Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$3000 Budget: Refurb Mac Pro 8-core 2.4 or new iMac?
- Thread starter HXGuy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Congratulations. This will be much faster than your current machine and will provide years of good service.
I don't think backing up the scratch drive is necessary. If you actually use it as a scratch drive, it will mostly contain temporary files. It could contain some video render files, but those could easily be re-rendered.
On the other hand, I'd make a bootable clone of the boot drive (using CCC or SuperDuper). This will allow you to be back in business within minutes if something catastrophic happens to your boot drive.
Time machine is great for recovering files you accidentally overwrite or delete (user error protection), but a cloned drive gives you an exact copy, which you can use. Also, TM sometimes corrupts the backup. I would never rely on it as my only backup. I usually keep both a cloned backup and a time machine backup of my computers.
BTW, "green" drives are good for backup. They're quieter, cooler, more energy efficient and cheaper. You don't need the speed there. Another tidbit: the drive bays near the front of the Mac Pro are slightly faster, or at least that's what I read. I haven't noticed any difference myself, but I put my boot drive in bay 1 and less-solicited drives in bay 3 and 4.
Another option is to do a mirrored RAID (RAID 1, I believe) for your data drive. You can set it up with Disk Utility. It gives you instant backup because it writes files to 2 drives, and theoretically improve reading speed slightly, as it can read parts of the files from each drive.
This is correct. Backing up temporary data is foolish, as it's both a waste of time and money (presumes additional storage space is purchased).
Good advice, as its the fastest way to get the OS back up and running without the need to tweak settings or reinstall applications.
They are. Usually cheaper in terms of cost/capacity too.
In terms of storing the primary data without a backup?
If this is what you meant, DON"T DO IT. RAID of any kind is NOT A BACKUP, as things can and do go wrong, including user error (i.e. deleted file is duplicated on all members of a RAID 1, so once it's gone, it's gone).
No. Instead of the cloned backup, but in addition to the Time Machine backup. I should have been clearer.
As I mentioned, those are suggestions and the OP can choose what fits his needs best. Some people fly without a net. I prefer the 2 levels, and I've used bot in the past.
Reliability? SSD vs. SLC SSD?
I have a question, the answer to which I hope will be of use to the OP...
I have been planning on getting a SSD boot drive, and watching prices go down (now $300 under for 128GB), and read/write speeds go up (now over 200MB/sec).
Turns out I have not been following the SLC SSD drives, but rather the MLC SSD drives. Looks like the SLC 128MB drives have a read/write speed of around 100MB, and cost around $1500 (not terribly interesting for me).
Regarding the reliability and life span of MLC SSD drives:
1) Do they wear out over time -- e.g. gradually get slower? Or do they suddenly crash?
2) How long would you expect a MLC SSD drive to last, if it were used as a boot drive, 8 hours/day?
3) Would you recommend storing anything other than software on the MLC SSD drive? I use both a RAID drive and a single disk drive when editing video and stills, but I usually store small files like word doc's or excel files on my boot drive.
3) Sandisk has said they've found ways of making SLC SSD drives last longer when they switched focus to SLC SSD drives. Look like Crucial is doing mainly SLC SSD drives as well. What brands do the people here recommend for SLC SSD drives?
I realize this thread is moving pretty fast, so I may ask on a new thread later, when it's nearer to time to buy.
I have a question, the answer to which I hope will be of use to the OP...
I have been planning on getting a SSD boot drive, and watching prices go down (now $300 under for 128GB), and read/write speeds go up (now over 200MB/sec).
Turns out I have not been following the SLC SSD drives, but rather the MLC SSD drives. Looks like the SLC 128MB drives have a read/write speed of around 100MB, and cost around $1500 (not terribly interesting for me).
Regarding the reliability and life span of MLC SSD drives:
1) Do they wear out over time -- e.g. gradually get slower? Or do they suddenly crash?
2) How long would you expect a MLC SSD drive to last, if it were used as a boot drive, 8 hours/day?
