First Mac-Mini

[Amethyst1]

Personally I think SSD is a bit of a waste when installed on a SATA 2 09 Mac Mini or a SATA 1 port on my PowerMac G5, when all of the newer SSD supports SATA 3 ports.

I'll have to respectfully disagree here and say an SSD is never a waste, even on a SATA I or -gasp- an IDE port via a SATA-to-IDE adapter. In fact, SSDs are the best thing that has happened to computing in the last decade. A hybrid drive with just 8 GB of flash memory (which will barely hold a complete Leopard installation) or even the once-mighty VelociRaptor doesn't hold a candle next to a good SSD. Transfer speeds aren't the most important thing when it comes to SSDs, it's the almost non-existent random access times that counts. And these are not limited or adversely affected by the interface.

I have personal experience with a 24GB SSD plus 1TB 5400rpm HDD "Fusion Drive" setup which is basically the hybrid drive setup you mention. As long as all the data is on the SSD it's delightfully fast but as soon as the spinner is hit (which happens way too often with just 24GB of space on the SSD to begin with), performance drops badly. It's so bad that I've delegated the Fusion Drive to be solely for data, with the OS and applications on a "proper" SSD.
[automerge]1577550688[/automerge]

I have the A400 and is a slow SSD drive; definitely not in the class of the Samsung EVO or the Sandisk Extreme

That's the problem. Don't compromise on SSDs. I did that when I bought my first 32GB SSD back in 2008 and it was absolutely horrible, to the point of making me put the hard drive back in. A year or so later, I bought the 80GB Intel X25-M (generally regarded as being the first "good" consumer SSD) and the difference was like night and day compared to both the HDD and the older SSD.

 

[timidpimpin]

On my PowerMac G5, my Seagate Momentus XT 750Gb drive cost me only $15 used and gives me the same response speed as a Kingston A400 SSD

With all due respect... you're doing something wrong if that's your experience.

 

[Amethyst1]

Nice! I just got this 2012 max config with 16GB RAM and 500GB SSD and two monitors for free. IT networking is awesome.

Now that's what I call a good deal.

 

[weckart]

With the Velociraptor drives, you can get a 500Gb one for like $20 and gives a latency of a cheap Kingston A400 drive. I have the A400 and is a slow SSD drive; definitely not in the class of the Samsung EVO or the Sandisk Extreme in my higher perfomance Windows 10 laptop. The more expensive SSDs all have DRAM and they help in buffering the xfer speeds on slower SATA ports.

This is going into the cramped confines of a Mac Mini. I don't think a noisy and toasty Velociraptor would be the ideal choice, albeit in a server kept out of the way.

 

[Amethyst1]

This is going into the cramped confines of a Mac Mini. I don't think a noisy and toasty Velociraptor would be the ideal choice, albeit in a server kept out of the way.

The VelociRaptor wouldn't even fit due to having a height of 15mm and being enclosed by a hefty heatsink which further increases its dimensions to those of a 3.5" drive.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I'll have to respectfully disagree here and say an SSD is never a waste, even on a SATA I or -gasp- an IDE port via a SATA-to-IDE adapter. In fact, SSDs are the best thing that has happened to computing in the last decade. A hybrid drive with just 8 GB of flash memory (which will barely hold a complete Leopard installation) or even the once-mighty VelociRaptor doesn't hold a candle next to a good SSD. Transfer speeds aren't the most important thing when it comes to SSDs, it's the almost non-existent random access times that counts. And these are not limited or adversely affected by the interface.

I have personal experience with a 24GB SSD plus 1TB 5400rpm HDD "Fusion Drive" setup which is basically the hybrid drive setup you mention. As long as all the data is on the SSD it's delightfully fast but as soon as the spinner is hit (which happens way too often with just 24GB of space on the SSD to begin with), performance drops badly. It's so bad that I've delegated the Fusion Drive to be solely for data, with the OS and applications on a "proper" SSD.
[automerge]1577550688[/automerge]

That's the problem. Don't compromise on SSDs. I did that when I bought my first 32GB SSD back in 2008 and it was absolutely horrible, to the point of making me put the hard drive back in. A year or so later, I bought the 80GB Intel X25-M (generally regarded as being the first "good" consumer SSD) and the difference was like night and day compared to both the HDD and the older SSD.

