SSD for project files - worthwhile?

I use nothing but SSD’s anymore, 6 internal and 2 external (for portability). I haven’t decided exactly how each is used yet. Must try for a bit, to maximize distributed use, storage capacity and convenience of handling (across machines). My latest configuration use 1 for OS and installation files (for applications and plugins, some require quite a bit of storage), 1 for projects, and 3 for media (via MediaBay). I use the external ones for moving things (e.g. projects and new media files) elsewhere. I still have network storage for media, but am trying out local copies.

Is it worthwhile then? Absolutely, same situation as when I got my first hard drive back in the Atari days, a 20 MB (or maybe 30, can’t remember anymore), which by today’s standard doesn’t compare, but compared to a floppy it was fast. Compared to HD’s, SSD’s are lightning fast.

SSDs trounce HDDs in every performance parameter.

However, they do not operate in isolation. In a general computer, overall performance is dependent upon CPU, disks and video, each mitigating against huge performance advantages in the others. With DAWS, video doesn’t have to be spectacular to be sufficient, so if disk performance is exemplary, the single limiting factor is CPU.

Considering how much the CPU is critically doing in a DAW, once SSDs are installed, the limitations in one’s CPU show up. We often see huge transfer rate specs for drives, but rarely see those rates when using the OS to transfer files, just because of the overhead required in the OS, utilities and programs themselves.

Which is why, though SSDs are far superior, the real-life net performance improvements may only be marginal. Mind you, while changing from HDDs to SSDs is not hugely expensive these days compared to the average weekly earnings, to get the same level of performance improvement in CPUs could be the cost of a new car!

5.25" docks like this make SSDs really useful, while also allowing front fans in the drive bay areas (internal bay and behind the lower three 5.25 bays) free flow to cool the computer better.

Forgive my ignorance, but I though that SSD’s still had issues with repeated deletions and re-recording causing dead areas and that this was the reason they were recommended for the C drive, but not for the project drive. This sounds like old info, but no one has mentioned it.

1 Like

Don’t know if it is true. I never delete anything. Using a 1 TB disk and change disc when it is full.

Each block on an SSD has a limit of 10,000 writes for an MLC drive, which is what most consumer SSDs are.

Now, to prevent any one block being thrashed to the limit ahead of others, SSDs use what is called ‘wear-levelling’ to spread the writes evenly over all available blocks, that is, empty ones. The drive only pretends to write to the same block as far as the OS knows, but it is being directed to different ones all the time. This is similar to bad block management on HDDs

To further allow some redundancy for future write-exhaustion, SSDs keep some capacity from being directly used, and swaps blocks with the ‘visible’ ones to further level the wear.

Now, even if a block has reached its last write, it can be read indefinitely, so data is never lost, but the capacity reduces for new writes.

However, even writing the same block five times a day, it would last 5 years, so as long as there is enough spare space on a drive, it will have enough wear-levelling blocks to probably get to fail completely before one block ever reaches write-exhaustion. For project drives, most blocks will be static (recorded tracks) and any one block may go for days without being written to again.

Of course, for sample users, an OS or data SSD that may have started to lose capacity can be used for less used libraries until it fails.


Now, over the years, people have brought up that the Windows page file may write thrash an SSD. However, writes are cached in memory, so that, as telemetry has shown, there are many small reads from the page file, but few writes, and mostly of 1MB.

Thanks. That is an interesting answer, I will have to think about investing in SSD drives when I commission my next computer.

Where you’d really see a difference is with large sample libraries. an SSD can cut the loading times of these by more than half (all the way down to a quarter.

So if your projects relay on “heavy” sample libraries (Kontakt, etc), then they will load considerable faster.

Mainly because it is a fairly unimpeded read (by the OS or the program = less CPU overhead) of a whole lot of large blocks (initial blocks of each sample in the patch).

Not true! This is entirely dependent on the drives reading speed and the interface’s throughput. To really reap the benefits you need a fast interface (such as those employs by internal drives, for example) and no an external USB2 drive. In this case the USB interface is the bottle-neck that slows things down.

It doesn’t matter if you use a dedicated SSD or a dedicated HDD. Both employ “unimpeded reading”. It’s all about the data transmission rate and, of cause, you’ll see a greater difference between loading 2GB worth of samples from an SSD and HDD, that loading a 2MB .cpr file from the same. That’s simple physics.

Since we are discussing drives here, it is a red herring to discuss limitations beyond them, such as in the intefaces that are NOT an integral part of the drives. Of course, a slower interface like USB2 will mitigate against SSD’s speed advantages, but it applies equally to every type of drive using it.

