Hardware Thread 2020  

pparks1 said:

^ If it makes you feel any better, I paid nearly $400 back in the day for an 80GB intel x25-m g2. About 10 years ago.

Well I bought my first SSD back in 2010 and paid $235 for a 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD drive. Now you can get a 2TB for less than that - Samsung 860 QVO SSD 2TB

sygnus21 said:

Picked up a Samsung 2TB SATA SSD drive (860 EVO) to replace my Samsung 1TB 850 EVO SSD. Need a bit more space for local backups since I found Acronis 2018 doesn't like restoring backup files from a NAS drive.
I got the drive for $279 - a far cry from the $650 I paid for the 850 EVO 2TB drive in 2017

That's a good price. Last I paid was $127 for a 1 TB 860 EVO in 2018. I have that and a 1TB 850 EVO ($250) in RAID 0 for backups and games ($377 for 2 TB). I should have bought two of those $127 1 TB 860 EVO while they were on sale at amazon black friday 2018. That would still be a steal!

I was planning on waiting for further price drops but the immediate need for a larger drive to handle my local Acronis backups made me pull the trigger now. I'm sure prices will drop rapidly now that I bought one. That's the story of my life lately

sygnus21 said:

I was planning on waiting for further price drops but the immediate need for a larger drive to handle my local Acronis backups made me pull the trigger now. I'm sure prices will drop rapidly now that I bought one. That's the story of my life lately

No doubt it is a good price in any case. 860 EVO 1TB are still $153 ofr 1TB. I just could kick myself for not getting another on that black friday.

sygnus21 said:

Picked up a Samsung 2TB SATA SSD drive (860 EVO) to replace my Samsung 1TB 850 EVO SSD. Need a bit more space for local backups since I found Acronis 2018 doesn't like restoring backup files from a NAS drive.

I got the drive for $279 - a far cry from the $650 I paid for the 850 EVO 2TB drive in 2017

So how do you organize your backups/archives? I have 960 Pro 500 GB with two partitions. One has purely system files and the other data (documents, newer RAW photo and processed images, mail, browser data , etc.). Then a 2TB RAID 0 SSD for local backups and games, then a 6TB WDC Black in an external raid enclosure for archived photo images, archived system backups, and a data backup. Then several 2 TB externals to backup that data, one offline. I use macrium to backup the system disk which is pared of most data, and Microsoft synctoy to sync the data.

I came to this arrangement for the following reasons:
1. I do overclock and tinker, so I often have to restore the system backup, but don't want to do the voluminous data. So I separated the data and system into two different partitions.
2. I do make lots of backups of the system for reasons above.
3. Synctoy works very works very well in the way I want for syncing data in Echo mode (echoes changes and deletes in the direction of live -> backup, but not the reverse)
I have the system backup down to 5 minutes ( encrypted, 3.5 minutes unencrypted)
The data syncs take no time at all with Synctoy (though it occasionally needs defragging on the receiving end hard drive)
It sounds complicated, but it takes more time to explain than push the buttons

Interested in hearing about other's solutions.

Geneo said:

So how do you organize your backups/archives? .... [snip]

Interested in hearing about other's solutions.

I had my Acronis backups going to my NAS but recently discovered restoring files fails when the backups are on the NAS drive. The backups are fine, but the restore process fails with an error. No restore issue when the files aren't on the NAS. I actually need to look into that but that's another story. Anyway, I'm now back to having the current Acronis backups on a local drive and the archives placed on the NAS.

As far as data organization goes here's my setup with five SSD's installed.

1. First NVME drive is the OS drive where all the native files and folders go (Documents, Pictures, Music, Downloads)
2. Second NVME drive is my working photos for PS & LR work. My master print files and my jpeg library there also.
3. 2TB drive for my game entire library (currently at 850GB)
4. 1TB drive for my local music library (also backed up to my NAS for streaming).
5. 2TB drive for local backups and temporary holding place when moving files around other PC's

With that, all the native files and folders (Pictures, Music, Documents, and Downloads) stay on the OS drive. Plus, some of those folders get default files and folders placed there as needed from other programs. Example: Adobe Lightroom places its catalog in the Pictures folder. Certain games place their settings and save files in the Documents folder.

Also, in addition to my Acronis backup, I have an online solution (Carbonite) that constantly scans my C-Drive and Photo's drive for changes and backs up to their server as needed. I also have backups going to my NAS.

That's my "data organization method"

There is a huge diff for certain workloads. But non of them were tested by Linus and his team.
One Word: IOPS

slicendice said:

There is a huge diff for certain workloads. But non of them were tested by Linus and his team.
One Word: IOPS

Agree. Like everything else, it depends on what's tested. Also, as I've often said, system processes and build can also affect speed performance tests. It's why the phrase "up to" is used when stating speeds

That said, I do agree that in everyday real world usage most aren't going to notice speed differences between SATA and PCIE or Gen 3 or Gen 4 devices.

I have a NVMe Samsung 960 evo drive for regular W10 and a Kingston V200 SATA drive on same machine and difference in speed is quite visible.When for instance major windows update is installing , SATA SSD goes up to 100% usage and stays there for quite a while which can put a brake on whole computer while with same workload NVME is barely used up to no more than few % and update finishes much faster with no influence on overall performance.
Similar effects are with games installed and run from NVME and SATA SSD. Games installed on NVME not only load faster but at cut scenes and when game accesses disk during play it's practically invisible while when same happens on SATA SSD it's quite noticeable drop and frame skipping in same game.