are there any disadvantages to partitioning an SSD?

[N0n g3n3r1c us3rn4m3]

I have a 120 GB ssd currently running windows 8.1 and virtualbox running a linux distro but i have been thinking of doing a dual-boot set up.

Anyone see or know of any problems with that?

 

Just some background i have done this multiple time b4 with hdd's just wonder about ssd's if it makes and difference.  

[Altecice]

Nope just the same

[flibberdipper]

Nope.

[N0n g3n3r1c us3rn4m3]

otay thanx guys...trust this community more then most

[Columbo]

No, but why would you partition an SSD? 

[Extingquish]

No, but why would you partition an SSD? 

 

He wants to dual-boot 

 i have been thinking of doing a dual-boot set up.

[Columbo]

He wants to dual-boot 

Why not simply have two SSD's and use a bios boot? It makes it cleaner. I understand 1TB hard drives but 120gb is a very small storage drive. 

[Satlen]

Why not simply have two SSD's and use a bios boot? It makes it cleaner. I understand 1TB hard drives but 120gb is a very small storage drive. 

Why would he buy a whole new ssd if it is not even needed? Its not like partitioning an ssd kills it...

[Extingquish]

Why not simply have two SSD's and use a bios boot? It makes it cleaner. I understand 1TB hard drives but 120gb is a very small storage drive. 

Yes it's cleaner to have 2 SSDs, but if one does the same job (minus the "extra" storage) I don't see a problem in it, especially since it's just a boot drive

[Tiby]

Besides being prone to more file system de-fragmentation and increased writing cycles that can potentially wear off the SSD quicker, there is nothing wrong in partitioning an SSD. 

PS: If you're going to put linux on a separate parition be sure you enable TRIM on ext4. 

[Dimwitted]

I'm going against the flow and not recommend it. You're already making a small drive even smaller and taking away the ssd's ability to reprovision itself from all available NAND. By forcing smaller partitions you're going to wear it out faster. Given how cheap the drives are getting I would just get another drive. Also, the big problem with ssd drives is that they will fail unexpectedly and permanently.

 

You're just asking for problems.

[mc141]

120 too small to split in my opinion

[Humbug]

I'm going against the flow and not recommend it. You're already making a small drive even smaller and taking away the ssd's ability to reprovision itself from all available NAND. By forcing smaller partitions you're going to wear it out faster. Given how cheap the drives are getting I would just get another drive. Also, the big problem with ssd drives is that they will fail unexpectedly and permanently.

C.

You're just asking for problems.

SSDs do no fail more than HDDs. And they are also very reselient to writes. He would have to overwrite the entire capacity of the drove multiple times everyday for years in order to create an impression. These are myths propagated by the enthusiast community. The fact that NAND flash has finite write cycles is irrelevant to the average user.

[Dimwitted]

SSDs do no fail more than HDDs. And they are also very reselient to writes. He would have to overwrite the entire capacity of the drove multiple times everyday for years in order to create an impression. These are myths propagated by the enthusiast community. The fact that NAND flash has finite write cycles is irrelevant to the average user.

Not if you fill them up and not let the drive work through trim and garbage collection because it has no where to go. It's common knowledge that you should leave at least 5% of the drive's space free. Partitioning a small drive will exacerbate that by dividing up already limited space. Trying to get cute will only cost.

[Blade of Grass]

Besides being prone to more file system de-fragmentation and increased writing cycles that can potentially wear off the SSD quicker, there is nothing wrong in partitioning an SSD.

PS: If you're going to put linux on a separate parition be sure you enable TRIM on ext4.

Why would there be increased write cycles? Why would there be more fragmentation?

I'm going against the flow and not recommend it. You're already making a small drive even smaller and taking away the ssd's ability to reprovision itself from all available NAND. By forcing smaller partitions you're going to wear it out faster. Given how cheap the drives are getting I would just get another drive. Also, the big problem with ssd drives is that they will fail unexpectedly and permanently.

You're just asking for problems.

Why wouldn't it be able to reprovision itself?

SSDs provide a false view of their physical setup to the operating system. The operating sees it just the same as a traditional hard drive.

Fragmentation of the file system is just as likely on a partition as on a normal drive, the system doesn't see them differently.

Wear leveling algorithms run behind the scenes by the SSDs controller, and the OS does not see it.

OP: other than losing a tiny, insignificant amount of space, nope.

[Dimwitted]

So you're telling me that if you partition a 120gb ssd into two drives, say 68 gb and 28 gb, put Win on the larger and a distro on the smaller, you will have no issues? Trim and GC will work just fine over both as if the partition is not there? That leaving barely 10% space for your Win 7 install is sufficient and that not will eat that space in an instant, just because?

 

I think you're nuts.

[Godlygamer23]

Why would he buy a whole new ssd if it is not even needed? Its not like partitioning an ssd kills it...

But it will rip a hole in the space-time continuum. OP, you don't want to kill us, do you?*

 

*This post is not to be taken seriously.

[Captain_WD]

I have a 120 GB ssd currently running windows 8.1 and virtualbox running a linux distro but i have been thinking of doing a dual-boot set up.

Anyone see or know of any problems with that?

