To SSD or not ?

[asik1]

I know many of you moved to SSD for long time now.
I moved only ~6 month ago, and only for system (+ one partition) on 120G ssd.
Other partitions are on HDD.
I just ran across this page
https://mashtips.com/maximize-performan ... fe-of-ssd/
What is your intake to his points?

[pepegota]

I did the same thing. System on C: and the rest on D: & E: However, some programs insist on C: drive installation,
VS Pro 10 being one of them. ON 1 Raw being another. My SSD is a Samsung and I run Samung Magician to check
it out from time to time.

[lata]

Hi Asik

I have all my programs installed to SSD, all personal data saved to HDD along with any downloads.
Similar settings as the web site you provided, like Pepegota my Samsung comes with software to manage pc settings, defrag, indexing etc.
One Read / Write for me is the %Temp% file location.
Auto downloads to desktop are avoided.
Annoyingly Video Studio saves files to C:drive during editing, most of which are unnecessary, Auto Music etc.

Re-installing programs can eat into Read / Write, but most programs are installed once.
If you are gonna move all files/programs from SSD then its pointless having one. Its there to speed up our pc for that programs need installing there, at least that’s my opinion.
If all you are gonna do is save data there its pointless

But its fast when launching programs, transferring data.

I don’t worry to much about the life of the SSD, its gonna last long enough for me.

[aljimenez]

I have had SSD for some time. I have not paid too much attention to optimization, just enjoy the snappiness of my systems with SSD.

I don't agree with Trevor's strategy of using SSD for programs. Programs tend to load once and then memory paging takes the burden of the speed. I like VS using the SSD C drive for all those files it creates as that means editing is faster.

I don't agree with the article asik about Page file being off the SSD. Regardless of SSD life, I want Page file on the SSD. Paging is critical to the performance feel of the system. Paging file is secondary memory and the faster that is the faster the system feels.

Programs that one uses a lot, closes and opens frequently could be optimized by installing them on the SSD drive. Get the largest SSD you can get.

[asik1]

I also set my page to the SSD but I set it to constant size of just 500MB.
I view my resources few times and never did I saw I was choking of lack of memory.

[JWolters]

Hello guys, as I see it and own it.
To get the best performance, using two (or more if there is enough money) SSDs makes sense. The first SSD for the system and important programs (eg 256GB capacity), the second SSD (500GB, more is better) for the production or video editing (footages and render data).
The use of SSDs offers clear advantages. Starting with faster booting, faster application opening, faster loading and saving, and fast video rendering. Particularly in the workflow and rendering of a film, there should be significant speed advantages through an SSD. "Almost twice as fast" compared to a conventional hard drive, according to a manufacturer. What I doubt, though. But there is something true about it.
I have four SSD with the while and I do not want to miss it anymore. Oh yes, there is a SSD of the first hour and still lives.

Just my two cents (opinion).

Edited: clearly there should be more HDDs for an archive and backups.

[Davidk]

Just came across this thread. Interesting discussion points, esp since PC performance management with HDD is a focus of mine.

The article (link in asik's original post) re-iterates points about degrading the life of an SSD, but really doesn't say why. So, here's why:
SSD is constructed from semiconductor memory - just like DDRx RAM, but lots more of it. It's packaged to present the standard disk drive interface so it can be a plug n play device, but every cell in a RAM memory of any sort has a "life" expressed in the number of write cycles before the cell reaches a certain probability of failing. And the amount of RAM that makes up an SSD is why those things are so fiendishly expensive, and thus the focus on what goes on them, altho over time that cost is rapidly getting smaller.

Comparatively, the magnetic material that makes up an HDD has no life limit - recordable pretty much an unlimited number of times: it's life risk is enough vibration to cause a head crash (the heads come into contact with the rotating recorded surface) and thus scar (rip up) the recordable material and make it and quite probably the heads unusable. Experience has made the life HDD in use now pretty much unlimited in reasonable use.

