Anyone ever upgrade to an SSD?

Just load the entire OS to RAM. Soo much faster than an SSD

 

I use an SSD for my OS and some of my favorite games and school documents.

 

My MacBook Pro 2011 was upgraded to a 500gb ssd and it made it 100 times better. Much quicker and much better for multitasking. It's like buying a new laptop

 

If you haven't already...

RAID is "Redundant Array of Independent Disks" essentially a way of saying "disks that work together." Redundancy is... questionable.

The most common RAID arrays you see are:
RAID 0
RAID 1
RAID 5(more recently 6)
RAID 10
RAID 01

RAID 0 is "zero redundancy" you have multiple disks and data is spread across the array so that half of the data exists on one disk and half on the other. It is very fragile as failure of 1 disk means the entire array is gone. But it gives you the best read-bandwidth of any array (assuming all things the same). It uses "asynchronous read" to be able to read data from any disk at any time. Performance is Disk^(# ofdisk in array). Most efficient storage/dollar. Data is striped across the disks to allow for splitting between disks. Any 1 file could exist half on 1 disk at a time.


RAID 1 is the exact opposite. RAID 1 uses 2 disks but with the functional storage of 1 disk, the second disk is fully redundant. Read performance is improved as it also has asynchronous read, but, write performance is effectively halved in a RAID 1 as everything is written twice. Least efficient storage/dollar. Data is mirrored between the disks.


RAID 5 (I have on a file server at home) is only usable in 3+ disk arrays. RAID 5 combined RAID 0 and 1 to some extent. You have (Storage/0.66) of the total array (so 3x 1TB disks is 2TB of usable storage) any bit written to the array is also written to a second disk as parity. RAID 5 can survive failure of 1 disk and enter a degraded state. Read performance is very well improved as it has asynchronous read but write performance takes a small hit as it has to write to multiple disks.


RAID6 improves on RAID5 by adding a second parity bit effectively raising the fault tolerance by 1 disk. RAID 6 requires 4+ disks to operate. Performance is similar to RAID5.


RAID 10 combines RAID 1 and 0 into a larger array. With RAID 10 you have half of the array (say 2 disks) as mirrors with data X1 and the other half of the array is mirrored copies of data X2. The array is considered high performance but low storage efficiency. Multiple disk loss is survivable as the array grows in size.


RAID01 is similar, except, you have the opposite: two RAID0 arrays that are mirrors of each other.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/RAID_01-3.svg/2000px-RAID_01-3.svg.png

 

Glad i found this thread,
I have a MacBook Pro (13-inch, Late 2011), 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 ,
16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3, Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB

I do a lot of photo editing and am starting to get into videos, I am looking to get into the dual SSD setup and remove the optical drive as i think ive only used it once for a DVD.

with the posted specs^ would it be beneficial to swap to SSD? right now the laptops fan runs fairly regularly, and what ive read is the SSD will be cooler since theres no moving parts, thus hopefully limiting the amount of times the fan kicks on, as well as speed up my programs.

I was thinking just going with dual 500gb, with the OS on one and the editing programs and all media on the second.
i know 500gb for the OS side is overkill but storage is cheap.

**off topic** since i am now messing around with video editing using 1080i footage, would upgrading the graphics card be benificial as well, or is what i have plenty? im not too familar with graphics cards but im learning.

I still backup my media files on externals just as precaution.

 

A lot of questions there:

1. Dual SSD is a good idea, optical drives work great in USB as an alternative.
2. It's nearly always beneficial (these days) to go with a solid state disk over rotating media.
3. You will see "some" heat benefit, but, some solid state disks (ones that really scream) generate a LOT of heat (look at m.2 as an example, granted they're far more aggressive than an average SATAIII disk)
4. You can use 2 separate disks, sure. There's not really a benefit to 2 separate vs. 1 large, in fact, there's some evidence to suggest the larger disks uses have better performance. There's interesting tests comparing (as an example) a 128GB, 256GB, and 500GB, Samsung 850 which shows the 500GB is generally "better" than the others.
5. A video card upgrade would certainly help if you're using properly-equipped software which utilizes the hardware. I don't know off hand any programs similar to HWMonitor for Windows which would show you utilization of the GPU core.