I was referring to ‘unimpeded’ relative to say mixing, where there may be a significant CPU involvement in the process, as for FX, which may impede timely attention to disk operations, thus masking some of the speed advantages of SSDs, which is what I discussed in an earlier post here.

Still impeded or unimpeded has nothing what so ever to do do with the issue. If you compare an “unimpeded” SSD with an “impeded” HDD, the comparison is worthless. I one could argue that an HDD is must faster than SSD. Which is true, provided the HDD is connected an internal high speed bus and the SSD via USB2. But I hope you agree that such a comparison us utterly worthless.

The same goes for your comparison of “impeded” HDDs with “unimpeded” SDDs! Please, stop comparing Apples with Oranges. Whether the drive is impeded/unimpeded has absolutely nothing to do with the equation!!! Can I be clearer?

If you want to make clear comparisons, stop comparing drives with dissimilar connection situations.

Assume both SSDs and HDDS are on SATA III connections direct on a motherboard, my contention is that speed differences between the two drives are more likely to manifest during loading of a sample template than during mixing with a lot of FX.

The drives themselves are never impeded, but in the latter:

a) the CPU is likely to be less able to immediately tend to idle drives to transfer the next blocks, and

b) there will probably be a lot less disk work (blocks per second) to transfer.

Sigh! Apparently not.

+1 It seems impossible for you!

I don’t know. I think most of the readers understand what I’m talking about. But, then there are always some that can’t be swayed by any facts or arguments. These, people usually resort to personal insults, when they realize that they have been proven wrong.

THIS!!

My old PC I had bought Samsung Spinpoint drives. Whilst their read/write head noise was very quiet, those things vibrated like mad, turned my PC case into a giant resonating box, the humming of the 2 drives phasing in and out of each other often annoyed the hell out of me, tried all kinds of tweaks to the case using silicon mounts etc but could never completely get rid of it.

Switched to 100% SSD and…silence… nothing but gentle sound of slow moving 700RPM Noctua case fans which I find soothing.

I use three SSD just for media (programs, samples, etc.) which really does not change that often, meaning sure adding to it and replace here and there, though overall it’s relatively little activity. Everything is backed up daily.

I actually only use one (512 GB) SSD for “active” projects. Meaning, projects currently being worked on. That drive is backed up every day to a secondary project SSD (straight copy for speed and easy “restore”). When projects become inactive, I simply move them off to alternate storage, and complete projects are stored on “permanent” media (CD or DVD). If I need to, I can also move projects to alternate storage to make more room for big active project(s).

My reasoning is simply that if the active drive goes bad, I loose only the difference between today and yesterday. If I’m really productive during a day, I can even run the “backup” after any session. The concept works for me, but I have not actually lost a project drive yet, so we’ll see.

Projects really are mostly writes that hang around for days or weeks. SSDs are going to last for years with that low write rate.


Get a NAS drive to which to mirror. That way it is independent hardware from your computer, but still a file-for-file mirror (yes, I too prefer backups that are simple to get at).

Actually, I have two NAS drives with a spare computer doing an overnight mirroring of the first to the second. Reasonably priced and capable ones, like Synology ones, will do their writes at the high 10s of MBps with the large files used in projects. If one could afford SSDs in them, transfers would be done at the 100+MBps that GbE allows.


I have a Pioneer (the only ones to get) BluRay write drive, and a local chain store had a clearance special on Imation 25GB discs for $1 each, so I bought dozens. That makes for very cheap one-disc storage for our finished projects, as some are over 10GB due to the multiple FHD/50fps video takes that can be up to 800MB each.

I keep raw copies of every original candidate take (both the audio and video), as well as every version of offline edited audio, as one never knows if one may decide to revisit it or raid it for a note to use in an overdub, but mainly because it is a chronological record of the effort, that can be the key to fending off possible copyright suits if someone feels aggrieved for some reason.

That adds up to a lot of storage. When we did our CD 10 years ago, I skimped on buying larger capacity optical drives and ended up taking ages to copy projects to multiple CDRs. Since HDDs and NASs were much more expensive then, I backed up every editing session to optical as well. Learnt the lesson = use optical discs that can hold the whole project = least overhead time + least storage space!

+1 for using all SSD’s. If you can afford it, replace all daily-work drives (system, audio, samples, etc.) with SSD’s and only use regular mechanicals for archive and storage.

I made the plunge on my main rig and 4 VEPro rigs a few years back and my smile has been too big to notice the fleeting pain to my wallet. And SSD’s are so much cheaper now!