There is a real difference between real life experience and benchmarks. Yes, with benchmarks the SSD is fast and hypothetical usage is fast. Many Youtube videos can demonstrate how fast a PowerMac G5 with SSD RAID 0 flies as well as a Mac Mini 2009 flies with SSD in place. But in real life usage, the benefits will start to diminish due to the limitation of the SATA 1 port on the G5 and SATA port on the Mac Mini 2009. Meaning that most of the xfer speed of the SSD will not be exploited unless you have a super fast system like a Mac Pro 5,1 with a Highpoint RAID card or with the latest Mac Mini 2018 with a Thunderbolt 3 SATA 3 enclosure. But you are dealing with 4K, 6K and 8K raw video files which is where you will benefit from SSD's low latency and higher xfer throughput. A PowerMac G5 can't deal with RAW 10bit 4K video; only 1080p. With uncompressed WAV 24bit 48Khz or 96Khz audio files, hardly anyone can distinguish the difference between 24bit 48Khz vs 96Khz audio recording, so you end up with files that are not small and yet not big either. In real life, the difference is not all that noticeable. If many of you can't tolerate a few seconds delay, then by all means go for an exclusive SSD drive.

What SSD does is offer lower latency, so access times are far quicker than spinning platter on smaller files and while it gives a faster feel than a spinning platter, it offers little benefit for real life usage other than just feeling quick with the OS. As soon as it loads bigger files, it is limited by the SATA port's xfer speed. An SSD drive does not make a SATA 1 or 2 port behave like a SATA 3. This is a misconception.

I work in a recycling computer facility where we rebuilt thousands and thousands of computers from servers, macs, PCs, linux boxes and I think I have more real life experiences than perhaps many of you here and I had rebuilt and tested thousands of combination anyone can think of (the beauty of having ALL the TOYS in one place) and while SSD has its place, SSD benefits apply to specific applications. I had met too many customers that had been advised that they had to have a SSD and then by asking their real life usage I realized some benefit very little from a SSD other than having a SSD boot drive and a clean system install.

If you look at the Seagate Firecuda series, it is marketed towards gamers. It is a capable drive for the price performance ratio and the response time is pretty good for a hybrid drive.

 

[Amethyst1]

There is a real difference between real life experience and benchmarks. Yes, with benchmarks the SSD is fast and hypothetical usage is fast.

I couldn't care less about benchmarks. All I care about is the real life experience.

But in real life usage, the benefits will start to diminish due to the limitation of the SATA 1 port on the G5 and SATA port on the Mac Mini 2009. Meaning that most of the xfer speed of the SSD will not be exploited unless you have a super fast system

As you say in the next paragraph, you will still benefit from the near-zero access times. I'm not denying the fact that the transfer speed suffers from using a slower interface. That was my point. Case in point: Prior to replacing my 2009 Mini's HDD with an SSD, I quickly threw the SSD into a no-brand USB 2.0 enclosure and booted off of it. Even though its speed was limited to about 60 MB/s - and thus, not higher than the internal HDD's - the OS and applications still booted and loaded much faster.

What SSD does is offer lower latency, so access times are far quicker than spinning platter on smaller files and while it gives a faster feel than a spinning platter, it offers little benefit for real life usage other than just feeling quick with the OS. As soon as it loads bigger files, it is limited by the SATA port's xfer speed. An SSD drive does not make a SATA 1 or 2 port behave like a SATA 3. This is a misconception.

Exactly. It makes the OS and applications load way faster than with even a 15,000-rpm SAS hard drive. And this is what I (and, somewhat presumably, most "normal-user" people who go for an SSD), want. Everyone's usage scenarios will be different, but I deal with smaller files, such as those accessed when launching stuff, way more frequently than with bigger files. Noone said an SSD will make a SATA 1 or 2 port behave like a 3 one. And, by the way, SSD's have been saturating SATA 3 for years now, so for maximum speed, you really need to hook them up via PCIe.

