3
First of all, I've read lots of questions on this site (and over the web) about this question, but I'm still not sure about my specific situation.
I currently have a laptop with two 320 GB hard drives (let's call it a desktop replacement), with my system being @ 7200rpm and data @ a 5400rpm one. As I demand more speed on my computer, I've just ordered a Crucial 256GB SSD which people report to be pretty nice. But I'm stuck with whether should I replace my system drive with the SSD or my work files. Most people blindly suggest to replace the system with that. (I'll of course move my data to 7200 one for more speed on that one, but the question is not about that) But I think it depends on what I do.
My current system drive has: Windows 7, all the programs, downloads (not my archive). My current data drive has: Music, photos, videos, all work files including code, photoshop documents, flash documents, websites etc.
I do mostly coding and some design, and I have projects with hundreds of files in them. I want to keep my work files in a separate drive so moving them to the system is not an option.
I know that making SSD my system drive will in no doubt increase my general use significantly, but I'm just worried about code compilation and other in-work/non-general-use usage scenarios. I usually code in .NET in Visual Studio 2010, and builds sometimes take long time. How can I understand whether the CPU or the disk read/write is the bottleneck during builds? Does VS cache my code files for compilation?
Here are some alternatives that I've thought. They may be excellent or worst-ever ideas, so I'm asking here:
Make SSD primary drive and HDD data drive, and do nothing else.
Make SSD data drive and keep HDD as the primary drive and do nothing else.
Make SSD data drive, but install commonly accessed files such as .NET assembly cache to the data drive too to reduce loading times of .NET programs (which I commonly code and build and test).
Partition SSD as two seperate logical drives, one for system, one for workspace, and keep HDD just for music/video archive and a backup of workspace.
They all have some trade-offs, I need the best possible combination, given my needs. (I of course want a fast computer but a dramatic increase in compiling AND starting (involves loading of .NET DLLs) my programs is my primary need).
Thanks, Can.
Can Poyrazoğlu
Posted 2012-01-10T23:03:22.253
Reputation: 193
1Buy two SSDs, put it out of mind, relax. :) – Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 – 2012-01-11T00:10:46.810
Well if you financially support me then why not ;) – Can Poyrazoğlu – 2012-01-11T00:49:47.027
1I think this is not bad question and can be answered reasonably based on reasoning and evidence. I had an answer prepared but now the thread has been closed. I will to put the answer in comments. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:09:01.700
1Firstly, projects consisting of hundreds of files sound small enough to be stored in the RAM cache after first access, including the binaries. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:09:28.163
1On System drive, you have got installed OS, toolchains, IDEs, SDKs, header files, libraries, temp folder, page file etc. That is much more than 90% of items that typically get involved in building/running a project. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:11:59.347
1Apart from that you store on system drive all the other apps that you want to run fast. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:12:37.920
So, my recommendation is, after your mates, to primarily put System partition on the SSD.
As I understand in your case 240GB of SSD is enough to cover for a project partition on top of your system one. Go for it. Performance benefit might not be big (perhaps initial project load). You will get option to suspend spinning of the data drive to conserve energy on the go. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:20:08.917
Note: I used to have SSD exclusively for project drive, but the project I worked on was measured in thousands or rather tens of thousands of files. And all the development environment with binaries and sources was 50GB. ... and I did not have space to fit system partition there. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:22:20.790
Also using git source control to jumping on branches of the projects such as linux kernel benefits hugely from SSD. – user377178 – 2012-01-11T11:23:16.840
I didn't understand why the question was tagged as not-constructive, but anyway, thanks for your answer. I think I'll be installing SSD as my system drive, and also partition a 50GB-ish part for my work files. I'm planning to keep all my music/photos/personal data on my hdd, with my backup of workspace's snapshots regularly. one last question: would partitioning my SSD as something like 180/60 GB for system/workfiles affect performance negatively (i know that ssds need some free space for better performance), but would there be anything practically significant? – Can Poyrazoğlu – 2012-01-11T13:30:21.403
I know this is old but another option is to ditch the partition plan (it doesn't really gain you anything in terms of performance for your usage, at least) and, if you're on a budget, pick up a large hybrid drive and let the drive controller / OS decide dynamically which files should be placed in the NAND portion. Also, @CanPoyrazoğlu, note that SSDs need free space for performance but primarily for reliability; many modern SSDs though already reserve storage space that you can't touch (usually ~9% of advertised capacity) and it's up to you if you want to leave more. – Jason C – 2014-05-28T00:30:04.310
1BTW, SSDs are a heck of a lot faster and more reliable (and cheaper) than they were 2 years ago when this was originally posted. – Jason C – 2014-05-28T00:32:54.483