Is it a good idea to make 2 or more partitions on a SSD?

[ron_1]

I just recently got a new computer with a 256 gig SSD. I would like to make two partitions on it, the C drive for the OS and program files, and the other partition for data files (I have done it this way on standard hard drives for a while and I like it). I did an internet search, but I'm too dumb to figure out what everybody is trying to say. Is it okay to make 2 (or more) partitions on a SSD? Or is it a bad idea? I'm unclear on this mostly because I don't understand (i.e., in a geeky way) exactly how SS drives work.

[Moonchild]

It doesn't make a difference to the SSD. The reading/writing differences between SSDs and platter drives are done at a lower level than the partition level, so it really doesn't matter if you have 1, 2 or more partitions on an SSD.

[TELVM]

It's OK to partition the SSD as you wish, no problem.

Some people even leave some unpartitioned space for SSD over-provisioning.

[ron_1]

TELVM wrote:
Some people even leave some unpartitioned space for SSD over-provisioning.

Thanks for the link. I tried to understand it, but it's all Greek (or Geek) to me. Here is what I'd like to know. I have a 256 gig SSD with Windows 7 - 64 bit. What would be the optimal sizes of two partitions?

Right now, I have the C partition at 60 gigs. This partition has Windows and program files. The other partition is 178 gigs. I want to keep data files here, but haven't copied them over yet as I'm unclear if the C partition needs to be bigger than 60 gigs. And if leaving some space unpartitioned is recommended, how much should it be?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

60 should be good for a general system.. Though if you have alot of games especially steam games you may want to go to 120 or 160.. Likewise if you do stuff with visual studio or adobe creative suite.. or all of the above.. lol.. I typically would suggest only putting things on the ssd that need fast access and use a standard platter drive for general longer term data storage. You don't need an SSD to watch movies or look at images or listen to music so throw that stuff on a platter drive.. Though you would want your programs or games to have super fast access.

That is my take on this.. but your question is directly touched on in the first few sentences..

[ron_1]

Thanks for the reply, Tobin. I guess now my only question would be, should I do this over-provisioning thing or not? If it really does prolong the life of the SSD I would like to do it, but I don't understand how many gigs should be left unpartitioned.

[Moonchild]

Thanks for the reply, Tobin. I guess now my only question would be, should I do this over-provisioning thing or not? If it really does prolong the life of the SSD I would like to do it, but I don't understand how many gigs should be left unpartitioned.

Unless you completely fill up your SSD to the brim all the time, you're fine with normal use. Current SSDs with normal use give you plenty of time to work with (I believe ~8 years before sectors start to become read-only, at which point you should just buy a new one that's probably better and might even be required for changes in your computer anyway ). If your normal use keeps enough free space, you don't have to force the issue with over-provisioning (which basically forces you to do the same by making space unused by force).

[ron_1]

Thanks again for the info M.C. Now, I hope I'm not beating a dead horse with this:

Moonchild wrote:
If your normal use keeps enough free space, you don't have to force the issue with over-provisioning

The second partition is 178 gigs, and my data files measure around 41 gigs, which would leave over 130 gigs free space. Would that be considered "enough" free space?

[Sleeping]

Why do you want to partition it? If it is to improve performance, it doesn't make any difference

[Trinoc]

One good reason to have different system and data partitions on any disk (rotary, SSD or hybrid) is so that you can back up your system partition (fully or incrementally) to the data partition using something like Acronis. Obviously that doesn't protect you against a crash of the entire disk (you should copy the backups somewhere offline for that), but it means you can do a clean restore of your whole system partition at any time (even if it's unbootable, provided that you have a boot CD/DVD or Acronis or whatever).

[ron_1]

Sleeping wrote:
Why do you want to partition it? If it is to improve performance, it doesn't make any difference

I started doing it this way a few years ago. Back then, my security scans were taking well over an hour. I figured there was no reason to scan my data files over and over, so I decided to make a secondary partition and house my data files there. It is easier to set up my security software to just scan "C" than to configure it to scan the different Windows folders and the program file folders. Now that I'm used to doing it this way, I don't want to change, even though today security scans don't take as long as they used to. (I'm the type that gets "set in my ways" rather quickly. )

The reason I started this thread was mostly to find out if two or more partitions on a SSD was a bad idea (i.e., if it would shorten the lifespan of the drive).