 

Just some background i have done this multiple time b4 with hdd's just wonder about ssd's if it makes and difference.  

 

 

Hey N0n g3n3r1c us3rn4m3,

 

There shouldn't be a problem doing that as long as you have TRIM enabled. As it was mentioned, you are probably going to increase the writing on the drive and thus wear it off more quickly, but it again depends on how you use the dual-drive. 

 

I should mention that SSDs require 12% to 15% free space in order to function at optimal speeds. That would limit your usable space to about 100GB, 30GB to 35GB of which would go to Windows 8.1 and still more if you have MS Office. I would suggest first calculating how much space you would need on that SSD for all your OSs and applications before splitting it.

 

Captain_WD.

[Tiby]

Why would there be increased write cycles? Why would there be more fragmentation?

Why wouldn't it be able to reprovision itself?

SSDs provide a false view of their physical setup to the operating system. The operating sees it just the same as a traditional hard drive.

Fragmentation of the file system is just as likely on a partition as on a normal drive, the system doesn't see them differently.

Wear leveling algorithms run behind the scenes by the SSDs controller, and the OS does not see it.

OP: other than losing a tiny, insignificant amount of space, nope.

 

The file system has to be administered on both partitions (even if in fact is a single SSD). This in addition to lowering the size of free space blocks can lead to more activity on an SSD then what you will have without partitions. It won't brake the SSD but on the long run it will deteriorate more. 

I won't take into account the usage for this (anyone can partition ssd's and then make a software raid with them hoping to increase performance), but as I said it won't harm the performance of the SSD in a noticable way.

[DirkW]

So you're telling me that if you partition a 120gb ssd into two drives, say 68 gb and 28 gb, put Win on the larger and a distro on the smaller, you will have no issues? Trim and GC will work just fine over both as if the partition is not there? That leaving barely 10% space for your Win 7 install is sufficient and that not will eat that space in an instant, just because?

 

I think you're nuts.

 

And I think you are rude.

 

I also think what he means is, that unlike with HDDs (where a partition is really physically assigned to a certain area on the magnetic platters (from the outside inwards), and limited to that area), SSDs only emulate this HDD-like behaviour, while internally, the controller does things in a completely different way. It actually allows the wear to be equally spread among all the NAND cells of an SSD. (Wear leveling).

Why should that only work within one large partition (where the actual data gets stored to different parts of the NAND all the time by the controller) but no longer, just because it shows now two partitions? In the background, the same wear levelling takes place. Having a 30 GB partition on an SSD does not mean the data will only be stored on these 30GB worth of NAND cells - that's just how the OS sees things (just as if it were a classical hard drive). The actual hardware (NAND and controller) doesn't care all that much about fancy things like partitions and such. They only handle and store raw data, and distribute it wherever they seem fit. Then they simply map the real (ever changing) locations of the actual data, to some simulated fixed positions the OS expects to see. Many people think way too static about SSDs - they store data a bit more dynamically, than can be seen from the outside (or as HDDs used to).

[Dimwitted]

So what you're telling me that a partition is ignored by the drive for low level maintenance? If he partitions the drive it will be ignored and both O/S's will be treated as one large data dump? 

 

I find that very hard to believe.

[Humbug]

So what you're telling me that a partition is ignored by the drive for low level maintenance? If he partitions the drive it will be ignored and both O/S's will be treated as one large data dump? 

 

I find that very hard to believe.

Although they function totally differently, from the perspective of the host OS, an SSD appears similar to a conventional hard drive with rotating discs. The Logical to Physical Sector Block Address Translation Layer manages the placement of sectors. The SSD’s Controller constantly writes new data or updates previous data to the first available free block which contains the least number of writes. This is to ensure that the number of write cycles per block is minimized, thereby maximizing the drive’s longevity. Blocks containing old data are marked as “not in use” by the host OS. However, the data remains in the blocks until eventually erased by the GC function. The constant movement of data between blocks and pages can result in parts of any file being stored in any physical sector. The data’s location, its Physical Block Address (PBA), must be tracked. To maintain organization, the Controller uses a mapping table to remap the LBA to the PBA. The table is referred to as the Logical to Physical Block Address Translation Table, or LBA–PBA Translation Table and has to be continually updated such that it can properly identify the correct address or location of data. As long as the index is changed when the data is physically moved, the data can still be located. (This is somewhat analogous to the function of the index of a book which points to the page number or location of a specific topic.) It is important to note that the physical location of any block will inevitably not match the external Logical Block Address.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2014/04/solid-state-drives-part-5

 

Physical location of data is handled by the controller, invisible to the rest of the computer outside the SSD.

[Dimwitted]

Which makes perfect sense. It's analogous to the MBR on a hdd. By the same token, it also doesn't mean that there is only one, just one per partition. Otherwise you're going to have one table per drive with all data scrambled. That's nightmare fuel and most definitely partitioning a drive is NOT recommended!

[N0n g3n3r1c us3rn4m3]

well its done lol...posting this from my linux partition so far no problems

[Captain_WD]

well its done lol...posting this from my linux partition so far no problems

 

Congrats Make sure to post again if you happen to have any problems.

 

Captain_WD.