Would an ssd make a good photoshop scratch disk?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by curvephotograph, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. curvephotograph macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #1
    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.
     
  2. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    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!
     
  3. mackenziemac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #3
    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
     
  4. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    I mean it is the worst type of raid without a backup or time machine.
     
  5. mackenziemac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #5
    O ok then yes
     
  6. curvephotograph thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #6
    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
     
  7. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #7
    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
     
  8. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #8
    +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.
     
  9. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #9
    It doesn't say what size drives they used for the scratch test. I'm guessing 4 x 120 GB drives?
     
  10. Honumaui macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    #10
    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 :)
     

Share This Page