Upload & Sell: Off
binary visions wrote:
What you may want to evaluate is whether you're using the drive to its biggest advantage, though. File storage really isn't where a SSD excels. You'd be much better off loading your OS or applications on it, to leverage the extremely fast read speeds of the SSD.
It's already been mentioned, but using it as a 'dump' drive is just a horrible idea. SSD's are incredibly fast and should have your main programs/OS on the drive.
I take a slightly opposing view. Having an SSD as the system drive gives the illusion of speed as the computer boots and loads apps in a flash, but that's the only time large amounts of data are read from the disk -- once everything is loaded in RAM, the SSD has little or nothing to do. Now, if you have everything located on the SSD (PS scratch, pagefile, LR catalog and ACR/LR preview cache) and other I/O intensive data that is utilized during the course of work, i.e., image editing, then the SSD will speed up that work in a more tangible way. It takes a pretty large SSD to accommodate the system as well as working files, but having everything on one disk isn't optimal even for an SSD.
I've experimented with this and I've decided I don't care if Photoshop loads in 2 seconds as opposed to 7.5, what I care about is how it performs while I'm using it. So I've got my system loaded on a Raptor and utilize two SSDs which host all the files I listed above, plus the Color Efex Pro swap, NX2 thumbnail and edit cache, user temp files and my working images (work in-progress). I suppose I'll eventually adopt an SSD for my OS and apps as well, but for now I see no downside to using a spinner for those chores. I can tell you that Photoshop runs no faster when it's installed on an SSD as opposed to a spinner and neither does LR if it's configured correctly. I figure using a spinner for the system disk costs me less than 30 seconds a day after a reboot and much less thereafter once my main apps are cached in RAM. I can live with that.