Remember the rule. 3 copies of anything you want to keep.

 

RAID-0 is a relic from the HDD era, where striping data improved access times and across the board read/write. Nowadays, the only thing RAID-0 does for SSDs is improved sequential performance (i.e. large file transfers), and depending on the controller, it can actually diminish access times and random read/write (small file transfers, system responsiveness, etc). In fact, almost all SATA SSDs are incapable of saturating a SATA II connection when it comes to random read/write. This is where NVMe and the new generation SSDs come in, they are supposed to offer much greater random read/write performance.

 

Lol. I upgraded to ssd like 5 yrs ago.

 

I just fixed my flux capacitor.

 

Ha...I work here

http://www.emc.com/en-us/index.htm

I can write books about absolute zero loss of data. It can be done and is done all the time.

all you need is enough money for the gear,
and raid levels that allow multiple hardware failures with no loss of
data, that cannot be rebuilt from parity or stripes.

a) for anyone needing real home digital data storage
minimum is 2 sets (mirrored) , 5 drive chassis, raid 6's

in this 10 drive config you can have any 4 drives croak at once and all data can be rebuilt from
the remaining drives. so you have 10 drives in action and maybe two cold standbys ready to swap out.

expensive but you own it all,
no risk you will never be without your data
install data protection software and you can prevent yourself or the next 'crypto virus' from erasing
or locking you out of your own blocks by accident.

b) or go for online storage all you need is internet connectivity and a cloud storage provider

pay by month therefore cheap, and provider (if their shit is together) can guarantee zero losses
some limited risk as internet may croak you cannot access your data, or provider may go belly up
in some buyout or bankruptcy and then you are fubar'ed


c) really all you need for home is raid1 mirroring. just two identical drives.


there are about 8 ways to raid ten drives...nested or not...all the difference just
mean where are your priorities in speed and waiting times for large chunks of data from multiple access points or luns?
home owner doesn't care and won't notice, but walmart with a million employees, and 500 million customers in an 80 million object inventory...it means a ton to them how they set it up
..
speed to write new data,
speed to rebuild data,
or speed to retrieve data.

otherwise raid is raid is raid and the intention is: no one disk or no multiple disk
failures result in any data loss.

 

I run raid 0 on my gaming rig.
2x250 gb Samsung 840 pros.
I don't keep anything on those drives that would bother me if I lost it.
It's all ghosted to a 4tb drive.

I've been running raid 0 setups since "97-98" maybe. My first setup being an Abit kt7a raid mobo, 1.33ghz AMD thunderbird that was OCed. And 2x20gb Seagate drives. That was pretty smokin for that era.
The cpu alone was nearly $500 bones.

 

I went ahead and swapped in a samsung 850 evo 1tb yesterday, luckily the place i found it the cheapest for ($279-MicroCenter) was local to me. incredible how much quicker everything loads up now.
only issue i had was the T6 bit i had was junk so i used needle nose pliers to twist the mounting screws out

 

Proper.
I run the 500gb 850 evo in my Asus G73 laptop. Great drive. I think my windows performance on it is 7.2

 

An SSD over Optical drive is a world of difference if you have never had one. Regenerates an old laptop into a better faster one. I have replaced three thus far with a variety of makers...Intel (really good but expensive), PNY, and Samsung. All work well. You will notice faster read and writes, boot up's, and sometimes less heat. Hardest part is transferring your existing drive and O/S data to the new SSD. Some come with the software and USB to SATA cables to do this, if not...readily available at BestBuy or Amazon. Have never had an issue with a successful migration. Would rather have flash storage vs. spinning moving parts storage anytime. Since my first install, prices have dropped dramatically. I have migrated 500 gig drives into a 256 gig and still plenty of room (you don't need to replace based on matching up the storage space). Helps immensely with compressing your storage the way it should be and not worrying about fragmentation.

 

FREE NAS is software you can run that can turn any junk PC into a storage box

collect PC's that have crappy cpu and no graphics, but they have a motherboard and you can
stick a drive in, and make as many free nas machines as you want, and lump them together as a giant raid

companies are throwing out PC's all the time that would make excellent 'drones' for a 'free nas' array

 

I have three 2TB HDDs in raid-0. 6TB of storage that's currently faster than the SSD in that system. Right now it's LVM on top of mdadm, might switch it to ZFS soon.

