Solid state drive (SSD) - any experience?

marcyeo · 29-02-2012, 10:24 PM

Hey guys, looking to purchase a new computer and I must be lagging behind the times - but the guy in the shop says these SSD's are the bomb for faster boot up time and faster loading of programs and caching.
Has anyone had any experience with them and are they what they say they are?
Cheers..

Grega · 29-02-2012, 10:29 PM

hi,
yeah the SSDs are great - extra quick boot up times. plenty of good ones out there on the market.
i built a hackintosh (mac OS running on Intel hardware) and used an SSD setup with TRIM - it boots up in seconds, as opposed to my macbook pro i7 which takes about a minute with its 5400rpm 750gb drive, and, my mac mini with similar drive spec....

i'd recommend a SSD for your 'OS' drive, and, another larger drive for all your data ect maybe games and other junk you put on there so it doesn't clog up the SSD

hope this helps mate

distortion · 01-03-2012, 09:35 AM

Yeah my new pc I built with a SSD for the first time - makes a massive difference in OS/app launches. Takes 10 seconds for my new pc to boot to a usable state. Photoshop cs5.5 launches in 1 second literally. My mistake is not forking out extra for a bigger drive - I only bought a 64 gig drive which is not enough for all my programs and the OS... 128 should be the very smallest you should get! (my specs: i7 2600k OC to 4.5ghz, 16gb ram (1666mhz), etc etc)

z80 · 01-03-2012, 11:11 AM

They are bulletproof and low power.
We have been using them in recordable DVD's etc.

as a server hard drive they are great, no need for raid etc, just a periodic backup.

But be careful, they all read fast, but cheap ones have a slow write speed.

i recommend the OCZ brand....some seriously good stuff in their range.

Mr Hardware · 01-03-2012, 11:14 AM

They are not bulletproof. Just google for SSD and bluescreen - some people are having horrible troubles.

graham_h · 01-03-2012, 11:41 AM

SSD's are great.
I've been using them since they first came out.
A few points to note (facts here rather than opinion)

1: Mechanical drives are more reliable, however Intel SSD's are considered almost as good, although they are the most expensive.
I use two OXZ vertex in a raid 0 for OS and programs. Those who say raid isn't necessary are not making the most of their SSD's. Read/Write speeds are basically doubled.

2: Don't rely on them for anything. Thats to say all important data must be backed up to one or two seperate mechanical drives. Don't do what most do and have your outlook data store on them and cry when it gets lost.

3: Once you've used them its impossible to go back to mechanical drives.... they're just so damn slow.

4: So get them in your new PC. Just be careful you don't get stiffed on specs or price. PM me if you need more info. (I'm not in the industry now but used to work for wholesalers and retailers)

marcyeo · 01-03-2012, 02:32 PM

So if in the scenario I wished to play the latest Call of Duty game and didn't have sufficient space on the SSD and stored in on a separate hard disk, would it make the SSD redundant because the load up time would be the same?

graham_h · 01-03-2012, 02:35 PM

Yup....128gb needs to be your minimum.....then you should be fine

Tribal · 01-03-2012, 03:12 PM

I'm running the OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS 120GB SSD and have been so far very impressed.

Par for the course is to buy yourself a portable 1TB HDD and set a weekly backup to avoid tears

Rodp · 01-03-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

They are bulletproof and low power.

as a server hard drive they are great, no need for raid etc, just a periodic backup.

i recommend the OCZ brand....some seriously good stuff in their range.

Wow. I have an OCZ and would never buy another. The amount of grief and blue screens it has caused has been astronomically annoying. Thankfully the latest version of firmware has calmed the situation down and I rarely blue screen due to the controller disappearing off the BUS.

No need for RAID if you're using an SSD in a server? BAD advice, unless you have no care for unplanned outages.

graham_h · 01-03-2012, 08:26 PM

Your blue screens may not be all ssd based....are you using an intel platform ?

