Your View On Backup With External Hard Drive Vs. Internal HDD In An Enclosure?

The idea behind a small SSD is that it hosts critical software and the OS for speed. Then you use a larger 7200+RPM HD for storage.

Currently I run a Samsung Evo 120Gb SSD for my OS and a 2nd 750Gb 7200RPM drive in place of a disc drive in my laptop. All games, documents, pictures, downloads, etc. are automatically mapped to the 750Gb drive.

With an SSD you also dont need a huge page file. In my case, my page file was between 12 and 18Gbs due to 12Gbs of RAM, which freed up a ton of space.

With all of my apps installed I have 84Gbs free on my SSD. Origin and Steam have been set to install games in their respective folders on the 750GB HD.

 

Ummm, no, sorry. Not true. The "size" of your page file has absolutely nothing to do with whether you use SSDs or HDs.

There really is no reason to reduce the size of your PF, unless you are critically low on disk space - and that is just a temporary measure until you free up, or buy more disk space. Even with gobs of RAM, reducing the PF serves no purpose, except free disk space. The false belief that reducing the PF forces Windows to use RAM instead of the PF improves performance is just that, a false belief. In fact, in most cases, it hurts performance.

Is it a good idea to change Windows page file size?

Microsoft has had 3 decades to figure out how to best configure page file sizes. Unless you are Mark Russinovich - that is, you have a PhD in Computer Engineering, and you have the know how to properly analyze your virtual memory use over an extended period of time, it is best not to dink with the page file size. At most, you might move it off the boot drive to a secondary drive (not partition, but a separate physical drive).

It should also be noted that SSDs are ideally suited to host the PF, as noted here, SSD FAQs, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?).

If the budget does not allow for all SSDs, this configuration is a good idea. But the prices of SSDs have come down a lot in the last couple years. 256Gb SSDs are under $200 and that is plenty of space for 64-bit Windows and most likely all your applications too - including big ones like full office suites. With all your apps and documents on the SSD, they "pop open" too, and that really improves system performance.

A monster traditional HD would be good for storing large music and video files, photos, backups, etc.

If building a new computer today, save your pennies until the budget allows for a 256Gb SSD to house your OS, apps and data files. Remember, this computer should be expected to serve you 3 - 5 years, or longer. Spread over that time, the extra costs is just a few pennies per month.

 

This sounds great. I'm surely getting SSD when I get a new laptop.

 

The size of a Page File has everything to do with a SSD or spindle based HD. A spindle based HD needs one, a SSD does not. Infact its recommended you dont use a page file on a SSD due to constant read/writes from that page file that cause the SSD to fail sooner. You also wont see a reduction in performance by removing the page file from an SSD.

My point was depending on the amount of RAM he can free up a large portion of space on a SSD by removing the unneeded page file. If he is like me and has 12Gbs of a RAM, the optimum page file size is between 12288-18432Mbs of space. Thats alot of space that is unnecessarily taken up.

 

Sorry, but that is wrong on both counts. And I don't expect people to believe me because I say so - I provided evidence - you provided nothing.

Why would size matter if SSD or HD? That makes no sense at all. Got a link?

And the article I provided to support my claim explained why SSDs are ideal for PFs. And "reads" never mattered anyway.

And clearly you are behind the times (by many years!!!) about wearing out SSDs. Newer SSDs, even budget models have MTBF rates of 1,000,000 hours! That's 114 years!!!

So, sorry, whitedragon, but your facts are wrong.

Note for several years now, notebook makers have been selling notebooks with SSDs only. Don't you think there would be a rash of users complaining of premature failures if what you said was true?

So what if you freed up 10Gb of disk space? Does that make your computer run better? No! If 10Gb of disk space is that important, you need a bigger drive.

Note you said you still have 84Gb of free disk space on your SSD. Using 10 of that is not going hurt your performance. Anyone can clearly see it will not. And they should also clearly see the PF on a SSD that is 10x faster than a HD will improve performance.

When SSDs first came out, there definitely were issues with limited writes. Plus, 32Gb was very expensive and 64Gb was big - for an SSD. But there have been significant advances in SSD technologies and cost per gigabyte and what may have been common knowledge back then, no longer applies today.

 

Explain this to me. SSD manufacturers often include software to migrate a standard HD to a SSD and include their optimization software to turn off things such as Write Caching and disabling the page file. Why would top notch SSD manufacturers such as Samsung and Intel provide such software to turn these features off if it was detrimental or not a recommended practice?

 

Sorry, but again, you are confused about the facts. Bing Google would help you out here, if you gave them a chance. And note I am not expressing my opinions, I am reporting (with links) researched and published facts.

I have build several SSD based computers using Intel, Crucial and Samsung SSDs. This, my current computer uses a 256Gb Samsung SSD 840 PRO SSD. The software does not disable the page file. It does, however, disable Superfetch and defragging as they are not necessary with SSDs - if Windows has not disabled them already.

As for write caching - you are mixing apples and oranges. Write caching has absolutely NOTHING to do with, and is totally unrelated to virtual memory or the page file. It is NOT used as a "swap" file. But to answer your question, disabling write caching would make sense for SSDs without built in buffers. Hard drives, because they are so slow (compared to solid state memory devices), use write-caching. That's why hard drives have built in buffers of 8 - 32Mb commonly, and up to 64Mb in the better drives. This allows the drive's R/W head to fetch (read) data the OS wants right now, then save (write) the data in the buffer when it has a chance. So for most (not all SSDs) write-caching is disabled. But note some SSDs include additional buffers and then write-caching may be used.

Note there are now hybrid hard drives on the market that use SSDs for write caching. See SSDs vs Hard drives vs Hybrid Drives. These offer a great compromise for users who want the performance of SSDs, but don't have the budget.