I'm not doubting your experience. I was merely questioning your statement that an SSD is a waste unless its transfer speed can be fully exploited.
[automerge]1577559995[/automerge]

But you are dealing with 4K, 6K and 8K raw video files which is where you will benefit from SSD's low latency and higher xfer throughput.

I'm not dealing with anything like that. But I still benefit from an SSD's low latency and higher throughput, also because I've been a virtualisation user since day one and deal with large disk image files.

 

[timidpimpin]

Even if we're talking being limited to SATA 2 speed... I can't think of any spinner that could saturate the 280-300MB/sec speed, but even the cheapest SSD will saturate that without even trying.

These mini's can only take standard thickness 2.5" drives, and the fastest spinner that will fit would be a WD Black. I own a 750GB 2.5" Black, and it maxes out at around 120MB/sec. Less than half what SATA 2 is capable of.

These @iluvmacs99 theories are simply not based in reality.

 

[Slix]

Nice! Glad to see it went to an Apple "enthist".

We've got a 2006 Mac Mini running Snow Leopard in the basement that's hooked up to an old set of speakers and a decent monitor. I basically only use it for YouTube while exercising, but it can do some quick web browsing if need be, and it's nice to be able to do Screen Sharing to my other G4 Mini Server, which is headless right across the desk from it. Mac Minis are really great for the cost, and the size they take up. Ours is underneath the monitor, so it's essentially 0 space used.

To add to the SSD comments: Even with slower read/write speeds due to the interfaces of SATA 1/2, SSDs really do make a difference in just about every machine. I put one in my 800 MHz PowerBook G4 and it soars, even though it's only on an Ultra ATA/66 connector.

 

[timidpimpin]

Let me also add... I also used to think SSD's were a waste of time and money... until I started booting from one.

 

[defjam]

There is a real difference between real life experience and benchmarks. Yes, with benchmarks the SSD is fast and hypothetical usage is fast. Many Youtube videos can demonstrate how fast a PowerMac G5 with SSD RAID 0 flies as well as a Mac Mini 2009 flies with SSD in place. But in real life usage, the benefits will start to diminish due to the limitation of the SATA 1 port on the G5 and SATA port on the Mac Mini 2009. Meaning that most of the xfer speed of the SSD will not be exploited unless you have a super fast system like a Mac Pro 5,1 with a Highpoint RAID card or with the latest Mac Mini 2018 with a Thunderbolt 3 SATA 3 enclosure. But you are dealing with 4K, 6K and 8K raw video files which is where you will benefit from SSD's low latency and higher xfer throughput. A PowerMac G5 can't deal with RAW 10bit 4K video; only 1080p. With uncompressed WAV 24bit 48Khz or 96Khz audio files, hardly anyone can distinguish the difference between 24bit 48Khz vs 96Khz audio recording, so you end up with files that are not small and yet not big either. In real life, the difference is not all that noticeable. If many of you can't tolerate a few seconds delay, then by all means go for an exclusive SSD drive.

What SSD does is offer lower latency, so access times are far quicker than spinning platter on smaller files and while it gives a faster feel than a spinning platter, it offers little benefit for real life usage other than just feeling quick with the OS. As soon as it loads bigger files, it is limited by the SATA port's xfer speed. An SSD drive does not make a SATA 1 or 2 port behave like a SATA 3. This is a misconception.

Modern entry level SSDs outperform spinning hard disks in every area except $/GB. SSD prices have dropped considerably (a 480GB SATA SSD can be had for as little as $45) over the past year and there's little reason to avoid using one.

 

[iluvmacs99]

Even if we're talking being limited to SATA 2 speed... I can't think of any spinner that could saturate the 280-300MB/sec speed, but even the cheapest SSD will saturate that without even trying.

These mini's can only take standard thickness 2.5" drives, and the fastest spinner that will fit would be a WD Black. I own a 750GB 2.5" Black, and it maxes out at around 120MB/sec. Less than half what SATA 2 is capable of.

