What Would LTT Forum Members Do?

[PineyCreek]

So here's the scenario: I'm planning a build, and I already have 2 5TB mechanical drives for data storage (docs, videos, etc.) with external backup.  My personal preference when building a computer is having Boot/OS/productivity progs on one drive, and games on their own drive.  This makes OS reinstalls easier to do since games don't have to be reinstalled, reloaded, etc.  However, what do you think from cost, personal preference, etc.?

[scottyseng]

I have a single large SSD for my OS / programs. I don't have many games (at least enough to warrant a separate drive), but keep in mind not all games can be run without being reinstalled first. I think it would work for steam, but non steam games might force you to reinstall.

 

I have my NAS with a large RAID array for my actual data. (16 x 4TB in RAID6).

[grimreeper132]

I have none of them, I have 2 240GB SSDs (1 originally but I filled it so got another, neither are in RAID) a 1TB HDD, which I use for long term file storage, or for older games which don't need SSDs, and then a NAS with 2 1TB HDDs which are in RAID 1 for important file storage/transfers (so I don't need USBs for that) between PCs as well as back up for anything else that I need.

 

It's not the cheapest set up but it works for me

[grimreeper132]

Just now, scottyseng said:

I have my NAS with a large RAID array for my actual data. (16 x 4TB in RAID6).

I want your NAS, why, dunno I wouldn't use that much storage, just want that storage  

[scottyseng]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

I want your NAS, why, dunno I wouldn't use that much storage, just want that storage  

Haha, the wallet doesn't agree though. I try to toss in two or three 4TB drives a year.

 

Yeah, the good part is everything is in one place. No need to filter through separate drives.

[grimreeper132]

Just now, scottyseng said:

Haha, the wallet doesn't agree though. I try to toss in two or three 4TB drives a year.

 

Yeah, the good part is everything is in one place. No need to filter through separate drives.

that just makes it sound even better, my problem is I wouldn't in any possible way be able to afford that

[twoSalty]

surely you mean 256GB, not MB?

[PineyCreek]

2 minutes ago, twoSalty said:

surely you mean 256GB, not MB?

Crap, you're definitely right about that.

[PineyCreek]

9 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

I have none of them, I have 2 240GB SSDs (1 originally but I filled it so got another, neither are in RAID) a 1TB HDD, which I use for long term file storage, or for older games which don't need SSDs, and then a NAS with 2 1TB HDDs which are in RAID 1 for important file storage/transfers (so I don't need USBs for that) between PCs as well as back up for anything else that I need.

 

It's not the cheapest set up but it works for me

My long-term end goal is to have a rackmount NAS for personal storage and shared backups (encrypted backups synced via torrent between friends so everyone has multiple offsite backups).  I just have the money for one or the other right now   That much spinning rust adds up.

[Oshino Shinobu]

None of those. If we're talking ideal setup:

 

1TB SSD for OS and programs and another 1TB SSD for games. 500GB NVMe SSD as a kind of scratch disk. All mass storage on a NAS using mechanical drives, then backed up to high capacity archive drives. 

[PineyCreek]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

None of those. If we're talking ideal setup:

 

1TB SSD for OS and programs and another 1TB SSD for games. 500GB NVMe SSD as a kind of scratch disk. All mass storage on a NAS using mechanical drives, then backed up to high capacity archive drives. 

I can see that.  I'm curious though, why not an NVMe drive for OS?  Do you feel the performance difference or loss of lanes isn't worth it?

[twoSalty]

Just now, PineyCreek said:

I can see that.  I'm curious though, why not an NVMe drive for OS?  Do you feel the performance difference or loss of lanes isn't worth it?

what if your mobo doesnt support it like mine?

[PineyCreek]

2 minutes ago, twoSalty said:

what if your mobo doesnt support it like mine?

Well, that's always a possibility...that's why I made sure to mention this was for a new-build scenario.  My current board doesn't even have SATA3...I run my SSD using a add-on card.

[twoSalty]

Just now, PineyCreek said:

Well, that's always a possibility...that's why I made sure to mention this was for a new-build scenario.  My current board doesn't even have SATA3...I run my SSD using a add-on card.

my mobo is poo anyways, gugabyte claims to be ultra durable but one of the pci ports that my network card was in died, just because windows 10 went into bloddy sleep for 5 minutes.

[desertcomputer]

Well i love my current setup, All SSD drive installed on my system (two 500 GB, and  250GB) and I have server (ZFS/FreeNAS/6TB total usable space)where i store all my media and large files. My current system is quite as hell and i don't need to worry about bulking hard drive. 

