[sunny_j]

i recently purchased a samsung evo 1tb ssd and i was wondering if i would have any performance loss if i put the OS and all my media on the 1tb ssd. primary use will be editing raw dslr files and video editing in premiere pro cs6. i know installing the OS and keeping media files on one hd is a bad idea because it bogs everything down. does the same logic apply to ssd's?

i currently have an owc ssd and owc does not recommend to enable trim, but the samsung evo ssd does. i don't want to buy another 240gb samsung evo to replace the owc ssd which is working flawlessly.

thanks in advance.

[Recon604]

os should always be put on ur ssd, or else there will be no benefit of having a ssd on ur system. Programs such as Photoshop, Premiere pro should also be on your ssd. This will allow your system and programs on that ssd to load and perform faster.

Other media such as documents can be on other hds like your 1tb ssd.

OR

you can have all the files on your 1tb SSD since it is has such a big capacity. The only thing is that the SSD will wear down since it has a limited number of times it can read and write. But if with TRIM enabled, it optimize those levels

[!MiKrofT]

There's no detrimental effect to having all your stuff on the same drive.

[Traum]

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable putting the media files and the OS on the same (SSD) drive. The media files are huge and you'll get new sets each and every time. So as you work, I am concerned that over time, they will wear out your OS drive too soon due to the huge amounts of writes.

I'm too lazy to google what the expected number is for the write capacity of the Samsung Evo, but I think consumer grade SSD are generally spec-ed to handle 20GB - 50GB's worth of data writes a day, and with this expected write duty, the manufacturer says they're good for something like 3 - 5 years. If I were you, I'd go google this stuff up and see for yourself how your usage patterns affect the SSD life, and whether you're comfortable with that.

[twitchyzero]

not the most cost effective...but if you only wanna use 1 slot and have both space and speed

nm doesnt support Mac

WD's Black2 SSD/HDD combo drive promises to solve the capacity-versus-speed storage conundrum | PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066208/wds-black2-ssd-hdd-combo-drive-promises-to-solve-the-capacity-versus-speed-storage-conundrum.html)

[sunny_j]

os should always be put on ur ssd, or else there will be no benefit of having a ssd on ur system. Programs such as Photoshop, Premiere pro should also be on your ssd. This will allow your system and programs on that ssd to load and perform faster.

Other media such as documents can be on other hds like your 1tb ssd.

OR

you can have all the files on your 1tb SSD since it is has such a big capacity. The only thing is that the SSD will wear down since it has a limited number of times it can read and write. But if with TRIM enabled, it optimize those levels
There's no detrimental effect to having all your stuff on the same drive.
after some research i have come to the same conclusion. "1TB. SSDs can handle much higher IOPs than HDs so you can't really bog them down except in the most extreme I/O situations (e.g. heavily loaded server)."
1TB SSD vs 240GB SSD (OS)+1TB SDD (Media) Combo (general question) - MacRumors Forums (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1681530)

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable putting the media files and the OS on the same (SSD) drive. The media files are huge and you'll get new sets each and every time. So as you work, I am concerned that over time, they will wear out your OS drive too soon due to the huge amounts of writes.

I'm too lazy to google what the expected number is for the write capacity of the Samsung Evo, but I think consumer grade SSD are generally spec-ed to handle 20GB - 50GB's worth of data writes a day, and with this expected write duty, the manufacturer says they're good for something like 3 - 5 years. If I were you, I'd go google this stuff up and see for yourself how your usage patterns affect the SSD life, and whether you're comfortable with that.
thanks for the reply... i am not too concerned about the SSD dying after so many write cycles.

not the most cost effective...but if you only wanna use 1 slot and have both space and speed

nm doesnt support Mac

WD's Black2 SSD/HDD combo drive promises to solve the capacity-versus-speed storage conundrum | PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2066208/wds-black2-ssd-hdd-combo-drive-promises-to-solve-the-capacity-versus-speed-storage-conundrum.html)
i see no benefit of a hybrid HD. at the end of the day, the read and write speeds for from the HD portion of the drive will be very slow compared to what a sata 3 SSD provides.

[Traum]

thanks for the reply... i am not too concerned about the SSD dying after so many write cycles.

Just a quick clarification -- I'm not concerned about SSD dying after its expected number of write cycles are exhausted. After all, stuff is meant to be used, and if their expected service life has been reached, so be it. And for your work, if an SSD can dramatically speed up your processing, you'd be silly to not go for it and continue to rely on older HDD technologies.

My only concern pertains to the fact that when the big SSD dies from high usage, it'll take your OS along with it since they are all on the same drive. That might not be so desirable.

[John]

My take on this is to do whatever you feel like. There is no right or wrong way. It will be difficult to get 3 people to agree.

FYI:
Anand went to SSD because they are more reliable than HD. He seems have enough experience and knowledge to know.
AnandTech | Inside AnandTech 2013: All-SSD Architecture (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6824/inside-anandtech-2013-allssd-architecture)

[!MiKrofT]

Just a quick clarification -- I'm not concerned about SSD dying after its expected number of write cycles are exhausted. After all, stuff is meant to be used, and if their expected service life has been reached, so be it. And for your work, if an SSD can dramatically speed up your processing, you'd be silly to not go for it and continue to rely on older HDD technologies.

My only concern pertains to the fact that when the big SSD dies from high usage, it'll take your OS along with it since they are all on the same drive. That might not be so desirable.
An SSD doesn't crap out all at once. Once bad parts start to form they are marked off as unusable and the reserved space gets released to fill in the lost space. Once the reserved space runs out the SSD space available will simply start to shrink. In terms of reliability.

For example. My Samsung 250GB SSD uses TLC chips. Anand calculates that writing at 100GB a day yields like 8 years of usage. I'll probably have upgraded by that time let alone even writing close to 100GB a day. MLC will last even longer. So it's kinda a moot point. Also larger drives have better endurance. A 1TB should be able to write 100GB a day for 31 years based on TLC chip.

[Traum]

For example. My Samsung 250GB SSD uses TLC chips. Anand calculates that writing at 100GB a day yields like 8 years of usage. I'll probably have upgraded by that time let alone even writing close to 100GB a day. MLC will last even longer. So it's kinda a moot point. Also larger drives have better endurance. A 1TB should be able to write 100GB a day for 31 years based on TLC chip.
^^ Quite true. Did some googling just now, and the 1TB Samsung Evo is estimated to handle 63 years @ 50 GiB/day, or 31.6 years @ 100 GiB/day.

AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Tested (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3)

Must have been thinking about the endurance of the smaller drives when I replied earlier.