Separating OS on Smaller SSD?

[chowbaaron]

I've been trying to figure out my new gaming PC build, and I've gotten down to deciding on my storage layout. I'm have a basic understanding of the difference between the drives but not sure of the best route to take here.

 

I've been told to install the OS and some games that have long load times on my SSD and to keep other applications/files on a HDD. I've also been told to keep the OS entirely separate (on say, a 250gb SSD). Is it worth it to have 3 drives to do so (for example; 250gb 860 Evo for the OS, Crucial P1 1TB for apps/games, and 2TB SeaGate Barracuda for file storage), or just two (a large M.2 NVMe for the OS/apps/games and a large HDD for file storage)?

[Xiee]

I would definitely separate the OS on a dedicated SSD (preferably M.2 for faster load times). 

 

As for games, if you'd like the faster load times, stick with the Crucial P1 1TB. If you're on a budget, get an HDD.

 

My setup is currently like this:

- 240GB Geil SSD - Windows Drive

- 2TB Western Digital Black HDD - Games, other software and general file storage

 

[chowbaaron]

Is having one large SSD (say the Crucial P1 1TB M.2 NVMe) and installing the OS and games/software on it a good move, as opposed to getting a second, smaller SSD for the OS to isolate it better?

[RobFRaschke]

12 minutes ago, chowbaaron said:

Is having one large SSD (say the Crucial P1 1TB M.2 NVMe) and installing the OS and games/software on it a good move, as opposed to getting a second, smaller SSD for the OS to isolate it better?

Crucial P1 with OS and some games will be easier to manage and have essentially identical performance to putting the OS on a separate SSD from the P1. The advantage of having your OS and games on separate drives just comes down to what you have to do if your OS goes completely corrupt or the drive fails. If the games, which can require MASSIVE downloads, are on their own SSD, then they're protected and you don't have to do much to get them running again after you re-install Windows.

 

However, if you have enough spinning rust, you can manually or automatically back up your games from your single SSD to the HDD so if you did have some kind of failure, you only have to restore them from a HDD to an SSD, which is likely many times faster than having to re-install over an external network.

[chowbaaron]

22 minutes ago, RobFRaschke said:

Crucial P1 with OS and some games will be easier to manage and have essentially identical performance to putting the OS on a separate SSD from the P1. The advantage of having your OS and games on separate drives just comes down to what you have to do if your OS goes completely corrupt or the drive fails. If the games, which can require MASSIVE downloads, are on their own SSD, then they're protected and you don't have to do much to get them running again after you re-install Windows.

 

However, if you have enough spinning rust, you can manually or automatically back up your games from your single SSD to the HDD so if you did have some kind of failure, you only have to restore them from a HDD to an SSD, which is likely many times faster than having to re-install over an external network.

Thanks, sounds like just the Crucial P1 and some HDD storage is the way to go.

Additionally, has the lifespan of an SSD ever really impacted you? I was linked this site (http://www.johnnylucky.org/data-storage/ssd-database.html) which lists the P1 anywhere from 100-400TBW. I'd likely be occasionally uninstalling/installing games mostly on that drive, but doubt I'd really ever hit that cap. Mostly wondering if it's a possibility if I plan on holding onto this PC for several years.

[RobFRaschke]

I have been running SSDs since OCZ actually made their own, and their own ram if that gives you a good idea. I can't remember the year, but I had a 60GB Vector 2 or 3 that was my main boot drive, then a boot drive in a laptop for a while, then I gave that laptop to my sister and now one of my nephews uses it. It is down on space as it's run out of spare space and has started to just shut down cells that no longer function, but it still works and is faster than a HDD. I have a Second Gen WD Black nVME 250GB that has been my boot drive, has seen windows re-installed from scratch several times, has had a metric butt load of junk loaded in and out, and used as a scratch drive for image and video editing. It still shows the original 232GB formatted size it has shown since day 1 and it has run anywhere from clean install, to generally sitting about 50% used, to actually being full a couple times when a project got out of control on size.

 

I have added a 1TB 860Evo Sata drive as a write cache for my dual 8TB WD Reds and have all my games loaded on it, but I have several times loaded a secondary OS on it directly and have to admit that SATA SSDs are more than fast enough for 99% of daily use and my main reason for using an nVME drive is the lack of wiring and places in my case for additional drives.