Question Still not clear on free space necess. on storage only SSD

[SickoKid]

I have read a lot of the threads and see there is generally agreement on 10% to "don't worry about it at all." But the posts all seem to do with SSDs as system drives and not storage only. Is there a difference on what is necessary if I only write in music files and read off them.when playing the music? Basically, I fill several 2TB music drives connected to my Raspberry Pi up to 90% but could I go harder on them? Thanks for tips.

 

[USAFRet]

Doesn't matter if system or storage.
Just leave about 10-15% empty.

 

[kanewolf]

I have read a lot of the threads and see there is generally agreement on 10% to "don't worry about it at all." But the posts all seem to do with SSDs as system drives and not storage only. Is there a difference on what is necessary if I only write in music files and read off them.when playing the music? Basically, I fill several 2TB music drives connected to my Raspberry Pi up to 90% but could I go harder on them? Thanks for tips.

That is a waste of 2TB SSDs....

 

[USAFRet]

And completely agree with the above.
Waste of SSD space.

 

[SickoKid]

I have read a lot of the threads and see there is generally agreement on 10% to "don't worry about it at all." But the posts all seem to do with SSDs as system drives and not storage only. Is there a difference on what is necessary if I only write in music files and read off them.when playing the music? Basically, I fill several 2TB music drives connected to my Raspberry Pi up to 90% but could I go harder on them? Thanks for tips.

And completely agree with the above.
Waste of SSD space.

Wow, I really love it when Zoomers criticize me and then don't know what the are talking about. I am 70 years old. I know all about Spotify and streaming services.... I can source an album and an artist's entire canon faster than you can on Spotify and I mean the ENTIRE canon. Have you ever tried to track down an obscure classical album on Amazon music etc. I am faster on the draw than any streaming service.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I have read a lot of the threads and see there is generally agreement on 10% to "don't worry about it at all." But the posts all seem to do with SSDs as system drives and not storage only. Is there a difference on what is necessary if I only write in music files and read off them.when playing the music? Basically, I fill several 2TB music drives connected to my Raspberry Pi up to 90% but could I go harder on them? Thanks for tips.

The reason why people use their SSDs as system drives and not data drives is most data don't really have a high performance requirement.

For instance, playing a movie with a bitrate of say 50 Mbps (megabits per second), which would be a nice quality 4K movie, from an SSD offers no advantage because of the low data rate required. Hard drives can easily keep up with it. However, loading an application is something where "faster is better" does make a difference, because the sooner you can get the data into RAM, the faster the application will get running.

This is why I still have a hard drive in my PC. It's to store all of my documents, pictures, music, and videos since an SSD offers no benefit in terms of access time or playback performance.

In any case, having free space on an SSD is important for write operations, especially as the SSD becomes well used.

 

[kanewolf]

Wow, I really love it when Zoomers criticize me and then don't know what the are talking about. I am 70 years old. I know all about Spotify and streaming services.... I can source an album and an artist's entire canon faster than you can on Spotify and I mean the ENTIRE canon. Have you ever tried to track down an obscure classical album on Amazon music etc. I am faster on the draw than any streaming service.

I say it is a waste, not because of the music, but because it is an SSD. There is no benefit of a relatively expensive SSD compared to a spinning disk for supplying music. The bandwidth doesn't benefit and the cost is not competitive. @SickoKid, you may argue that the noise from a spinning disk is unacceptable in your music room. That is the great thing about networked storage. It can be anywhere. You could use WIFI for your network connection and still provide whole house music.
Neither myself (retired after 35 years) or @USAFRet are millennials, and we both have extensive home storage infrastructure.

 

[USAFRet]

Wow, I really love it when Zoomers criticize me and then don't know what the are talking about. I am 70 years old. I know all about Spotify and streaming services.... I can source an album and an artist's entire canon faster than you can on Spotify and I mean the ENTIRE canon. Have you ever tried to track down an obscure classical album on Amazon music etc. I am faster on the draw than any streaming service.

You're actually only a very few years older than I am.

This is not local SSD vs Spotify, but rather local SSD vs much less expensive local HDD.
An 8TB external HDD is around $150.
vs 2TB SSDs at $200+ each.

My house systems are all SSD only. See specs below for BigBrother and Viper.
But my music and movie libraries live on the very large (~65TB) NAS box.

Your playlist does not play any faster being on the SSD.

And I'll bet my Miles Davis or Pink Floyd library is at least as large as yours...

But, you already have these, so off you go.
Just leave about 10% free space.

 

[worstalentscout]

I say it is a waste, not because of the music, but because it is an SSD. There is no benefit of a relatively expensive SSD compared to a spinning disk for supplying music. The bandwidth doesn't benefit and the cost is not competitive. @SickoKid, you may argue that the noise from a spinning disk is unacceptable in your music room. That is the great thing about networked storage. It can be anywhere. You could use WIFI for your network connection and still provide whole house music.
Neither myself (retired after 35 years) or @USAFRet are millennials, and we both have extensive home storage infrastructure.

there is a benefit with storing music on SSD.............the sound is overall better compared to HDD..........it shouldn't sound different but it does !

You're actually only a very few years older than I am.

This is not local SSD vs Spotify, but rather local SSD vs much less expensive local HDD.
An 8TB external HDD is around $150.
vs 2TB SSDs at $200+ each.

My house systems are all SSD only. See specs below for BigBrother and Viper.
But my music and movie libraries live on the very large (~65TB) NAS box.

Your playlist does not play any faster being on the SSD.