[Moonchild]

The reason I started this thread was mostly to find out if two or more partitions on a SSD was a bad idea (i.e., if it would shorten the lifespan of the drive).

Simple answer: No.

[danielson]

http://www.tweakhound.com has (imho) the best tweak guide for Windows (which suppose you have) which also includes SSDs.
Personally, i've read that it is best not to partition an SSD but have tried it for dual booting (25G of 120G) with Linux distro without any issues.
BTW, don't go for any tweak program (free or not), they are useless.

[11ryanc]

I've actually wondered about this too. I know solid states are much more delicate than standard SATA, assumed the partition process alone could possibly cripple it.
For managing large amounts of data though, I like to stick to the basics. Preferably Western Digital. Change all basic directories to read off of storage drive, SSD for OS and applications. My experience with Seagate has been..... Let's just say I'm on my 3rd 2 TB Seagate stick, in which is showing signs of failing. It's covered under warranty.

[Moonchild]

I've actually wondered about this too. I know solid states are much more delicate than standard SATA, assumed the partition process alone could possibly cripple it.

Actually, quite the opposite. SSDs have been used in industry for decades because they can take a hell of a lot more physical abuse than any platter drive.

The only downside is that the memory chips are flash memory, and they have a very finite amount of writes to the same bits before becoming read-only (magnetic platters have more permanence in that respect, but are obviously much more delicate because they have physical moving parts).
To work around writing the same bits over and over and wearing them out irregularly, SSDs (especially modern ones) come with some very sophisticated algorithms on the controller board that, at the lowest I/O access level, distribute the writes as evenly as possible over the individual chips inside of it. Since this low-level I/O is done at a level below any logical access (including partitioning setups or file systems in use), it makes absolutely no difference how you partition the drive (1,2, or more partitions). Any article saying otherwise is probably completely wrong.

As an aside from the above info: SSDs are extremely well-suited for data that gets (re-)written from time to time, and using them as mainly static storage is kind of wasteful - if data is never replaced, the bits they occupy will never have the chance to be redistributed to other writes (and remain mostly unused, causing uneven wear). It's not a disaster to defrag SSDs either as a result, and in fact can keep your SSD healthier than never defragging at all, but please do use software that is specifically designed to play well with the type of storage they are.

[11ryanc]

I've actually wondered about this too. I know solid states are much more delicate than standard SATA, assumed the partition process alone could possibly cripple it.

Actually, quite the opposite. SSDs have been used in industry for decades because they can take a hell of a lot more physical abuse than any platter drive.

The only downside is that the memory chips are flash memory, and they have a very finite amount of writes to the same bits before becoming read-only (magnetic platters have more permanence in that respect, but are obviously much more delicate because they have physical moving parts).
To work around writing the same bits over and over and wearing them out irregularly, SSDs (especially modern ones) come with some very sophisticated algorithms on the controller board that, at the lowest I/O access level, distribute the writes as evenly as possible over the individual chips inside of it. Since this low-level I/O is done at a level below any logical access (including partitioning setups or file systems in use), it makes absolutely no difference how you partition the drive (1,2, or more partitions). Any article saying otherwise is probably completely wrong.

As an aside from the above info: SSDs are extremely well-suited for data that gets (re-)written from time to time, and using them as mainly static storage is kind of wasteful - if data is never replaced, the bits they occupy will never have the chance to be redistributed to other writes (and remain mostly unused, causing uneven wear). It's not a disaster to defrag SSDs either as a result, and in fact can keep your SSD healthier than never defragging at all, but please do use software that is specifically designed to play well with the type of storage they are.

Interesting. And yes, defragmentation of an SSD could be potentially dangerous. Especially if used by Windows default. I've heard some say virtualization can be damaging, some say no.

[chreid]

Scott Hanselman says:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheRealAn ... urSSD.aspx

How can he be a "cornrower"?
http://newhollandrochester.com/cornrower.php

I presume he's reliable!

[wildbill5891]

I would leave the OS and program files on the SSD and put data on the regular drive.

[11ryanc]

I would leave the OS and program files on the SSD and put data on the regular drive.

Agreed.