISOs and install packages).

    The 1+1TB Array is mirrored to my server on the servers 2+2TB RAID 0 array. That is roughly 65% space free. Music, applications, photos and movies all reside on the server for easy access to phones, tablets, media players and laptop. I could get away with eliminating the HDDs in my desktop if I wanted too, but then it would leave no backups to what is on the server and especially running RAID0 arrays, the odds are doubled that a disk will bite the dust at some point.

    I am hoping this fall to have the spare change to swap out the 500GB and 1+1TB array in my desktop for a pair of 2TB or 3TB disks in RAID0 and use the 1+1TB disks temporarily as a secondary backup in an external enclosure (I currently use a 640GB external HDD to backup photos, music and some key applications. The movies and some other stuff don't get a second backup). Down the line I want to standarize everything as 3+3TB RAID0 in the server and desktop and a single 4+TB disk in an external enclosure for backups.

    6TB should last me a ridiculously long time at the rate I am filling the disks. Roughly 5GB a week is the average I am pulling down between everything, or about 250-300GB a year. With about 1.5TB of total space used between everything and lets say 300GB on the high end per year, that is about 13 years to fill it. Even figuring 4k comes along in the next few years, or I rip my collection again as 1080p files instead of 720p and/or my digital camera gets a bump from 16mp image to something like 20 or 24 or 30 over the years, that is probably still AT LEAST 5-7 years of storage.

    Even just going with cheaper 2+2TB RAID 0 setup in my desktop and server should still buy me at least 3-4 years. Which is probably what I'll end up doing in the end for cost reasons.

    If you wonder why I have RAID 0, in part it is just because and nerd points, but I am also running SMB multichannel and a pair of GbE connections on my desktop and server, so with the RAID0 arrays I can regularly hit >>200MB/sec between my desktop and server. I generally hit steady state speeds of around 240MB/sec to the server and around 220-230MB/sec back from the server. I am disk limited pulling from the server and network limited to the server. In part I am vaguely interested in faster 3TB disks in a two disk array and running another cable for a 3 link network setup to run fully disk limited (which should still mean hitting close to 300MB/sec in a lot of cases, especially with the HDD being less fully utilized).
     
  15. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Oh, to add, my laptop currently has a 500GB HDD and a 32GB SSD as a cache drive. In a few months when money is less tight I plan on yanking the 500GB HDD and slapping in a 120GB SSD. I may also pull the mSATA 32GB SSD as well (I don't think I really need more than about 60GB of total storage on the laptop generally). I am using about 120GB of space on the laptop right now, but there is some HP cruft on there combined with keeping copies of images I've loaded for photoshop/lightroom that I don't really need to be keeping on the laptop (as they are backed up to the server and my desktop)
     
  16. Cobalt

    Cobalt New Member

    Joined:
    24 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've got a 128GB SSD and two 1TB HDDs and an older 500GB drive that has WinXP installed on it. I'm probably going to have to buy a new 2TB drive as I'm currently floating at about 1.5TB used. I ripped my entire movie collection though and I've got a few hundred tied up in games and about the same in raw video footage for editing.

    I could cut down on the games I guess but the way I play I tend to dip in to older games now an again and I think I've played at least some of all of them in the past twelve months. Every now and again I'll become nostalgic for a title and then if it isn't installed I'll go rooting around in the loft for it. I just played the original Call of Duty (THE WW2 game IMO) again for example.
     
  17. TadZilla

    TadZilla tadbitnerdy

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gaming PC and HTPC have been hard disk-free zones for 4 years now. However, I'm cheating, as I have a file server with hard disks that hold all my media an other junk...
     
  18. VaLkyR-Assassin

    VaLkyR-Assassin Member

    Joined:
    16 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had to get a 2Tb drive earlier this year as I had previously been stuck on 640Gb, which I had managed to fill several months previously and was getting fed up with having to delete stuff. I was having to convert game screenshots, and delete alot of things, but in the end, by steam folder was getting larger and larger, and after downloading games and huge patches, I didn't want to start uninstalling them or backing up to dvd discs. The final decision came when I wanted to install some free online games that were huge, and I couldn't, so I then moved onto the 2Tb drive. It's twice as fast as my other drive in a brief benchmark, so that's one extra benefit over the space, and I was able to install The Secret World, which is over 40Gb by itself, without having to worry about going through my files and either deleting or moving stuff over to an older pc.
     
  19. Star*Dagger

    Star*Dagger New Member

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    882
    Likes Received:
    11
    With 21.7 terabytes of data, all SSD is not going to happen soon

    I couldnt imagine only 200 gigs, I had that much 10 years ago.
     
  20. pbryanw

    pbryanw Member

    Joined:
    22 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    191
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just a 256GB SSD for me. I used to have a large Steam collection on a second HD, but then I realised that about 75-90% of my collection I was never going to get round to playing. So now I just have 2-3 games in my favourites and then load them onto my SSD when I'm done with my current game.

    I also went this route because my WD Green was the noisiest component in my PC, and I wanted my computer to be as near as silent as possible. I'm sure us Silent PC fans/freaks only make up a small percentage of the PC population, but in this respect, SSDs are a godsend.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page