Would it make sense to install Windows 8.1 on the HDD instead of the SSD?

1

Just about to setup a new laptop with a 128GB SSD and 1TB 7200RPM HDD.

I'm thinking that most of the 30+ GB of Windows files are probably not accessed on a regular basis, so they don't need to take up the limited space on the SSD.

Does anyone have any info that profiles disk access during Win8.1 boot up, especially looking at the use of the hibernate file vs. system files?

If I was to install Windows on the HDD and only keep the hiberfile, pagefile and common program files on the SSD, would I still get most of the performance benefit of the SSD?

Is it possible to symlink some of the more commonly used system files to the SSD and keep the rest of the installation on the HDD?

Edit: Just want to point out that I realize that the solution here should be to simply add another SSD, and I'll probably end up doing that. But until then I'm interested in exploring what options there are to optimize what's stored on the SSD to save space while maintaining performance.

AndyCNX

Posted 2014-11-18T10:14:00.067

Reputation: 133

“Is it possible to symlink some of the more commonly used system files to the SSD and keep the rest of the installation on the HDD?” Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You end up with a non-standard system and will most likely be chasing gremlins for nearly forever for what? 30 seconds speed improvement? Better to just replace the HDD with an SSD instead of doing this. – JakeGould – 2014-11-19T07:11:25.957

You can mount partition under folder instead of symlink. – Kamil – 2014-11-19T08:02:21.157

How you are using that laptop? What you want to perform fast? Video editing? Photo editing? Gaming? – Kamil – 2014-11-19T08:04:07.753

@Kamil I'm a web developer and I often use VMs (Vagrant) for that. Being able to keep those and my code on the SSD translates into significant time savings for me. – AndyCNX – 2014-11-20T11:25:30.930

Answers

0

Struggle > Benefit, imho.

Imagining that you can get this list of files and all those files can be moved to a different place with little or no harm to the system you’d end up with a—maybe unstable—“Frankenstein” machine and you could also not benefit 100% of the performance gain you’d expect from an SSD (you forgot to move this or that, other problems).

If I were in your shoes I’d focus on easy but radical changes that could make the best use of your 128GB.

What is this computer needed for? What kind of OS and setup suits it best? Why not downgrading to Windows 7 to save space if Windows is mandatory?

Update: Downgrading to Windows 7 will not help: Windows 7 and Windows 8 have the same hdd requirements (Thanks to Rsya Studios' comment for telling me)

P.S. (and Off-Topic):

If your idea of use is compatible, why not trying a Linux distribution since they can be really small? You can install a complete CrunchBang Linux using 3.8GB and there are also way smaller solutions.

Pitto

Posted 2014-11-18T10:14:00.067

Reputation: 1 766

How would downgrading to Windows 7 save space? – Rsya Studios – 2014-11-18T12:40:03.813

+1 The amount of work required to symlink items and the lack of a guarantee that anything would work makes the whole concept of this task a futile effort at best. – JakeGould – 2014-11-19T07:13:59.750

You're totally right +Rsya Studios: I thought that Windows 8 was "fatter". On Microsoft page I read "Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)" for both – Pitto – 2014-11-19T14:05:38.670

Thanks for the input Pitto. FYI, I do a lot of work using Linux (mainly inside VMs). A pure linux work environment is a bit more difficult as there are a lot of Windows native tools I'm used to using. I agree about the symlinking. This would only be feasible if there was an obvious and simple solution to the problem, which looks like there isn't. – AndyCNX – 2014-11-20T11:36:16.603

Just curious: which are the 3 tools you can't live without? – Pitto – 2014-11-20T13:53:57.253

1@Pitto, Word/Excel/Outlook (yes, I've tried Libre Office, but I loose too much of the formatting and features in my existing files), Photoshop/Illustrator/Lightroom (I use these on a regular basis) and here's an interesting one: Everything Search. – AndyCNX – 2014-11-30T14:16:42.323

I'm horribly OT and I've read it's not legal so I don't suggest you to try the Hackintosh solution. I don't. – Pitto – 2014-12-01T14:39:45.503

0

If not for the OS and programs what do you want the space for anyway? I would not advise doing what you are planning, because it will not allow you to get the best performance possible, and will wear out your SSD quickly because if you were to install everything to the SSD you could stop using a page file.

Basically you'll be using your SDD like a hybrid hard drive, and if you Google around you'll notice Hybrid drives stats aren't that great compared to an SSD. For example:

enter image description here

From here

stack exchanger

Posted 2014-11-18T10:14:00.067

Reputation: 21

You are linking to 4 year old benchmarks. In technology a benchmark is invalidated after about 6 months. – Ramhound – 2014-11-19T14:21:42.357

0

Well - compared to "everything on HDD" - if you locate only your Program Files on SSD:

  • your programs installed there will definetly load faster
  • many of your programs will work faster - today there are many applications based on .NET, and almost all .NET library files are located in C:\Program Files (x86)\Reference Assemblies\Microsoft\Framework\.NETFramework

What will still perform slow:

  • your Users directory will be slow - are your programs use it intensively?
  • Windows registry (it is stored in multiple files in Windows and Users directories)
  • device drivers - these are accessed intensively when your computer is booting or when you connect new hardware
  • Windows update (various Windows files and WinSXS directory are used intensively)

If you put pagefile.sys on SSD - you will have better performance in situations when you are out of physical memory (RAM) and Windows is using pagefile. However - this will significantly reduce your SSD life. Some people say, that modern SSD-s have many write cycles per cell, but I personally would never put pagefile on SSD anyway.

If you put your hiberfile.sys on SSD - your computer will hibernate and resume from hibernation faster, but... if you have 8GB of RAM - hiberfile.sys will use something like 6GB of space. If you have 16GB RAM - it will "eat" about 12GB. **I'm just using sleep on laptop instead of hibernation and I have hibernation turned off ** - to save precious SSD space.

What would I do to save space on SSD drive:

  1. Move WinSxs dir to HDD or learn to manage it (read more)
  2. Disable hibernation and use sleep.
  3. Move My Documents, Pictures, Videos, Downloads dirs if you not require fast read/write on them. Of course don't move Videos if you are doing some video editing etc.

Kamil

Posted 2014-11-18T10:14:00.067

Reputation: 2 524

I'm not too worried about the lifespan of the SSD. I use this machine for work so as long as the SSD can last 2+ years, then it's an acceptable cost to replace that. So, for the pagefile, to what extent is that used if I'm unlikely to run out of RAM (16GB)? As for WinSxs, I've looked into that before, but can't find any reliable info on actually moving it. Most sources seem to indicate that this is a very bad idea. – AndyCNX – 2014-11-20T11:29:23.213

The performance boost will be so brutal that you will not care about any expense or future loss :) – Pitto – 2014-11-20T13:55:29.903

It is not possible to move Program Files out of the system drive in modern versions. This is because it contains hardlinks to files in WinSXS. – kinokijuf – 2015-09-08T08:41:39.100