Unlike any HDD (where the magnetic memory arranged in concentric cylinders, with each cylinder segmented into blocks, and thus has a 'seek' (wait) time while the read/write head are moved the necessary cylinder, and for the block containing the required data to rotate so that its under the heads and readable), RAM doesn't have seek time 'waits'. So, on a performance basis, an SSD will eat an HDD for breakfast lunch and dinner.

But SSD does have that irritating 'life of cells' issue, which is why action to avoid un-necessary read/write cycles to an SSD is discussed. And that action comes as configurable options for the OS (eg, where the pagefile is located) and where the applications and data files are stored. Most of those are user preferences and should be recognised as such - how much performance improvement does one wish to get over time versus the cost of replacing the SSD?

[Charlie Wilkes]

I replaced the HDD in my laptop with a Samsung SSD. I was concerned about endurance so I overprovisioned it and set it to maximize the life of the SSD at the cost of some performance. Even so, it removed a performance bottleneck and I have been happy ever since.

I archive my data on HDDs and I use SD cards for lots of stuff. In two years I have only written 6 tb of data to my SSD. At that rate it should last far longer than I intend to keep my old laptop. I think I'm being more cautious than is necessary.

I did have someone come to me with a fancy looking laptop that had an SSD soldered to the board inside a hot-glued case. It was bricked and he wanted his data back. I told him he'd probably have to send it to a recovery lab. He decided it wasn't worth the cost. So I'd be cautious in buying a new laptop with an SSD. I'd want one I could remove and replace.

[Ken Berry]

The cost of SSDs -- admittedly the "old fashioned" types -- is also dropping remarkably. I recently inserted 500 GB Samsung EVO 850s into two old laptops, one of them pretty ancient in today's terms. Both are now showing incredibly sprightly performances, and one of them can run VS 2018 very fast indeed, without need for SmartProxy for just about everything I do. (Admittedly, it was already a 2nd generation i7 and has 8 GB RAM).

But each Samsung cost me only NZ$209 which is not much more than US$150. At that rate, I simply don't care how long they last, though I expect to get several more years out of the two laptops. I accept, though, that this might not be the path that everyone can afford. But I find the recovery of these two laptops to be absolutely astonishing...

[Charlie Wilkes]

OK, this gets a little far afield for VS, but may be of interest in the context of this thread...

HDDs are indeed the bottleneck in older laptops.

What I see is that new mainstream laptops aren't always more powerful. Many are optimized for battery life. They ship with low-power CPUs that are good enough for what most people are doing.

I had a neighbor come to me with a laptop that's about six years old, complaining that it was sluggish. It had a CPU with plenty of zip, and it was a somewhat high-end machine, the kind sold for corporate leases and home offices. She uses it for her business and doesn't need many hours of battery life.

So I popped in an SSD, a bare-drive install of Windows 10 and a clean install of all her software, and upped her RAM from 4gb to 8gb. She's happy, and I think she'll be good to go for another 5-7 years.

I go with Samsung SSDs but I think some of the competitors are catching up. The good ones use NAND and a memory buffer to cut down on writes. The cheapest ones wear out faster and I would avoid them. I have seen comments about cheap OEM laptops with soldered SSDs that start to fail shortly after the warranty expires. The one I mentioned in my post above was a Microsoft Surface - not cheap. In that case the board failed and not the SSD, but I have no idea how to recover data from a storage card soldered to a non-functioning system board.

[iNate]

> HDDs are indeed the bottleneck in older laptops.

Not at all. The CPU is the bottleneck in older Laptops.

You can play 4K video in H.264 or HEVC straight off a 5400 RPM drive without issues; but not if you have a weak CPU. This can extend down to FHD depending on the CPU, especially with 60 FPS footage. The Older CPUs (especially Low Voltage models i.e. Intel U-class and some AMD A## APUs) will not be able to decode the footage fast enough for real-time playback.

This will also bottleneck the PC while editing in an NLE, because these CODECs are not designed for editing.

