Gaming build? Good enough?

[ubuysa]

Agreed on backups, but also avoid keeping critical information on SSD’s.

Well again I disagree I'm afraid. No storage media is permanent - it's going to fail whatever you use, and sooner than you think most likely.

When choosing your storage media the only consideration should be whether it offers the required performance for the applications using that data. And that absolutely includes critical data - in fact it applies even more to mission critical data because you absolutely want that on the storage media that offers the required application performance.

Worrying about whether and when any storage media will fail shouldn't be an overriding consideration. If you're eschewing SSDs just because you're afraid the SSDs will fail earlier than an HDD then I'd suggest you're not seeing the wood for the trees. The sole purpose of online storage is to hold data that your mission critical applications need in an appropriately fast time. They way you ensure that you never lose data is by journaling transactions if necessary and by backing up on a regular basis.

Backups mean you don't have to worry about when any storage media may fail so that you can select the most appropriate media for your data based only on the needs of the applications.

 

[Gavras]

Well again I disagree I'm afraid. No storage media is permanent - it's going to fail whatever you use, and sooner than you think most likely.

When choosing your storage media the only consideration should be whether it offers the required performance for the applications using that data. And that absolutely includes critical data - in fact it applies even more to mission critical data because you absolutely want that on the storage media that offers the required application performance.

Worrying about whether and when any storage media will fail shouldn't be an overriding consideration. If you're eschewing SSDs just because you're afraid the SSDs will fail earlier than an HDD then I'd suggest you're not seeing the wood for the trees. The sole purpose of online storage is to hold data that your mission critical applications need in an appropriately fast time. They way you ensure that you never lose data is by journaling transactions if necessary and by backing up on a regular basis.

Backups mean you don't have to worry about when any storage media may fail so that you can select the most appropriate media for your data based only on the needs of the applications.

No I am not, I use SSD’s , however they are pretty much the very last thing I would use for backups of any critical data.

for odd non critical stuff, yeah no problem, I do that.

I am using data between a number of large organisations and the testing over 4 years (which is still ongoing for each product line).

I am not Afraid, please do not put words in my mouth, at no point was there ever any mention of being afraid.

We deal with a company to protect specific critical data, it is not kept on SSD, it is kept on Blu-ray and duplicated in cloud.

They would seriously laugh at people putting critical data on an SSD.

Critical information is kept in the most protected medium, not one that has the best performance - the mention of performance is usually Sales speak that server types come out with, sat through enough.

From experience in normal operations over 8 years, an SSD WILL fail more than an HDD, that is from over 200,000 units in the field. That is real world experience, however there is more to business than just reliability, performance, weight of items, size (how many can be carried, stored and sent out as spares) all come in to it. It’s newish tech, it’s improving but as shown earlier, even Microsoft have issues with how to manage it. No doubt M.2 will have its own bunch of problems, likely heat related but that’s guessing.

the very very first thing about mission critical data (and for over 30 years I dealt with proper mission data) is protection of it, whether it’s from jamming, from damage through shock, even explosive impact, having built in data duplication or triplication to ensure that mission critical data is available to actually prosecute the mission, after that it has been used for the mission, then it’s not really an issue.

The thing with Mission critical data, is in the name, majority of missions are 1 off occurrences.

The actual speed or performance (if it’s tape, EEPROM, hdd or SSD) rarely comes in to it, agreed it does factor, however it’s the security and reliability of the data that comes first, then how quickly you access it

You really really need it to be available at that point in time it is required, the systems that use the information are invariably costed to ensure that the information is presented correctly and performance is as expected.

When planning a backup strategy, yes you do need to think about the reliability of the media you are backing up to, before you think about performance. There is a reason so many organisation backup to DVD, Blu-ray, performance is not really top of the consideration pile. Someone with lots of precious photos and documents, is likely more interested that the backup is reliable, safe and is willing to sacrifice the speed of access in the knowledge that there backup is protected.

 

[ubuysa]

I wouldn't use SSD as a backup medium either, but that's not what I thought we were talking about? SSDs are online storage devices, where acces time is what's important. My point is that application performance is usually key and storage media should be selected to best meet the application's requirements.

For backup devices, which is what I think you're talking about (nobody would suggest the BluRay was an online storage media for example), access time is of less importance and media longevity is.

 

[Ash_]

I think this is getting a little more technical than it needs to, basically OP, you’re going to want an SSD and a bigger HHD

 

[ubuysa]

I think this is getting a little more technical than it needs to, basically OP, you’re going to want an SSD and a bigger HHD

Indeed, apologies to the OP for the thread drift. [emoji4]

 

[TiaBar]

Indeed, apologies to the OP for the thread drift. [emoji4]

Np, i was just wondering if having a dedicated OS drive is worth it, because otherwise i would save some cash on it because i will almost surely not fill the 2 TB even with all the big games installed and i have fast Internet so i dont mind redownloading them.

 

[ubuysa]

Np, i was just wondering if having a dedicated OS drive is worth it, because otherwise i would save some cash on it because i will almost surely not fill the 2 TB even with all the big games installed and i have fast Internet so i dont mind redownloading them.

For performance then yes, a dedicated OS drive is worth it.

 

[TiaBar]

For performance then yes, a dedicated OS drive is worth it.

Ye, but i wish they had smaller sizes M.2 SSD, because having a 500gb just for the booting the OS seems a waste, smaller sizes are slower when speaking about the EVOs.

 

[Gavras]

Ye, but i wish they had smaller sizes M.2 SSD, because having a 500gb just for the booting the OS seems a waste, smaller sizes are slower when speaking about the EVOs.

You can put the odd game on them.

I have Valhalla on mine at moment and some other bits.

Its just not my dedicated games disk.

 

[Martinr36]

I've a 1TB PCS M.2 as my C drive & another one as my games drive

 

[Scott]

I generally find 500GB as a primary to be a decent tradeoff. Keeping everything running at maximum means you have to cap your fill to 250GB (50%). 100GB for the OS and minor programs, 100GB for major programs or a game or 2 and 50GB for general drive bulk that tends to happen over time regardless.

It works out OK for me but I did have to have a tidy up the other day as I hadn't noticed I had drifted into 350GB used territory.

I also tend to limit myself to 500GB as I could easily just fill my drive with tat. It forces me to remain organised.