SSDs - Solid (pardon the pun) Reliable Install? (or not?)

[Slynky]

My SSD dying in less than a year (Crucial C300 - 128) has caused me to take a deeper look at the use of SSDs as a fast HD substitute. Anyone not already familiar with the rhetoric surrounding the SSD drive should do a bit of searching.

So, everyone's a genius (or near genius) when it comes to comments on the drive. Here (paraphrased for brevity) are some of the highlights:

(1) Don't run a page file on SSDs--you'll kill the drive.
(2) Don't defrag an SSD--you don't need to and you'll just wear out the drive.
(3) Be sure to run trim--or you'll wear out the drive (whatever trim is).
(4) You need to strip SSDs clean once in a while and reload them (forgot the technical terms used in that discussion).

Needless to say, there might not be a "fire" there but there certainly is a lot of smoke.

For my part, I can't understand the logic of why an electronic device with NO moving parts wouldn't automatically have the edge in outlasting another electronic device WITH moving parts (standard HDD) so I don't know how much of this is BS or not.

Suffice it to say mine failed and now I'm SSD-shy. Yes, I have a new one (because I couldn't let my business sit still while I waited on Crucial to debate and mail a warranty replacement).

SO, here's my real question and request for suggestions:

Let's say I want to copy my complete "C" image to a backup drive, say, once a week. The idea being that I can use this image (should my new Crucial SSD drive fail) to blast the warranty replacement drive (same drive type and size) I will have soon (cross my fingers). After 8-10 hours of rebuilding my system with all my settings, preferences, software, etc., I'm ready for something a bit easier should the new "C" drive die.

So, does anyone have any suggestions on a good product to use to make a back up of my complete system drive for re-imaging a new drive(and boot up from it, of course) should the need arise?

Thanks in advance !

[legend_018]

I haven't used one in a long time, but I know you can create an image using Symantec Norton Ghost 15.0.

I recently came across this - not exactly sure how it works or how well it works. It 's suppose to work for both unix and windows. Even though the name is deceiving.

g4u - Harddisk Image Cloning for PCs

it's open source.

On another note - I've read various opinions on what the recommendations are for running check disk on SSD drive to make sure nothing is wrong with it if someone wants to rule out problems with the harddrive. Some say no need to run it and others say you should.

[glc]

Acronis True Image 2011 is the recommended imaging software for SSD's.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am not on the SSD bandwagon. It's incidents like this that keep me using conventional hard drives.

[David M]

Making a backup clone relatively frequently will put you back in business in minutes should you have a drive failure. With a clone you do not have to spend hours starting from scratch. Keep an external drive back up for the differences between when you last made the clone and now.

[glc]

With SSD's, images are recommended over clones.

[EzyStvy]

(1) Don't run a page file on SSDs--you'll kill the drive.

How did you come to this conclusion and how do pc's with only a SSD run without a page file?

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by EzyStvy How did you come to this conclusion and how do pc's with only a SSD run without a page file?

First of all, I'm only paraphrasing what I read. Take a look for yourself with some search words to get a better idea of what I found. To continue, from what I read, a pagefile is NOT needed for today's "modern" programs but, instead, are there to cater to older legacy programs people still have.

I'm certainly no genius at this stuff BUT, if a pagefile is required, why is there a checkbox to turn it off in Windows 7 settings?

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by glc With SSD's, images are recommended over clones.

Without asking for a detailed explanation ('cause I know you're way busy...), I always thought those two terms were just a common way of referring to the same thing--a copy of the system disc on another device that can be recorded/transferred to a new device so that the new copy/device can then be used to boot up the PC and begin working right away (negating the need for the time-consuming reload probram-by-program).

I'm going to guess at the difference and say ONE of the two copies all the data from the system drive and if needed in the future, must be put back on an identical device while the other can be laid in over any device (so long as it's of sufficient capacity).

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by glc Acronis True Image 2011 is the recommended imaging software for SSD's. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am not on the SSD bandwagon. It's incidents like this that keep me using conventional hard drives.