I have an older (Mid-2013) notebook with an AMD A10 APU that will edit 1080p 60FPS in VEGAS Pro 14 or DaVinci Resolve 15 (with it is massive system requirements) just fine, after transcoding it to ProRes or DNxHD, but the same footage is basically a completely non-starter in VideoStudio 2018 because it doesn't support any Intermediate CODECs (at least not OOTB). The other two will do this with ease using the heavier files with higher bandwidth requirements even off of a 5400 RPM Drive connected over USB3 to the same system.

CPU is king for Video Editing.

Storage requirements depend largely on the weight of the media you're working with, and most people using VideoStudio 2018 won't be using the software in a way that will bottleneck even a 5400 RPM drive - unless they're trying to do everything in Uncompressed AVI (but they will almost never do that - they'll just drag the H.264/HEVC onto the timeline, instead).

[Davidk]

OK so a 'weak' cpu has its issues. Actually, it's the clock speed that matters: for as long as computing has been around, the clock speed of the cpu has been the major determinant of speed and power performance and thus rating. Multiple threads or cores, fast memory and bus speeds all help it along, but clock rate is the main contributor by far. And if you check system specs, most laptops - even "hi end" ones with multi-core cpu's - use cpu's that have clock speeds around 1.8-2.1 ghz. Various reasons for that, but size and heat dissipation are major interacting factors. Comparatively, desktops check in with cpu's having clock rates over 3ghz. That's a good 30-50% faster just on that item alone. And inside the DT case you'll notice a really big fan right on top of the cpu chip to keep it cool: not something that's very practicable in laptop/tablet/slab packaging.

But even a slow cpu has to wait on access to data (programs, or data, it's all "data") that's stored on HDD. And since forever, that's been the case. The expectation of a "hard drive" implemented in RAM and the consequent performance gains has been around almost as long as RAM in chip was technically feasible. It's only recently, say, the last 12-18 months that SSD has been available at a size (storage capacity) and cost that's affordable. And the capacity is getting bigger almost as fast as the price is coming down. And thus the reports of old hardware being re-juvenated by the use of an SSD (several in this thread).

And SSD is also becoming the mechanism for Microsoft to correct the major mistake it made with the ground breaking project 'chicago', aka windows 95, in allowing everything to be stored on C drive (as opposed to the OS only on C and everything else on D). Or have you not seen the specs on new systems that specify fast cpu and SSD, (C drive) with OS only on C and an integral HDD for everything else? esp since windows 10 came out.

The combination of a good fast cpu and SSD is formidable, but you can't change the cpu and its clock rate unless you replace the whole processor package/motherboard: essentially, buy a new PC. But you can replace an HDD with SSD reasonably easily: backup C, replace it with SSD, restore C: and you are in business, much cheaper.

[Charlie Wilkes]

OK so a 'weak' cpu has its issues. Actually, it's the clock speed that matters: for as long as computing has been around, the clock speed of the cpu has been the major determinant of speed and power performance and thus rating. Multiple threads or cores, fast memory and bus speeds all help it along, but clock rate is the main contributor by far. And if you check system specs, most laptops - even "hi end" ones with multi-core cpu's - use cpu's that have clock speeds around 1.8-2.1 ghz. Various reasons for that, but size and heat dissipation are major interacting factors. Comparatively, desktops check in with cpu's having clock rates over 3ghz. That's a good 30-50% faster just on that item alone. And inside the DT case you'll notice a really big fan right on top of the cpu chip to keep it cool: not something that's very practicable in laptop/tablet/slab packaging.

But even a slow cpu has to wait on access to data (programs, or data, it's all "data") that's stored on HDD. And since forever, that's been the case. The expectation of a "hard drive" implemented in RAM and the consequent performance gains has been around almost as long as RAM in chip was technically feasible. It's only recently, say, the last 12-18 months that SSD has been available at a size (storage capacity) and cost that's affordable. And the capacity is getting bigger almost as fast as the price is coming down. And thus the reports of old hardware being re-juvenated by the use of an SSD (several in this thread).

And SSD is also becoming the mechanism for Microsoft to correct the major mistake it made with the ground breaking project 'chicago', aka windows 95, in allowing everything to be stored on C drive (as opposed to the OS only on C and everything else on D). Or have you not seen the specs on new systems that specify fast cpu and SSD, (C drive) with OS only on C and an integral HDD for everything else? esp since windows 10 came out.