My laptop came with an SSD. I'ts really fast with ZFS w/ LZ4 compression. Entering my password to unlock the drive is the longest part of the boot process.

 

Hey guys, I have a SONY VAIO VGN-NW350F with Intel GM45 Chip Set. It has been an absolutely fantastic computer with almost no problems since I got it in July 2009. Hell, I just replaced the battery for the first time about a month ago. Anyways, obviously my computer is getting up there in age, but I really want to keep it going. I no longer really use it for gaming, only movies when I travel (BD), and surfing the internet or MS Office stuff. What I'm really trying to do is speed it up a little bit. I know b/c of its shear age, it won't be the best, but something a little faster would be great. It already has the max 8GB ram installed, so it basically comes down to cleaning up/upgrading the hard drive (320GB).

In an old computer, I know that I will never see the 550MB/s R/W spds that these are capable of. I would imagine that my computer (correct me if I am wrong) would probably only be able to handle probably ~ 150 Mb/s, still better than the roughly 70-80 that I am getting from the 5400RPM HHD.

So I have a few options:
1.) Obviously, just get an SSD to replace HHD (~$150)
2.) Utilize SD Card slot (~ $70-$140)
- they make some really fast, high-capacity SD cards
3.) Utilize Expresscard 34 Slot (I believe that it is only a 1.0 not a 2.0, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
- I have two options with this:
-Get an ExpresscardSSD and use it to only run the OS (~$140-$200)
-Get a USB 3.0 Express Card + a high-capacity, high spd thumb drive (~$50)
4.) Other

Basically I'm just wondering what are the pros and cons of each what would be good for my needs, and if there are other options that I haven't considered (other than Buy a new computer). Any help would be appreciated.

 

@mbarbay that laptop has a SATA1 connection only capable of a max bandwidth of 150MB/s. I imagine your 5400RPM hard drive isn't helping this at all but just bare in mind any solid state disk you try is going to be heavily hamstrung simply by the interface with the rest of the computer. (For reference, SATAII is 300MB/s and SATAIII is 600MB/s)

1, Probably a good idea if only to get your hands on a disk that is newer and has less catastrophic failure potential than the hard drive. Be sure to get one of the "kit" type setups that come with some kind of Acronis-like disk for copying the hard drive over.
2, Would this be for storage purposes? SD technology has advanced well beyond MicroSD of the past and as such the cards have changed and older interfaces may be supported but do not come equipped with all of the bandwidth. Think: USB1.0 is still USB1.0 even if you hook up peripherals that are USB3.0, right?
3, This comes with many concerns... availability being one and ultimately the same rule applies as with #2 above.

Honestly you can try a solid state disk replacement. SATA is fully backwards compatible. A SATAIII disk will just operate at a bandwidth level not exceeding your SATA1 rate. The laptop is just old it's probably time to let the old dog have a rest and pick up something newer and start fresh.

 

Option 1. It's the only good choice. Plus, you can carry the SSD to a newer laptop/computer if/when you do buy one. The primary thing about SSDs is the near zero response time. I can RAID 0 a bunch of 10,000 RPM Raptors to have higher read/write numbers than a single good SSD, but the single good SSD will feel faster every time due to the small response time, which a mechanical hard drive can never match. SD cards do not have the read/write endurance SSDs have, and can be slow in certain scenarios. Expresscard is all around a bad option with no future usability, and there is no other options.

Yes, sequential operations will be slower, but the SATA 150 interface likely wouldn't affect random read/write performance (which is what system responsiveness is based on) at all. The SSD will be a very noticeable upgrade, even if bottlenecked by the 150 interface. The primary bottleneck of system responsiveness is that needle moving across the spinning platter, and going to an SSD eliminates that.

 

if you have a laptop from 2009 that is your bottleneck point blank

even cheap ones 2016 (400 bucks) are much
better optimized using integrated intel processor/graphics or amd/graphics


get a new latop, get one with SSD it -will- freakin fly

SSD on a 2009 ? -might- fly