At Amazon (where one seems to be able to get the most reviews on things), people aren't very happy with it. Of course, in my instance, I not one of those people with a complicated/unusual setup (if you don't count the SSD system drive), so it might be OK for me.

I wish their site had a bit more indepth information...

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by legend_018 I haven't used one in a long time, but I know you can create an image using Symantec Norton Ghost 15.0. I recently came across this - not exactly sure how it works or how well it works. It 's suppose to work for both unix and windows. Even though the name is deceiving. g4u - Harddisk Image Cloning for PCs it's open source. On another note - I've read various opinions on what the recommendations are for running check disk on SSD drive to make sure nothing is wrong with it if someone wants to rule out problems with the harddrive. Some say no need to run it and others say you should.

Thanks for your reply.

We use Ghost at work and have for many years. Not sure it happily accepts SSDs in its arms...

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by glc Acronis True Image 2011 is the recommended imaging software for SSD's. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am not on the SSD bandwagon. It's incidents like this that keep me using conventional hard drives.

A bit OT but out of curiosity, what do you think ARE good choices for conventional HDDs these days for good speed on a SATA 3 port?

And these new hybrid drives--are they just SSD "front ends" on a conventional drive (translation: subject to the same pitfalls as SSD drives)?

[Rick Hall]

A good conventional hard drive would be a Western Digital Black series.
The Blue and green series are also good but not as fast as the Black series although the Black series runs a little hotter.

[glc]

Slynky, first, an administrative note if I may. Please use the multi-quote function instead of a separate reply to address each point. The multi-quote is the icon to the right of the Quote button. Click each one to turn them orange, then click the Post Reply button. Also, if you need to add to a post after posting it, please use the Edit button. Thank you!

A clone is an exact copy of a whole drive. A cloned drive can be swapped seamlessly. An image is a single compressed file of a partition which can be restored onto a drive by booting with the program media. It can also be explored within the imaging program for selected extraction and restoration. Images can be stored on any media that it will fit on. Imaging can be managed just like the old backup programs - it can be scheduled, you can make incremental and differential images in addition to full images - look at it as today's backup programs.

My preference is WD Black.

Back to SSD - right now, the Crucials are the only game in town for SATA 6.0. However, the only SSD's I would somewhat trust in my system would be Intel and their relabeled brands such as A-Data. I don't have or see the need for SSD speed though, I'm a reasonably patient person.

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by Rick Hall A good conventional hard drive would be a Western Digital Black series. The Blue and green series are also good but not as fast as the Black series although the Black series runs a little hotter.

Thanks for the reply. It seems you and glc agree. I thought I read something about the Seagate XT series using PMR and being pretty fast--in fact, making some use of SATA 3 speeds.

Originally Posted by glc Slynky, first, an administrative note if I may. Please use the multi-quote function instead of a separate reply to address each point. The multi-quote is the icon to the right of the Quote button. Click each one to turn them orange, then click the Post Reply button. Also, if you need to add to a post after posting it, please use the Edit button. Thank you! Noted. A clone is an exact copy of a whole drive. A cloned drive can be swapped seamlessly. An image is a single compressed file of a partition which can be restored onto a drive by booting with the program media. It can also be explored within the imaging program for selected extraction and restoration. Images can be stored on any media that it will fit on. Imaging can be managed just like the old backup programs - it can be scheduled, you can make incremental and differential images in addition to full images - look at it as today's backup programs. Thanks for the explanation. To continue into the procedure...an image has been made of a "C" drive on some other drive. The C drive croaks. Can't even boot up the system. So--guessing--I insert some sort of bootable CD or flash drive from the imaging software maker, locate a saved image of the crashed C drive, and transfer it to my newly installed C drive (that is empty). Would that be the scenario? My preference is WD Black. Back to SSD - right now, the Crucials are the only game in town for SATA 6.0. However, the only SSD's I would somewhat trust in my system would be Intel and their relabeled brands such as A-Data. I don't have or see the need for SSD speed though, I'm a reasonably patient person.