Please read Engineering Windows 7 - Support and Q&A for Solid State Drives and note particularly the following:

Need more convincing? Overclock.net - Paging File on SSD? Yes!

Do NOT assume what might have been true when SSDs first hit the market years ago is still true today. IT hardware and software technologies advance rapidly. I can tell you as an IT consultant, it is a constant challenge to stay current, not just in new technologies, but in the changes of old technologies. SSD technologies and operating systems have come a long, long way since SSDs first came to the consumer market.

Now please, this is conceptualclarity's thread and the topic is external drives vs drive enclosures.

 

This is an informal observation. And simple advice.

2.5" disks are made to operate in close quarters with little or no ventilation, thus they are ideal for mounting in an enclosure or box. Typically no ventilation is required, no fans, no slots, nothing.

3.5" disks are desktop drives and almost always require some sort of ventilation. And thus they are not suited for external enclosures, unless you do some kind of fan. Even running them bare on the table they tend to warm up too much.

Any 3.5 disk in an enclosure without a fan is to be considered a cost-cutting design flaw from the get-go!

 

^ Wouldn't that depend more on the speed (rpm) of hard disk itself? External 3.5" hard drives typically use the 5400/5200 rpm "green" drives. Actually even the 2.5" drives are likely 5400rpm too.

 

Speed is a big factor - faster spinning drives do tend get pretty warm- but I think Keatah still made a valid observation.

Before I got my docking station, I simply used long cables and placed the bare drives on my bench when troubleshooting. If I didn't place them on one of the side edges where air could circulate across a greater exposed surface area (and the controller board), the drives, especially 10K drives, would get very warm, to down right hot.

My problem was, if not careful, I would knock the drive, or pull a cable and it would fall over - never good on drives, even those designed for mobile computers. I love drive docking stations - no heat build-up problems, no enclosures to pry open, and no cables to fuss with (except for the one time setup).

 

I've got some hotties in the 5400/green category, especially when you work them up or run them for long-enough time as in saving backup images and large amounts of files. Thus my original statement.

 

Yeah, but without knowing specifics, it is hard to know what that really means.

For example, we can see here, these WD Green drives have an operating range up to 65°C (149°F). Hot water of 125°F can cause severe burns, or worse for a small child.

 

What specifics would you like to know?

I like to simplify things as much as possible these days. My rules:
3.5" = needs supplementary fan or airflow.
2.5" = use as-is in any enclosure.

 

None really as they won't change a thing. Even if we knew the exact model numbers, if we knew the physical environment (installation and ambient) the drives were in, and if we knew the exact temperatures you experienced, it is not likely the exact same scenario will apply directly to anyone else, especially the OP.

Saving large backup and image files will cause any drive's temperatures to rise, even in the best of conditions. Whether the heat is excessive, and/or persistent will depend on too many variables - too many to likely be identical from one user to another.

 

I've been using 3.5" WD Caviar black 2TB drives in external Vantec enclosures (sorry, don't have the model number handy) for over a year now, both through eSata (on my old WinXP computer) and through USB 3.0 (on my new Win7 notebook). As a software developer I figure I run my disks pretty hard at least 5 days/week, and I have not had any issues (YMMV). I don't have temp. statistics handy, but will get some ideas when I'm using the drive next (I don't have it connected now). The enclosure does not have a fan.

I was leery about using a fanless enclosure, but started probably about 3 years ago using a local brand (Memory Express brand Velocity which is basically a Vantec OEM) for backups using Seagate 1TB 7200RPM drives under WinXP. Worked like a charm (eSata) and I ended up getting about 6 of them for various uses and family members. Only had one spectacular failure, but I never knew if it was from the enclosure or from the drive (one fried the other). When I got my notebook, I moved up to USB 3.0 with the Vantec; one for my everyday data drive, one for backup. I also wanted the eSata support so I could use the drive on my old WinXP computer without the performance hit of USB 2.0.

I did first try a MediaSonic USB 3.0 enclosure, but had multiple problems with the drive dropping out and not coming back from sleep. Also, it had a plastic internal housing which I didn't like. The Vantec is (and the Velocity is) all aluminum. Because I have the 3.5" form factor, it has an external power supply. I keep a bit of buffer space around it if I want to keep the temps from rising; however, I've run my data drive and backup drives nearly side-by-side and yes the temps rise slightly, but I did not have any issues (generally backing up several gigs of data, so the two are running pretty constantly for about 20-30 min. without coming up for air).

Whatever you do, I'd recommend looking for all-aluminum enclosures, whether you want the security of a fan or not. But remember: those little fans are usually cheap and will fail or start to get noisy. The fanless enclosures I've been using are wonderfully silent (though the 7200RPM drives are decidedly not!).

I've also had no problems with the 2TB drives under WinXP 32-bit (though I have them partitioned quite a bit so I've never tried it with a 2TB partition). I suspect a lot of issues come from the enclosure and the controller it uses.

 

T-RHex,

I also have fan and fan-less 3.5" external enclosures and have had no trouble with either. I only connect them to backup data and OS partitions (with images). Of interest, the aluminum fan-less enclosures are barely warm to touch while they are receiving the backup data.

 

It should be noted that Vantec is a major brand with a solid reputation for making quiet (with quality fans using precision bearings and "sound" - literally and figuratively - blade engineering) and silent (fanless) cooling solutions. So I don't know of a better choice you could have made there.

That said, regardless the enclosure, placement and ambient conditions play a critical role. If inside a properly ventilated computer case is not possible, get a good enclosure and place it where air can circulate around it. Then just keep it clean of heat trapping dust and all should be good.