Or is their write time too slow making a raid 0 pair of traditional HD's a better option? With ssd there is the obvious reduced power consumption and reliability from no moving parts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Would an ssd make a good photoshop scratch disk?
- Thread starter curvephotograph
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The whole point of a scratch disc is for space, an ssd is for speed unless you want to spend £1000 on a 512gb drive. At the moment ssd are not really valid scratch discs unless you have loads of money to throw away. Plus raid 0 is the worst option as - if one drive dies you loose all data. Use an ssd for you boot drive to launch programs and os. Use a normal or raptor drive as you can get a 2tb drive for £130 and cheaper now and buy another and use it as a back up.
SSD's also degrade and slow down due to moving files around etc, so as a scratch disc moving items saving, re-saving an ssd really isnt a good option at the moment. Until they become as cheap per gb as normal hdd's they are a massive indulgence which arnt really valid for 99.9% of users.
If you are using it as a photoshop scratch disc, not just as a storage scratch disc, i suppose you could use an ssd, but again depending on your budget. Buy more ram lol!
Clearly using an SSD of an standard HD is a faster option, but just as a boot drive not actaul for sratch. I do disagree however with what he said about raid 0. Get two 2tb drives and use them together for 4tb raid 0 externaly and have another dirve inside running some kinda mirrioring dive or time capsule. This is what i do and onyl had my drive fail once
Raid 0 was for photoshop scratch disk only where the I/O speed is of benefit in photoshop tasks. ie I wasn't suggesting it to hold any important files.
I'm thinking SSD for boot and apps. 2TB HD for files and one 2TB external for time machine, then a raid 0 pair for scratch not sure on size
I'm thinking SSD for boot and apps. 2TB HD for files and one 2TB external for time machine, then a raid 0 pair for scratch not sure on size
YES SSD fro PS scratch help as long as they are IMHO a Sandforce based SSD like the OWC or the OCZ Vertex 2
will it kill the SSD in shorter time ? hard to say on paper yes in reality nobody that I know has killed one yet but we just dont have enough time on them to tell ?
yet some have been using SSD for a while as scratch or other intensive uses and seem to be OK
as I say if a SSD is so fragile it cant be used for its purpose then whats the point ?
I am using them and happy so far
if you are not willing to maybe short the life of the SSD and dont care about performance as much then go the short stroked raid 0 method
here is another view that says use SSD for performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-SSD.html
will it kill the SSD in shorter time ? hard to say on paper yes in reality nobody that I know has killed one yet but we just dont have enough time on them to tell ?
yet some have been using SSD for a while as scratch or other intensive uses and seem to be OK
as I say if a SSD is so fragile it cant be used for its purpose then whats the point ?
I am using them and happy so far
if you are not willing to maybe short the life of the SSD and dont care about performance as much then go the short stroked raid 0 method
here is another view that says use SSD for performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-SSD.html
+1 Honumaui - good summary!
SSD is best for performance, and therefore best for all storage tasks where performance is relevant.
There are always trade-offs (cost and longevity in this case) so each individual will have to decide if the trade-offs are worth it for them.
SSD is best for performance, and therefore best for all storage tasks where performance is relevant.
There are always trade-offs (cost and longevity in this case) so each individual will have to decide if the trade-offs are worth it for them.
I think he uses the RE version and the 200 size ?
the scratch is enough for your needs so you can check the scratch size in the lower left of your PS document that would be needed ?
me I run a 100 RE now single SSD but ordered two of the 40 gig for $99 in raid 0 ? should be here this week
my tests when running the scratch on raid 0 of the 100 gig RE VS a single was really very little difference ? using LR I think for the cache was .02 seconds ?
I did not test HUGE PS files but up to about 500 megs which is what some of ours are ? and using a stop watch timing of writing and opening could not tell
but I will test more later as that method is not the best but gave me a idea of configurations etc..
I did fill the sratch with a 5 gig image ? but this is also why in real world I have my raid as my second scratch so it can carry over if need be
my thought is 80 or so gigs should be good for most people but 200 or so is better but out of price for most and better to spend that coin somewhere else cause the return would not be recovered
the scratch is enough for your needs so you can check the scratch size in the lower left of your PS document that would be needed ?
me I run a 100 RE now single SSD but ordered two of the 40 gig for $99 in raid 0 ? should be here this week
my tests when running the scratch on raid 0 of the 100 gig RE VS a single was really very little difference ? using LR I think for the cache was .02 seconds ?
I did not test HUGE PS files but up to about 500 megs which is what some of ours are ? and using a stop watch timing of writing and opening could not tell
but I will test more later as that method is not the best
but gave me a idea of configurations etc.. I did fill the sratch with a 5 gig image ? but this is also why in real world I have my raid as my second scratch so it can carry over if need be
my thought is 80 or so gigs should be good for most people but 200 or so is better
but out of price for most and better to spend that coin somewhere else cause the return would not be recovered