The combination of a good fast cpu and SSD is formidable, but you can't change the cpu and its clock rate unless you replace the whole processor package/motherboard: essentially, buy a new PC. But you can replace an HDD with SSD reasonably easily: backup C, replace it with SSD, restore C: and you are in business, much cheaper.

Yes, it's a cheap fix that worked for me and works for others. Most of what I do does not heat up my CPU, but it was thrashing my hard drive until I replaced it.

But iNate is right. For video editing, CPU is more important than faster storage. I should have spelled that out in my post above.

[iNate]

OK so a 'weak' cpu has its issues. Actually, it's the clock speed that matters: for as long as computing has been around, the clock speed of the cpu has been the major determinant of speed and power performance and thus rating. Multiple threads or cores, fast memory and bus speeds all help it along, but clock rate is the main contributor by far. And if you check system specs, most laptops - even "hi end" ones with multi-core cpu's - use cpu's that have clock speeds around 1.8-2.1 ghz. Various reasons for that, but size and heat dissipation are major interacting factors. Comparatively, desktops check in with cpu's having clock rates over 3ghz. That's a good 30-50% faster just on that item alone. And inside the DT case you'll notice a really big fan right on top of the cpu chip to keep it cool: not something that's very practicable in laptop/tablet/slab packaging.

No, because different processors can perform differently at the same clock speed. Newer Processors will perform better than older processors at the same or lower clock speed. Different vendors may also give different performance levels at the same clock speed.

And SSD is also becoming the mechanism for Microsoft to correct the major mistake it made with the ground breaking project 'chicago', aka windows 95, in allowing everything to be stored on C drive (as opposed to the OS only on C and everything else on D). Or have you not seen the specs on new systems that specify fast cpu and SSD, (C drive) with OS only on C and an integral HDD for everything else? esp since windows 10 came out.

Pro Media Applications have Pro Media specifications. I don't think Microsoft Office is asking anyone to have a RAID Array to store their documents....

Windows 10 has nothing to do with anything. It performs better than Windows 7, and Windows 8 is a complete non-option due to its horrible User Experience and Multiple Personality Disorder. Unless you're into conspiracy theories, there is no point to run anything else, and it is a complete performance an efficiency upgrade over any OS that has come before it - easily. Windows 10 runs better on hardware that shipped with Windows 7 than Windows 7 does.

In regards to Video Editing, a lot of this has to do with where the market is going, and what these Professional NLEs are expected to do. Windows 10 was released in 2015. That's about 3 years ago. Since then, editing RAW 4K footage has become a "Prosumer" thing, and the industry is moving to 5K, 8K, and beyond. Avid recently introduced support for 16K Rasters (i.e Resolution) in their NLE.

The Professional solutions are specced according to their intended usages.

VideoStudio only needs your system drive, because the developers expect that the consumer user base of this application will be using it to edit compressed media directly out of their camera. That is why it doesn't even support the file types that would generally cause performance bottlenecks (except Uncompressed AVI, which almost no one uses - file sizes being one reason, interoperability being another).

[Skipper]

Just when I thought I was learning something worthwhile from someone who "knows" along comes another and trashes truth with their own version.
Clearly there is truth here but just who is writing it? I am not taking sides with any contributor in this thread and my technical understanding is insufficient to voice comprehensive analysis
However my PC has been running a Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD since March 2015 when an upgrade for my then "old" (march 2012) machine was deemed worthwhile.
In the last month a glitch of unknown origin had me thinking something had died in the heart of the beast and all was lost, but not so, a little tinkering and she runs to fight another day
Well for now at least, hense my interest in building a new "box" with the right stuff inside, which will certainly include a larger SSD drive for operating system with room to let VS do its thing before I move any completed files over to a seperate HDD.
What would be interesting to learn is "if" it is possible to interogate the SSD and determinethe number of re-writes it has undertaken or if there is another way to tell when the drive is coming to the end of its reliable life expectancy? My 3 years of service may be tiny compared to the work others do in a similar time frame