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.
What size SSD to get
- Thread starter thetoness
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I put the FCS library files on the data drive. I'm going by memory on the total install size but the 128GB SSD has 80+ Gigs still available.
cheers
JohnG
I didn't even know you could install the extras to a different disk looks like I need to move some stuff.
I didn't even know you could install the extras to a different disk looks like I need to move some stuff.
I was sort of shocked at the size of the library files. The sound library(s) alone are HUGE (>20 GB) ~~~~~
My recollection is that there's a utility within FCS that relocates these files. Do a google search and I'm sure you will find the exact procedure.
regards
JohnG
hey i know its been a while since this thread was vreated but i have the same exact question
how large ssd should i buy?
atm i got a 500Gb HDD and its half full.
my app folder is 150Gb
so should i get a 250Gb SSD? or can i store my app folder on an HDD (and is it even worth swaping for an SDD if apps are on an HDD)
thx in advance
how large ssd should i buy?
atm i got a 500Gb HDD and its half full.
my app folder is 150Gb
so should i get a 250Gb SSD? or can i store my app folder on an HDD (and is it even worth swaping for an SDD if apps are on an HDD)
thx in advance
hey i know its been a while since this thread was vreated but i have the same exact question
how large ssd should i buy?
atm i got a 500Gb HDD and its half full.
my app folder is 150Gb
so should i get a 250Gb SSD? or can i store my app folder on an HDD (and is it even worth swaping for an SDD if apps are on an HDD)
thx in advance
My understanding would be based on:
Adobe: plugins cache uses the boot drive
Scratch: still good to use your fastest device
SSD devices: especially now with Yosemite unless using an Apple SSD of the type used in the nMP, and even then (for the benefit of TRIM) - aim for 40% free space plus 11% over-provisioning.
I would not then cut it close and 256GB might therefore. Next step up would be 500GB. No keep apps with the system. I once tried using a second 15K SCSI drive for apps, also stripe two - in the end the system and apps did not benefit from either scenario.
500GB Apple blade or larger + adapter
XP941 500GB + adapter $540
or Samsung 850 500GB + controller ($350?)
The first two are 2x as fast as even SATA III and would be simply fast and be bootable (and no lag or issues with support etc) and offer ~1000MB/sec r/w
Room for LR or other project libraries - similar to how one would setup an nMP.
The SSD can't see "free space" in a filesystem, it needs to be unpartitioned space
This "40% free space" should be interpreted as "40% never partitioned space" if you don't have TRIM support.
Even if you never fill a filesystem more than 60% full, it can write blocks across the entire filesystem. For example, a large file might be written to "high" blocks if the lower part of the filesystem doesn't have a large contiguous space. Over time, even if you've never exceeded 60% full, 100% of the partition may have been used.
The SSD doesn't understand the filesystem (and you would not want it to), so it has no way of knowing that 40% of those blocks are not actually in use.
There are two ways to tell the SSD that the blocks are free, and so that the garbage collector can perform more effectively.
TRIM support is by far the better approach. If for some reason you need to fill the filesystem - just do it. As soon as you delete files to get back to 40% free TRIM tells the SSD what you've done. Unused space in the filesystem is just as good as never-partitioned space.
Also, the phrase "for the benefit of TRIM" is misleading. TRIM per se does nothing. TRIM is a hint for the garbage collector - it allows the garbage collector to discard data that the OS has already discarded.
This "40% free space" should be interpreted as "40% never partitioned space" if you don't have TRIM support.
Even if you never fill a filesystem more than 60% full, it can write blocks across the entire filesystem. For example, a large file might be written to "high" blocks if the lower part of the filesystem doesn't have a large contiguous space. Over time, even if you've never exceeded 60% full, 100% of the partition may have been used.
The SSD doesn't understand the filesystem (and you would not want it to), so it has no way of knowing that 40% of those blocks are not actually in use.
There are two ways to tell the SSD that the blocks are free, and so that the garbage collector can perform more effectively.
- Use a filesystem+OS that support the TRIM command.
- Use the "secure erase" hardware command to put all blocks on the free list. (All data is lost, obviously.)
TRIM support is by far the better approach. If for some reason you need to fill the filesystem - just do it. As soon as you delete files to get back to 40% free TRIM tells the SSD what you've done. Unused space in the filesystem is just as good as never-partitioned space.
Also, the phrase "for the benefit of TRIM" is misleading. TRIM per se does nothing. TRIM is a hint for the garbage collector - it allows the garbage collector to discard data that the OS has already discarded.
Last edited:
960GB SSD plus 4TB Hybrid Fusion Drive
I have been using SSD for a few years. Initially I had kept OS files on the SSD with everything else linked symbolically.
But I got tired of the continuous management issue.
