Jump to content


ssds and large infrequently accessed files?

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 RenascentMisanthropy



  • Atomican
  • 9,714 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 June 2016 - 09:48 AM

I've often heard/read that one should not use an ssd for the storage of large infrequently accessed files (eg 1gb+) presumably for the cost/gb of the ssd's capacity "not being worth it"


That thought aside, is there a technical reason why one should not do this?


Many thanks

RM :)


#2 Master_Scythe



  • Hero
  • 20,537 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 06 June 2016 - 09:59 AM

I'd imagine just because for file meeting that description, Tape is just so much better.


Either way you're spending some significant money. Tapes are just probably cheaper buying 'last gens' drives.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"

#3 Jeruselem



  • Atomican
  • 14,823 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 06 June 2016 - 10:09 AM

SSD drives store files as scattered bits all over the drive, to stop excessive wear. Long term storage = tape!

Fast access = SSD! Compromise = normal hard drives!

Edited by Jeruselem, 06 June 2016 - 10:09 AM.

“We’re not going to stop the wheel. I’m going to break the wheel.” - Daenerys Targaryen


"We have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world" - Putin to Trump

#4 Rybags



  • Super Hero
  • 35,668 posts

Posted 06 June 2016 - 12:59 PM

It'd be from a price/performance perspective.

And it's not exactly right.  You could have a movie that's watched frequently, but video files require about 1/15th the access speed of a normal HDD if played normally.

On the other hand you could have a frequently application that has a .INI file which is updated every time it starts, stops or opens a file.  But it's a small file and wouldn't really matter if access speed was 40 or 400 Meg/sec.


I think the whole point is to devote SSD to things where speed would benefit greatly.  But generally an OS drive will need most of the files for the OS to be resident.  The bulk is in stuff like Windows, Prog Files, paging, hibernate, system restore files.  Except for stuff like system restore and maybe hibernate you'd want the remainder of that to be quick access anyhow.  Docs and Settings is a mixed bag, the general idea there is just leave it as is but keep folders on normal drives for big stuff.


SSD can also be useful for large temporary/work files.  e.g. a few Gig worth of video footage in seperate files that you want to edit into a presentation would be well copied to SSD for that process.

#5 stadl



  • Super Hero
  • 9,056 posts

Posted 06 June 2016 - 01:17 PM

No technical reason not to store large, infrequently accessed files on SSD. Economic viability is a personal performance & value judgement.


I assume by 'infrequent' you are not talking about an archive. Flash/SSD is not considered an archive medium - something to write your files then lock in the vault for years.

A device so simple that it took a mind as brilliant as mine to create it! So brilliant, in fact, that simply by harnessing the power of one live frog, it... it... uhh... <poke> <poke> ... World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Talk amongst yourselves.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users