Ahh, yes, it does seem to be our forever dilemma--speed OR reliability.

[David M]

Originally Posted by glc With SSD's, images are recommended over clones.

His cloned backup does not need to be a SSD, right? That would save money in not having to buy two SSD's.

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by David M His cloned backup does not need to be a SSD, right? That would save money in not having to buy two SSD's.

I would guess that's the right idea (although after I call Crucial on Monday and work out an exchange, I should have an identical drive).

[David M]

They are going to let you keep the old SSD? If so you are lucky because that is not usually how it works.

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by David M They are going to let you keep the old SSD? If so you are lucky because that is not usually how it works.

You may have missed it somewhere...

It went bad. I bought a new one (right away rather than wait for Crucial to deal with me). So, I have two. The bad one I will deal with Crucial on Monday for a warranty exchange. Then I'll have a spare (refurbished) one.

[David M]

Gotcha now

[Preston]

Originally Posted by glc Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am not on the SSD bandwagon.

Come on, join the party! You're missing out on the fun!

I love my Intel SSDs. They have been rock solid. Can't speak for the other brands.

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by Preston Come on, join the party! You're missing out the fun! I love my Intel SSDs. They have been rock solid. Can't speak for the other brands.

[glc]

an image has been made of a "C" drive on some other drive. The C drive croaks. Can't even boot up the system. So--guessing--I insert some sort of bootable CD or flash drive from the imaging software maker, locate a saved image of the crashed C drive, and transfer it to my newly installed C drive (that is empty). Would that be the scenario?

Exactly!

His cloned backup does not need to be a SSD, right? That would save money in not having to buy two SSD's.

I'm recommending an image, not a clone. I do not know how well a SSD would clone over to a standard drive and then clone back. In theory, it should work, but it's sure a waste of space to clone a SSD to a much larger hard drive just for backup purposes. A large hard drive can contain a number of images along with anything else you want to put on it. I'd personally keep an image of my C drive on my data drive in a dedicated folder. Remember, a clone is all or nothing. Images can be manipulated.

I thought I read something about the Seagate XT series using PMR and being pretty fast--in fact, making some use of SATA 3 speeds.

This may very well be true - but I don't trust Seagate reliability these days. Their firmware fiasco a couple years ago turned me off big time, and I've seen other failures too. They also shortened their warranty on most of their drives - the WD Black is one of the few drives out there with a 5 year warranty now.

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by glc Exactly! I'm recommending an image, not a clone. I do not know how well a SSD would clone over to a standard drive and then clone back. In theory, it should work, but it's sure a waste of space to clone a SSD to a much larger hard drive just for backup purposes. A large hard drive can contain a number of images along with anything else you want to put on it. I'd personally keep an image of my C drive on my data drive in a dedicated folder. Remember, a clone is all or nothing. Images can be manipulated. This may very well be true - but I don't trust Seagate reliability these days. Their firmware fiasco a couple years ago turned me off big time, and I've seen other failures too. They also shortened their warranty on most of their drives - the WD Black is one of the few drives out there with a 5 year warranty now.

Thanks. Always a good source of information. You've been a big help. Despite the less than stellar ratings on Amazon, I'll probably pick up Acronis...now to figure out which one... LOL.

[glc]

True Image Home 2011 should do the job.

Newegg.com - Acronis True Image Home 2011

[Slynky]

Originally Posted by glc True Image Home 2011 should do the job. Newegg.com - Acronis True Image Home 2011

Thanks, glc. Color it ordered !

[renowilliams]

Originally Posted by Preston Come on, join the party! You're missing out on the fun! I love my Intel SSDs. They have been rock solid. Can't speak for the other brands.

+1 on the intel SSDs. I have had two X-25m drives in a raid 0 configuration for over a year,and knock on wood,the have worked flawless. I recently checked my read write performance for degredation and found them right where they were when I first installed them. 530M/sec read and 170 M/sec write.

[jdeb]

I have had zero problems with the Intel X-25 series drives. No problems with the Crucial s either but have only used a couple (6 Gbs).