I finally set up the SSD and one of the 4TB Hybrid drives as a Fusion drive to handle most of my files except a large iTunes library, media files, and separate SSDs for Windows 7 and Windows 8 Bootcamp. VMWare systems take a healthy chunk.
The Fusion drive has about 3TB of data with 2TB free. I back up daily to a CarbonCopy clone on an external USB 3 driver plus have TimeMachine on a server.
I use TrimEnabler.
The system is stable. But over the last 7 months I have had two hard crashes due to VMware running on OS X betas that have brought the drive down. Repairs or restores are MUCH faster with CarbonCopy clones than TimeMachine. That is why I have both.
I also have separate boot partitions on another drive with Yosemite, Mavericks, Lion, and Snow Leopard. I would definitely have at least one second boot partition for restore and repair. Makes life MUCH easier.
The Fusion drive feels similar to an SSD in performance during day-to-day use. And with that drive space, storage is "just there."
This is on a Mac Pro Mid 2011 upgraded to 12 Core 3GHz and 48GB RAM. The standard drive bays have 4 4 TB drives. An internal auxiliary rack houses 4 2.5" drives - 3 SSD and one older spinning one, which has the backup OS Xs. The drives in the auxiliary rack are hooked to PCIe eSATA cards that are bootable.
I do development work and this makes one hell of a work horse! I often have multiple Virtual Machines running with the main system. All are very fast with dedicated RAM and multiple processor cores assigned to each.
I have been using SSD for a few years. Initially I had kept OS files on the SSD with everything else linked symbolically.
But I got tired of the continuous management issue.
I finally set up the SSD and one of the 4TB Hybrid drives as a Fusion drive to handle most of my files except a large iTunes library, media files, and separate SSDs for Windows 7 and Windows 8 Bootcamp. VMWare systems take a healthy chunk.
The Fusion drive has about 3TB of data with 2TB free. I back up daily to a CarbonCopy clone on an external USB 3 driver plus have TimeMachine on a server.
I use TrimEnabler.
The system is stable. But over the last 7 months I have had two hard crashes due to VMware running on OS X betas that have brought the drive down. Repairs or restores are MUCH faster with CarbonCopy clones than TimeMachine. That is why I have both.
I also have separate boot partitions on another drive with Yosemite, Mavericks, Lion, and Snow Leopard. I would definitely have at least one second boot partition for restore and repair. Makes life MUCH easier.
The Fusion drive feels similar to an SSD in performance during day-to-day use. And with that drive space, storage is "just there."
This is on a Mac Pro Mid 2011 upgraded to 12 Core 3GHz and 48GB RAM. The standard drive bays have 4 4 TB drives. An internal auxiliary rack houses 4 2.5" drives - 3 SSD and one older spinning one, which has the backup OS Xs. The drives in the auxiliary rack are hooked to PCIe eSATA cards that are bootable.
I do development work and this makes one hell of a work horse! I often have multiple Virtual Machines running with the main system. All are very fast with dedicated RAM and multiple processor cores assigned to each.
I am not sure what Apple's secure erase does, but RAMcity site:
Do not run Parted Magic's secure erase on this drive. It will render it useless and void the warranty.
Secure Erase will brick the XP941.
https://www.ramcity.com.au/blog/how-to-install-windows-8.1-on-the-samsung-xp941- ss/138296
I won't use OS X without TRIM and so I spend most of my time in Windows.
I always want my boot drive to have 50% free, SSD or not. I have seen too often people try to use a drive and an SSD with 20% or less free space. And no, not unallocated space, that is a different factor and there I go with Samsung's 11% or more.
If apps use 150GB, and you use apps that will try to write 100GB of temp cache to whatever the boot drive is (not just designated primary scratch volume) 256GB isn't enough. And the 500GB drives are designed with more channels and performance.
256GB EVO 850? or XP941? or Apple blade?
Do you want SATA III or 1000MB/sec?
RAID? I prefer to avoid arrays.
Apple Samsung blade listings
Do not run Parted Magic's secure erase on this drive. It will render it useless and void the warranty.
Secure Erase will brick the XP941.
https://www.ramcity.com.au/blog/how-to-install-windows-8.1-on-the-samsung-xp941- ss/138296
I won't use OS X without TRIM and so I spend most of my time in Windows.
I always want my boot drive to have 50% free, SSD or not. I have seen too often people try to use a drive and an SSD with 20% or less free space. And no, not unallocated space, that is a different factor and there I go with Samsung's 11% or more.
If apps use 150GB, and you use apps that will try to write 100GB of temp cache to whatever the boot drive is (not just designated primary scratch volume) 256GB isn't enough. And the 500GB drives are designed with more channels and performance.
256GB EVO 850? or XP941? or Apple blade?
Do you want SATA III or 1000MB/sec?
RAID? I prefer to avoid arrays.
Apple Samsung blade listings