These @iluvmacs99 theories are simply not based in reality.

Are you implying that a Mac Mini 2009 with a Core 2 Duo can saturate up 280-300MB/sec speed? I actually have one here and a Macbook 4,1 and I can't saturate a fast SSD SATA3 at all. If so, I like to see this because that's a theory you are implying. Not based on reality that I know of. Stay on topic of what the OP owns.

 

[eyoungren]

Updating to Yosemite now…

 

[iluvmacs99]

I think people here keeps talking about the speed of launching applications. But launching applications is one part of the function of a computer. It is working with data files that is another part of the computing equation, because most people in real life spends most of their time working with data files, not launching 20 different applications all at once those Youtube videos keep trying to demonstrate the benefits of having a SSD.

So there needs to be a balance between access time and xfer time when working with those files, and while your particular case benefits a SSD, most people don't especially with a Mac Mini 2009, because a SSD costs more per Gb of storage compared to some alternatives I mentioned earlier, like with a Momentus XT hard drive. Does anyone here work with a Momentus XT drive or a Velociraptor drive on the Mac Mini 2009? I suspect none of you had done so, because that was my experience when I installed it and most of you are basing your experience on a SSD, not on a Momentus XT / Velociraptor on a Mini 2009 in real life situations.

The benefits of more Gb per storage with a slower Mac Mini 2009 favor those options. Now, if we are talking about a Mac Mini 2012 or 2014 however, then yes I would put in a bigger sized SSD and forget those spinners just because the processor in the 2012 (if it's a Quad i7) benefits more with a SSD in place than a Core 2 Duo in the 2009.

Now, if you can score a 500Gb SSD drive for $15-20 new, then why not put into a Mini 2009. That time will come soon enough, just like a 120Gb SSD drive is like $20 new. Just a few years back, a 64Gb SSD cost an arm and a leg.

 

[defjam]

Are you implying that a Mac Mini 2009 with a Core 2 Duo can saturate up 280-300Mb/sec speed? I actually have one here and a Macbook 4,1 and I can't saturate a fast SSD SATA3 at all. If so, I like to see this because that's a theory you are implying. Not based on reality that I know of.

It's irrelevant whether it can or not. The reality is modern SSDs easily outperform spinning hard disks. Whatever the limitation is which prevents the SSD from reaching its full potential it will be just as fast, if not faster, than a spinning hard disk. Therefore there is almost no reason to avoid using one. The only reason I can think of is $/GB still favors a spinning hard disk but that difference is, IMO, no longer relevant in the majority of cases.
[automerge]1577564567[/automerge]

I think people here keeps talking about the speed of launching applications. But launching applications is one part of the function of a computer. It is working with data files that is another part of the computing equation, because most people in real life spends most of their time working with data files, not launching 20 different applications all at once those Youtube videos keep trying to demonstrate the benefits of having a SSD.

So there needs to be a balance between access time and xfer time when working with those files, and while your particular case benefits a SSD, most people don't especially with a Mac Mini 2009, because a SSD costs more per Gb of storage compared to some alternatives I mentioned earlier, like with a Momentus XT hard drive. Does anyone here work with a Momentus XT drive or a Velociraptor drive on the Mac Mini 2009? I suspect none of you had done so, because that was my experience when I installed it and most of you are basing your experience on a SSD, not on a Momentus XT / Velociraptor on a Mini 2009 in real life situations.

The benefits of more Gb per storage with a slower Mac Mini 2009 favor those options. Now, if we are talking about a Mac Mini 2012 or 2014 however, then yes I would put in a bigger sized SSD and forget those spinners just because the processor in the 2012 (if it's a Quad i7) benefits more with a SSD in place than a Core 2 Duo in the 2009.

Now, if you can score a 500Gb SSD drive for $15-25, then why not put into a Mini 2009. That time will come soon enough, just like a 120Gb SSD drive is like $20 new. Just a few years back, a 64Gb SSD cost an arm and a leg.