GTpilot · 01-03-2012, 09:27 PM

our developers at work went over our heads and all got them selves OCZ SSD drives. out of 62 drives all 62 failed within 2 months. all of them were replaced, which took ages, of the replaced drives currently 57 have failed. the other 3 went in thebin along with the 57 failed drives. We got our say and they all now run intel drives, developers report better speeds and so far none have failed after almost 1 year of operation.

would I run a SSD, nope, not unless it was a RAID 1 or 5 set of drives....

Z80, to suggest you dont need RAID for SSD especialy in a server is like saying cars dont need wheels.

graham_h · 01-03-2012, 09:57 PM

to follow from the above statement.....we retailed over 500 OZC ssd's and returned 12....Personally I'd buy Intel now

Rodp · 02-03-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham_h

Your blue screens may not be all ssd based....are you using an intel platform ?

They are. Essentially the error code the blue screen throws up, translated into English means, 'By jove, I can't see my system disk any more. I'm in a bit of a pickle, now'. Ok, perhaps that's *too* English.

But as I said, since the last firmware update, my bluescreens have gone from several a day to one every few weeks.

z80 · 06-03-2012, 12:51 PM

Much to everyone's disgust I'll come out and say that most computer component failures are caused by the user.

Most people fail to observe electrostatic discharge requirements.

(most in this thread probably have NFI what ESD is)

SSD are not unreliable technologies, if you read the warnings, wear an approved wrist strap, you will enjoy a greater period of reliability with....well just about anything to do with PC's.

Rodp · 06-03-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

(most in this thread probably have NFI what ESD is)

I do.

Quote:

SSD are not unreliable technologies, if you read the warnings, wear an approved wrist strap, you will enjoy a greater period of reliability with....well just about anything to do with PC's.

True. I think you'll find that the majority (I've actually yet to see one that wasn't) of SSD devices are enclosed so you're unable to stick your greasy, static ridden fingers on IC's.

The MTBF is *assumed* to be better than that of mechanical drives due to lower power consumption, lower heat and no moving parts - but we've yet to reach that point in time where it's empirically proven. Early figures suggest that the failure rate of SSD is only slightly better than mechanical drives - but then you never quite know whether the source of those figures are pushing an agenda.

I've personally replaced hundreds of SSD's in Enterprise solutions. To suggest RAID is not necessary due to reliability is destined for a massive fail.

anto · 06-03-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

They are bulletproof and low power.
We have been using them in recordable DVD's etc.

as a server hard drive they are great, no need for raid etc, just a periodic backup.

But be careful, they all read fast, but cheap ones have a slow write speed.

i recommend the OCZ brand....some seriously good stuff in their range.

I would keep clear of the OCZ type. I and 2 other friends had multiple blue screens with it and had it changed to an intel version which has been flawless.

Cam · 06-03-2012, 04:18 PM

I run a SSD in my Lap top, and as already stated I could never go back to a mechanical drive, the difference is astounding... Yes mechanical drives are considered more reliable, but then I have seen a fair few mechanical disks fail in the first few months of their life.. It can just be the luck of the draw..

There were some issues with the older firmware on the OCZ drives, which has been rectified (some info here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21934). As stated above probably 90% of BSOD's are morso user related. It's like blaming a new engine for the reason you're car sometimes stalls..

In short - Do.It.

z80 · 07-03-2012, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

True. I think you'll find that the majority (I've actually yet to see one that wasn't) of SSD devices are enclosed so you're unable to stick your greasy, static ridden fingers on IC's..

But the SATA interface connector is never enclosed.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

I've personally replaced hundreds of SSD's in Enterprise solutions. To suggest RAID is not necessary due to reliability is destined for a massive fail.

Hundreds of SSD's? I bet you've replaced millions of mech drives as have I and you would have seen the run of spindle motor failures, landing zone lubricant contamination, cache ram failures etc etc.

On a simple small server RAID is not necessary if you have the added reliability of SSD.
Simply have Acronis do an image on another drive,in real time, then do differential image backups (even over the internet if you like.)