None of option are available in your poll.

[Oshino Shinobu]

2 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

I can see that.  I'm curious though, why not an NVMe drive for OS?  Do you feel the performance difference or loss of lanes isn't worth it?

NVMe excels at sequential read/writes, but in terms of small, random read/writes, they're not really any different from a regular SATA SSD. For an OS drive, the main use for everyday things is going to be random read/writes, so NVMe doesn't offer any benefit for that but still costs significantly more. There's also a point where drive speed doesn't matter anymore for loading applications, and the differences between SATA and NVMe is not going to be noticeable for launching programs. 

 

Sure, you could just throw an NVMe SSD in there for the boot drive, but there's not really any point as far as I can see, it's just spending more money. While I said it was the ideal setup for me, I did it based on what I would actually buy and not just pick the biggest/fastest even when it's not needed. 

[scottyseng]

11 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

My long-term end goal is to have a rackmount NAS for personal storage and shared backups (encrypted backups synced via torrent between friends so everyone has multiple offsite backups).  I just have the money for one or the other right now   That much spinning rust adds up.

Your wallet will go downhill once you get a rackmount. It starts with the chassis. Then the rails. Then the server rack.

 

Next thing you know, you've spent several thousand on drives / server rack bits.

[PineyCreek]

2 minutes ago, MrUnknownEMC said:

Well i love my current setup, All SSD drive installed on my system (two 500 GB, and  250GB) and I have server (ZFS/FreeNAS/6TB total usable space)where i store all my media and large files. My current system is quite as hell and i don't need to worry about bulking hard drive. 

None of option are available in your poll.

That's a good one to add

[tlink]

1 ssd per operating system and 1 large ssd for programs that need speed, mechanical harddrive's for movies and backups. preferably the mechanical (NAS) drives in a NAS server but if physical space is a problem just throw it in there anyways.

[slightlyjaded]

My opinion is partly based around fiscal realities.

 

I run a 256 GB M.2 drive as my OS, and for important programs. (NVMe didn't exist at the time) Basically it's small because that shit is expensive.

I have a 256 GB SSD that I use for games and programs that need a SSD to run properly.

I have a 4TB WB blasck drive for everything else that I save the bulk of my games, and random shit too.

I've recently brought an extra 480 GB SSD because my initial SSD was starting to fill up.

 

Basically I store my data under the idea that if it doesn't need an ssd it goes on the hard drive. If it's an application that I'll use a lot it goes onto the M.2 drive, and if it's a game that Requires a SSD to run properly (Yes stellaris I'm looking at you) it goes onto the SSD.

[PineyCreek]

5 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

NVMe excels at sequential read/writes, but in terms of small, random read/writes, they're not really any different from a regular SATA SSD. For an OS drive, the main use for everyday things is going to be random read/writes, so NVMe doesn't offer any benefit for that but still costs significantly more. There's also a point where drive speed doesn't matter anymore for loading applications, and the differences between SATA and NVMe is not going to be noticeable for launching programs. 

 

Sure, you could just throw an NVMe SSD in there for the boot drive, but there's not really any point as far as I can see, it's just spending more money. While I said it was the ideal setup for me, I did it based on what I would actually buy and not just pick the biggest/fastest even when it's not needed. 

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it.

[PineyCreek]

5 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

Your wallet will go downhill once you get a rackmount. It starts with the chassis. Then the rails. Then the server rack.

 

Next thing you know, you've spent several thousand on drives / server rack bits.

Oh, I understand and expect it.  That's why it's a long-term goal.  However, I do already have a cabinet, KVM setup, and rack networking already from working on network labs, so the big cost is the NAS hardware itself and then ongoing power and replacement drive costs.

[Ostwind]

I use a 120GB for my OS, a 525GB for games and a 4TB external for media. The SSD's are SATA as I dont have M.2 on my board, though even if i did i wouldnt get an M.2 drive since I wouldnt be able to drop it in another system if I needed to. I'm also not a speed queen like most people, SATA SSD's are still fast as balls.

 

I dont think I would ever bother with RAID again, I had a pair of mechanical drives in RAID 0 but I got really unlucky and both of them failed mechanically. I only bothered with RAID because I bought the drives at different times because I couldnt afford $120 for a 2TB HDD at the time. Since then Ive just gone with single larger drives over RAID setups as I dont see any point in bothering with them since my PC usage consists of gaming and media consumption. 

[yathis]

37 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

However, what do you think from cost, personal preference, etc.?

Use a SSD

[twoSalty]

1 minute ago, yathis said:

Use a SSD

an*