The question is: How much storage do you need in a 2009 Mac Mini? For $45 I can install a 480GB SATA SSD. That should be more than enough for most people. If it's not I can double that capacity for $80. Whatever SATA limitations an older system may have an SSD installed in it will outperform any spinning hard disk.

I fail to see what point it is you're trying to make other than $/GB still favors spinning hard disks. However for, IMO, the vast majority of users SATA SSDs have reached a more than reasonable $/GB point relegating spinning hard disks to use cases where absolute lowest $/GB or highest capacity is of top priority. Otherwise I can't recommend using a spinning hard disk for any other general purpose use case.

 

[eyoungren]

Here is a habit you need with SSD, that you really don't need with a spinner. Keeping as much off it as possible. At least when it's an OS drive. The more empty an SSD is the faster and healthier it will be.

So I always get an SSD of 250GB or smaller, and only put my OS and apps on it. Nothing else. So if I were you I would rethink the upgrade drive always having to be larger rule you have. All you really need is a 120GB, as the main point of an SSD is to speedup the system overall, not put all your files on it.

Think about it...

I'm comfortable with your method where it concerns my 17" PB. But that PB generally has one purpose. I use it to stream my iTunes library and it goes with me to coffee shops. I maintain a copy of Office and CS2 versions of InDesign and Photoshop as well as QXP 6. That allows me to do any light graphic design if I'm out and this is the only Mac I have access to.

Consequently, I don't store things on this Mac.

But all my other Macs have purposes that dictate storing documents and other relevant files on them. While I am not likely to fill all of that up I prefer large drive sizes.

In the case of this Mini it's going to be storing files I access frequently but do not necessarily have a need to access fast. It's main purpose will be file serving. It will eventually get an SSD but because of this purpose it won't be anything less than 320.

BTW. I assume you must like the Kingston brand. I'm more of a Zheino brand person though. The mSATA 3 I have in my PB works great and the 512GB SSD I dropped into my 15" MBP works great too. So far I've not had any issues with this brand - and they are cheap. The Zheino 512GB I bought cost me $48.99.

 

[iluvmacs99]

It's irrelevant whether it can or not. The reality is modern SSDs easily outperform spinning hard disks. Whatever the limitation is which prevents the SSD from reaching its full potential it will be just as fast, if not faster, than a spinning hard disk. Therefore there is almost no reason to avoid using one. The only reason I can think of is $/GB still favors a spinning hard disk but that difference is, IMO, no longer relevant in the majority of cases.
[automerge]1577564567[/automerge]

The question is: How much storage do you need in a 2009 Mac Mini? For $45 I can install a 480GB SATA SSD. That should be more than enough for most people. If it's not I can double that capacity for $80. Whatever SATA limitations an older system may have an SSD installed in it will outperform any spinning hard disk.

I fail to see what point it is you're trying to make other than $/GB still favors spinning hard disks. However for, IMO, the vast majority of users SATA SSDs have reached a more than reasonable $/GB point relegating spinning hard disks to use cases where absolute lowest $/GB or highest capacity is of top priority. Otherwise I can't recommend using a spinning hard disk for any other general purpose use case.

$/GB and also reliability and recoverability of data from a failed SSD favors spinning hard disks also and people kept mentioning those cheap SSDs, but fails to mention their short lifespan compared to a spinning hard drive. And when SSD does fail, it fails without little warning. With a spinning hard drive, the SMART data would at least forewarn you to that. Again, while SSD is fast, its reliability for a cheap SSD meant that you need to perform backups, which then again negates the speed of a hard drive because you need to also spend time backing up the SSD more often.

I think you missed the point. The Momentus XT and Velociraptor drives are no ordinary spinners. They are a bridge in between a spinner and a SSD. They do not perform as slow as a regular 7200 rpm spinner!

 

[defjam]

$/GB and also reliability and recoverability of data from a failed SSD favors spinning hard disks also and people kept mentioning those cheap SSDs, but fails to mention their short lifespan compared to a spinning hard drive. And when SSD does fail, it fails without little warning. With a spinning hard drive, the SMART data would at least forewarn you to that. Again, while SSD is fast, its reliability for a cheap SSD meant that you need to perform backups, which then again negates the speed of a hard drive because you need to also spend time backing up the SSD more often.