Certainly for the home user (as is the OP), and who the advice was aimed at, it would be a good low cost option rather than RAID.

Rodp · 07-03-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

But the SATA interface connector is never enclosed.....

There's a problem when you say never - 95% of the equipment I work on, the SATA/SAS/FC connector is enclosed. Replacing a hot plug HDD into a enclosed backplane = 0 risk of ESD.

Quote:

On a simple small server RAID is not necessary if you have the added reliability of SSD.
Simply have Acronis do an image on another drive,in real time, then do differential image backups (even over the internet if you like.)

Simple server generally means small office - with no dedicated IT staff. SSD failure means office down for potentially days and the hiring of a consultant to get them back up and running again - all because you suggest they save a couple of hundred bucks on running a mirror.

Bottom line, don't ditch RAID if your data is important and you're running SSD's.

z80 · 07-03-2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

There's a problem when you say never - 95% of the equipment I work on, the SATA/SAS/FC connector is enclosed. Replacing a hot plug HDD into a enclosed backplane = 0 risk of ESD..

I'm sure the readers of this thread don't have any of those...

I haven't seen any serial SCSI SSD drives yet....

Guarantee you if it has a connector it could be zapped from a centimetre away with an ESD charge it's 10kv per cm.

Remember that as you get zapped just before you've pressed the elevator button next time.

Yeah zero is a "big" number but there's also a problem when you say zero risk with hot swap.....

(sorry couldn't resist that one)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

Simple server generally means small office - with no dedicated IT staff. SSD failure means office down for potentially days and the hiring of a consultant to get them back up and running again - all because you suggest they save a couple of hundred bucks on running a mirror...

I've seen RAID failures that takes just as long to fix.
In some cases never fixed at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

Bottom line, don't ditch RAID if your data is important and you're running SSD's..

Always great advice, you can never have enough backups, however this is a forum of home users who would probably balk at having to buy extra drives and RAID controller.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 07-03-2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

They are bulletproof and low power.
We have been using them in recordable DVD's etc.

as a server hard drive they are great, no need for raid etc, just a periodic backup.

But be careful, they all read fast, but cheap ones have a slow write speed.

i recommend the OCZ brand....some seriously good stuff in their range.

well conversely to this post, i have had three OCZ 120GB Vertex II drives, and they were awesome. Well at least the one that is still working in my netbook is (i think, haven't turned it on in weeks).

SSD's are a fantastic theory, but the practice isn't so great. There are many ways for an SSD to fail, and they inherently slow down over time by design. Mind you this is minimal comparatively.

They're great for boot times, and loading games if that's your thing. However for everyday applications, there is bugger all difference.

They're far from perfect, so i'd wait another few years before bothering again. After throwing a total of $480 down the crapper i was less than impressed.

The clincher is mechanical HDD's generally fail progressively, and you can see (hear) it coming a lot of the time. With SSD's, it's generally "Hello PC user, i'm working absolutely 100 perc........fail".

graham_h · 07-03-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcyeo

Hey guys, looking to purchase a new computer and I must be lagging behind the times - but the guy in the shop says these SSD's are the bomb for faster boot up time and faster loading of programs and caching.
Has anyone had any experience with them and are they what they say they are?
Cheers..

So did you get your PC sorted ?

Rodp · 07-03-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

I haven't seen any serial SCSI SSD drives yet....

It's what I see the most.

Quote:

Guarantee you if it has a connector it could be zapped from a centimetre away with an ESD charge it's 10kv per cm.

Remember that as you get zapped just before you've pressed the elevator button next time.

The connector in a hot plug cage is as deep as the disks ~10cm. Even if you were to poke a finger around down there (don't know why you would..) it's an embedded connector - no IC's to touch.

Quote:

Yeah zero is a "big" number but there's also a problem when you say zero risk with hot swap.....

Zero risk of an ESD event installing a hot plug drive into a server unless you purposely want to cause damage. It's that way by design since most vendors now consider replacement drives into servers/storage as customer replaceable.

Quote:

I've seen RAID failures that takes just as long to fix.
In some cases never fixed at all.