3) Would you recommend storing anything other than software on the MLC SSD drive? I use both a RAID drive and a single disk drive when editing video and stills, but I usually store small files like word doc's or excel files on my boot drive.
3) Sandisk has said they've found ways of making SLC SSD drives last longer when they switched focus to SLC SSD drives. Look like Crucial is doing mainly SLC SSD drives as well. What brands do the people here recommend for SLC SSD drives?
I realize this thread is moving pretty fast, so I may ask on a new thread later, when it's nearer to time to buy.
Yes, they do wear out, and as per crash, it will with writes per se (corrupted write). With reads, maybe (presuming a dead drive entirely, Yes; for reads, maybe - it will be a corrupt read, and could result in a system that crashes, if that dead cell contains part of the OS).
But when this will happen depends on the type of flash used, and how you use the drive. Now the way disk makers disclose this information isn't reality, as they don't really reproduce real world usage.
But an SLC based drive should last at least 3 years for most users (if you're running a parity based array on MLC based disks = totally different story).
Longer than you'd want to keep it, as reads don't wear it out. Just writes.
This will be fine.
The reasoning is due to the differences between MLC and SLC flash.
- MLC = up to 10,000 write cycles from the manufacturer
- SLC = 100,000 write cycles
I'll skip out on wear leveling and available capacity for this, due to the presumption of the same usage pattern, as this is relevant to both types of Flash.
SLC based storage is aimed at enterprise users, while SLC is aimed at consumer use. Thus most are MLC based. If it does use SLC based flash, it should have it in the description (and is usually produced by companies with a focus in the enterprise market). If you're not sure, take a look at the manufacturer's page, as they'll mention if it used SLC (more expensive, and will be reflected in the price - they're quite a bit more than the consumer models).
One example of an SLC based drive is Intel's X-25E series (E = Enterprise). Newegg's X25-E drives (just to give you an idea of cost).
Good to know. I had heard the early SSD drives slowed down with use, but I thought they had pretty much ironed out the kinks. Because of the high cost per GB and extremely high read speeds, I had planned to use a smallish SSD as a boot drive to effectively speed up graphics software. But I had no idea these are best used a boot drives only.
It will be a lot more expensive. And it should say in the description. I really can't see a reason for an SLC boot drive. A small scratch disk for Photoshop, yes maybe, because there will be a lot of writes but your boot disk is mostly reads which don't affect SSDs at all.
To the OPs concern with filling up the internal bays with backup drives: I think you backups should be USB. They are only slightly more expensive (typically $10-20 more and even sometimes less) and you get the advantage of "moving" your system to a different Mac should you have a cataclysmic failure like a dead motherboard. One of the justifications for owning both a Mac laptop and desktop for me is that if something happens to one I am not SOL while it is in the shop. I actually got a great deal on my laptop because the previous owner just bought it to have something to use while his main computer was getting serviced by Apple!
As per performance over time, both disk makers and OS vendors are working on it (not all disks support TRIM or garbage collection, and the OS may still need to be tweaked for SSD's). So users need to pay attention to things like this (i.e. make sure the least expensive drive didn't cut corners/is an older model = no TRIM/garbage collection support).
SSD's can be used for other areas of storage, but the high cost/GB prevents this for many potential users yet. One area that some users could also benefit from a small SSD, is as scratch space for Photoshop (or any other application that goes to disk for temp data).
Given OWC has a 40GB SSD for $100USD, this is feasible IMO. Use it until it dies and replace it, as the price is right.
Nanofrog: What is your opinion on these specific drives?
For boot drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167031
For Photoshop scratch drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226168
Would OWC be a better option than either of these?
For boot drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167031
For Photoshop scratch drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226168
Would OWC be a better option than either of these?
The Intel would be fine (number of other MR members use that one and it's predecessor). But I think I'd skip the Mushkin, and go for the OWC 40GB instead ($100USD).