tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
^Tool
tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
JohnEBoy...automatic updates is perfectly acceptable for single workstation requirements such as this. If there's a problem it's very simple to roll back.
I would never advocate using it in a larger multi user environment.
I would never advocate using it in a larger multi user environment.
Those pesky mechanical drives are cheap, high density, and the reliability is established.
The solid state drives are still a bit off to the side. Expensive (relatively), low capacity (relatively), and then there's the levelling and wear effects.
I wouldn't use one as a primary drive on a desktop or server.
tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
^yet high end SAN manufacturers are switching to them! 
Yep we have one at work (required by Microsoft to make their bloated Biztalk based based solution run fast enough).^yet high end SAN manufacturers are switching to them!
Plenty big enough for the OS partition on a server, and desktop if you don't have any large games installed on that partition. Clone the drive to another partition on the main drive, then you can boot of that if the SSD goes down. Regularly do this on our two drive machines at home so you can lose a drive or get some malware and simply switch to the other partition.
^yet high end SAN manufacturers are switching to them!
The trade offs are rather different with high end SAN.
Drive arrays with multiple high speed interfaces and more sophisticated controllers. Backed by rather more complex procurement and service agreements.
Not exactly comparable with a desktop.
tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
Yes....that's a good way of working.
It's good practice to install all your apps to a secondary drive.
tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
Multifunctional, portable, and occasionally even useful.
Still slower than main memory. Still way lower capacity than commodity 1Tb and 2Tbyte drives.
It's a tradeoff. Money better spent elsewhere.
They are the weakest point in any server or workstation unfortunately, so pesky is right.
You would stick with a Penny Farthing with that logic.
This kind of thing will be resolved in time. The more that are bought, as with any electronics, reliability and performance improve and price drops, as you've elluded to.
Unfortunately, mechanical will always be more unreliable than solid state.
Let other people buy them and get them developed to that point.
Hard drive failures aren't at the top of the list of failures for desktops IME. (Different matter with servers but the drive to other hardware ratio is typically higher in most of our setups).
tpwuk
MB Enthusiast
Faster than mechanical drives and size matters not when using it purely for the OS. Anyone who uses a 1TB or bigger drive for the OS drive needs their brain restoring to a previous point in time!
Dogma again.
D
Deleted member 37751
Guest
I'd love to know what you lot are arguing about so I could join in.
It's like learning a new language, all this geek speak!
It's like learning a new language, all this geek speak!
In which case our opinions will always differ as in mine, it's batteries and hard disks in notebooks, PSUs occasionally and many more hard disks in desktops. With high end servers, it's always hard disks as you say - albeit even still in my experience where the majority of arrays are 2 or more usually 3.
I'd love to know what you lot are arguing about so I could join in.
It's like learning a new language, all this geek speak!
Boring techy geek crap unfortunately.
IME most failures I've see are Hard Drives or PSU - so I'd put them pretty close to the top of the list.
Care to elaborate on this opinion?
Yup sounds familiar, and I've supported hundreds of desktops over the last 21 years...
Mechanical disks aren't very unreliable now but unfortunately, a hard disk failure is the biggest pain in a workstation - unless you are an enterprise with imaging ready to re-deploy ever-backed up workstations - which is hardly cheap.
The cost savings of having a lot less hard disk failures would be substantial - especially for those who have to replace and rebuild.
Yes.
At the end of the day a system has a given value based on its purpose. So if you are going to spend a given amount then if you over-egg one component or part of the specification you're either overpaying or losing out somewhere else.
It's about compromise or trade off.
SSD is a good example. Cost is a lot higher than a mechanical drive for a significantly lower capacity.
There may be good reasons to specify one. But for a common or garden desktop? The money may well be better saved or spent on some other aspect of the system.
High end graphics card? Well possibly. But for ordinary video and image processing and business graphics it's benefit these days is questionable compared with gaming and 3D animation/rendering. People tend to be dismissive of integrated graphics but the additional high end card doesn't necessarily offer a huge advantage, is an extra component to go wrong, may have a fan, consume more power, and add noise to the system
Quad CPU? Well again ... possibly. Chances are the money is better spent on a faster dual core for many setups.
And so on.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