Hard drive selection / type is not a factor which should be used for data recovery, that's what backups are for (whether SSD or spinning hard disk).

I think you missed the point. The Momentus XT and Velociraptor drives are no ordinary spinners. They are a bridge in between a spinner and a SSD. They do not perform as slow as a regular 7200 rpm spinner!

I know I've missed the point because, as I said earlier, I fail to see what your point is. So perhaps you would be so good as to come outright and state it for me?

 

[timidpimpin]

Are you implying that a Mac Mini 2009 with a Core 2 Duo can saturate up 280-300MB/sec speed? I actually have one here and a Macbook 4,1 and I can't saturate a fast SSD SATA3 at all. If so, I like to see this because that's a theory you are implying. Not based on reality that I know of. Stay on topic of what the OP owns.

This was while I was doing heavy multitasking.

So my 120GB A400 was able to give these speeds to the benchmark alone, while also under heavy load with many other tasks.

 

[weckart]

I think you missed the point. The Momentus XT and Velociraptor drives are no ordinary spinners. They are a bridge in between a spinner and a SSD. They do not perform as slow as a regular 7200 rpm spinner!

We know. Fast spinning drives were a mainstay of servers of yore. Velociraptors are noisy and run hot. Like their SCSI brethren they come with a heatsink/noise dampening cage. How exactly are you going to shoehorn that into a Mac Mini?

 

[eyoungren]

Updated and now headless.



Now the real work begins.

 

[iluvmacs99]

We know. Fast spinning drives were a mainstay of servers of yore. Velociraptors are noisy and run hot. Like their SCSI brethren they come with a heatsink/noise dampening cage. How exactly are you going to shoehorn that into a Mac Mini?

You can adapt the 300GB blade version, not the 500Gb, to the Mini by leaving the enclosure out if a Seagate Momentus XT can't be found due to the need of the cage and shock bumpers.. I'll link you to a benchmark Seagate did 10 years ago (in 2010) to compare the Seagate's older 500Gb Momentus XT, WD 300GB Raptor that Seagate managed to rig into the Core i7 gaming laptop, a 256GB SSD drive and a 7200 RPM drive.
[automerge]1577570667[/automerge]
For those who seemed to believe that a Seagate Momentus XT drive is like those slow 7200RPM, I like you to watch this Youtube video that Seagate made 10 years ago (around the time of the Mini 2009) and see for yourself what a Momentus XT can do then and can still do now with the newer incarnation; the Firecuda. Seagate used an Intel Core i7 gaming laptop and the Raptor drive they used was a 300GB 3.5" 10K RPM version.

Tested hard drives:
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB Solid State Hybrid Drive 7200RPM and only 4GB of NAND flash (Mine in the PowerMac G5 is the 750GB version with 8GB of NAND flash)

WDC Silicon Edge Blue 256GB MLC SSD
WDC 300GB Raptor 3.5" 10,000 RPM 32MB cache hard drive
Hitachi 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB cache hard drive

 

[timidpimpin]

This is getting ridiculous and borderline delusional.

 

[defjam]

For those who seemed to believe that a Seagate Momentus XT drive is like those slow 7200RPM, I like you to watch this Youtube video that Seagate made 10 years ago (around the time of the Mini 2009) and see for yourself what a Momentus XT can do then and can still do now with the newer incarnation; the Firecuda. Seagate used an Intel Core i7 gaming laptop and the Raptor drive they used was a 300GB 3.5" 10K RPM version.

This comparison is meaningless as I don't believe I ever saw anyone make such a comparison. The comparison is between the Seagate Momentus XT (or like drives) and a modern day SSD. In such comparisons SSDs beat the Seagate Momentus XT hands down. Unless $/GB or the highest capacity in a 2.5" form factor is a compelling factor I don't know why one would opt for a spinning hard drive over a SATA SSD in a 2009 Mac Mini (or most other consumer based PCs). You have yet to make the case for it.

 

[z970]