I can replace upwards of 20 drives in RAID arrays per week and could count on one hand and have fingers left over on how many of those resulted in data loss requiring restore from backup medium over the last year. Compared to a JBOD, 100% data loss.

Quote:

Always great advice, you can never have enough backups, however this is a forum of home users who would probably balk at having to buy extra drives and RAID controller.

I was specifically addressing your comment on servers and the claim that RAID is no longer required for SSD. I consider that advice negligent. I don't RAID my home setup, data loss would be a nuisance, not a business altering event - though I do make backups of what I consider important.

z80 · 07-03-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

...and the claim that RAID is no longer required for SSD. I consider that advice negligent. I don't RAID my home setup, data loss would be a nuisance, not a business altering event - though I do make backups of what I consider important.

Negligent is a bit strong, I do have a little bit of experience in IT.

I do it differently to you.

Two servers both imaged alike in two locations, Acronis replicates the entire machine twice a day.

Both have zero RAID and 100% SSD.

I pay for half a rack at the Iprimus data center, which went down some time ago for three days and it wasn't pretty.
RAID wouldn't have helped there.

Other clients that run an SQL booking system simply replicate their database files periodically by ftp to the other server.

Much better than RAID.

graham_h · 07-03-2012, 04:05 PM

getting a little off topic ?

z80 · 07-03-2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

..mechanical HDD's generally fail progressively, and you can see (hear) it coming a lot of the time. With SSD's, it's generally "Hello PC user, i'm working absolutely 100 perc........fail".

If the servo head fails on a mechanical drive it's instant 100% data loss.

Like any device they all have their pros and cons.

SSD have more pros in my opinion, you had some bad luck with early SSD drives...

Moving forward, mechanical drives are dinosaurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

.... There are many ways for an SSD to fail, and they inherently slow down over time by design.

By design?
Are you sure it's in the design or is that based on the experience you had with yours?

Rodp · 07-03-2012, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

Negligent is a bit strong, I do have a little bit of experience in IT.

As do I.

Someone decides to install a small server and not implement RAID on an SSD system based on something they read on Ford Forums = inevitable failure some time down the road.

Quote:

Two servers both imaged alike in two locations, Acronis replicates the entire machine twice a day.

But there's (somewhat limited) redundancy.

Quote:

I pay for half a rack at the Iprimus data center, which went down some time ago for three days and it wasn't pretty.
RAID wouldn't have helped there.

RAID is only designed to minimise the impact of drive failure, not the 1001 other reasons why a server can potentially go down.

Quote:

Other clients that run an SQL booking system simply replicate their database files periodically by ftp to the other server.

Much better than RAID.

What a horrifyingly awful way to do it.

Rodp · 07-03-2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham_h

getting a little off topic ?

Point taken - carry on.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 07-03-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

If the servo head fails on a mechanical drive it's instant 100% data loss.

In 21 years of owning, programming, using, fixing, building and problem solving desktop computers, and having owned dozens upon dozens of mechanical HDD's, i have never had one fail instantly, ever. Plenty have failed over time, allowing for easy backup if not done already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

Like any device they all have their pros and cons.

that's correct, the pros are that they're hugely faster. The cons are the OCZ versions don't seem to work after not very long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

SSD have more pros in my opinion, you had some bad luck with early SSD drives...

you call a Vertex II from 2011 an early design? research my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

By design?
Are you sure it's in the design or is that based on the experience you had with yours?

yes, i'm quite sure it's the design, again research may be your friend. You're yelling the praises of this format yet you don't seem familiar with the architecture, or timeline of their models. Slowing down or more specifically, encountering more errors over time is inherent to the nature of the SSD design. It's been widely known since the start.

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/h...les/43400.aspx
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...wn_inevitable_

TRIM was introduced to alleviate this issue, by effectively reducing the amount of needless writing to the disc. SSD's have a limited amount of writes before they're cactus, which may seem large on paper depending on the brand and type, but can run out quickly in certain applications.