And I'll bet my Miles Davis or Pink Floyd library is at least as large as yours...

But, you already have these, so off you go.
Just leave about 10% free space.

you're already 60+ yo ??..............

how is this forum gonna survive without your sagely advice when you're gone ??

 

[kanewolf]

there is a benefit with storing music on SSD.............the sound is overall better compared to HDD..........it shouldn't sound different but it does !

You will never get me to believe that, when the file on a spinning disk and SSD are bitwise identical, and that can easily be proven with CRC comparison.

 

[USAFRet]

there is a benefit with storing music on SSD.............the sound is overall better compared to HDD..........it shouldn't sound different but it does !

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Bob.B]

I have read a lot of the threads and see there is generally agreement on 10% to "don't worry about it at all." But the posts all seem to do with SSDs as system drives and not storage only. Is there a difference on what is necessary if I only write in music files and read off them.when playing the music? Basically, I fill several 2TB music drives connected to my Raspberry Pi up to 90% but could I go harder on them? Thanks for tips.

I think the free space has more to do with writing than reading.
Since your going to write once then use it just for reading try going to 95% see if it makes a diff.

 

[Colif]

its also error correction.
while its true the majority of reason is speed of writing/transfer, it still can help to have free space as drives will use it for error correction on top of what is hidden from user by default. Bigger drive, more its got to use in that 10 to 15% to keep it alive longer.
elongates time between you next needing to replace drive.

 

[Rogue Leader]

there is a benefit with storing music on SSD.............the sound is overall better compared to HDD..........it shouldn't sound different but it does !

That defies the laws of electricity and physics. Data stored on an SSD or an HDD is binary, 1's and 0's. There is no better 1 or 0, its either there or its not.

 

[worstalentscout]

You will never get me to believe that, when the file on a spinning disk and SSD are bitwise identical, and that can easily be proven with CRC comparison.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That defies the laws of electricity and physics. Data stored on an SSD or an HDD is binary, 1's and 0's. There is no better 1 or 0, its either there or its not.

i didn't expect any difference too but the sound was different..............

HDD had a weightier bass while SSD had quicker, lighter bass..............HDD had a fuller body midrange while SSD had a leaner midrange.............SSD has more detailed and extended treble while HDD had a slight roll-off in the treble.............

there's an audiophile forum whereby people are paying over USD1000 for modified SSDs for music playback.................using audiophile motherboards and linear power supplies for the pc.............and SATA cables costing hundreds of dollars...........

 

[USAFRet]

Self proclaimed audiophiles have been spending stupid money on fancy cables forever.

Then theres this:

Cable myths: reviving the coathanger test

Today, in our speaker cable blind test we're going to try to prove one way or another whether or not high-end speaker cables make a difference for your equipment.

www.soundguys.com

I suppose in this instance, the 0's on the SSD could be differently polarized (2 degrees to the left) than those on the HDD.
Or that the bits on the SSD are denser, because the physical size of the chips vs platter is smaller.

Or the more likely reason is confirmation bias.

 

[Darkbreeze]

The only way there could ever be a difference in sound quality or characteristics between a hard drive and ssd, or any other storage medium, MIGHT, maybe, be due to the mechanical nature of the moving parts in a hard drive that IF you don't have a modern motherboard with audio shielding could possibly pick up some unwanted electrical hum etc., but other than that, it's not even scientifically or technically possible because whether it's a HDD, SSD, flash drive, CD, etc., the music is identical, bit for bit, and can therefore not have any differences unless data that does not belong is introduced into the file. And that is really the end of the story.

So these others are incontrovertibly correct.

 

[Rogue Leader]

i didn't expect any difference too but the sound was different..............

HDD had a weightier bass while SSD had quicker, lighter bass..............HDD had a fuller body midrange while SSD had a leaner midrange.............SSD has more detailed and extended treble while HDD had a slight roll-off in the treble.............

there's an audiophile forum whereby people are paying over USD1000 for modified SSDs for music playback.................using audiophile motherboards and linear power supplies for the pc.............and SATA cables costing hundreds of dollars...........

Confirmation bias. Again its not physically possible despite whatever the $5000 HDMI cable club will tell you. These claims never ever pass scientific method double blind testing.

The only way there could ever be a difference in sound quality or characteristics between a hard drive and ssd, or any other storage medium, MIGHT, maybe, be due to the mechanical nature of the moving parts in a hard drive that IF you don't have a modern motherboard with audio shielding could possibly pick up some unwanted electrical hum etc., but other than that, it's not even scientifically or technically possible because whether it's a HDD, SSD, flash drive, CD, etc., the music is identical, bit for bit, and can therefore not have any differences unless data that does not belong is introduced into the file. And that is really the end of the story.

So these others are incontrovertibly correct.

And you would be correct. There are high end speakers and audio hardware out there that picks up and reproduces literally EVERYTHING. In those cases they well may pickup the hum of the hard drive motor and reproduce it. It picks up system fans and even other harmonics within the motherboard. But again its not a sound quality difference or a reproduction difference (the bass is not better, etc) its a "I can hear that in the background" difference.

 

[popatim]

there's an audiophile forum whereby people are paying over USD1000 for modified SSDs for music playback.................using audiophile motherboards and linear power supplies for the pc.............and SATA cables costing hundreds of dollars...........

Quite true and the users in the Audiophile groups that I am in, that also know PC's, crack up at those fools. 10010110 from your HDD cannot sound any different the 10010110 from your SSD if everything else is the same. Now there is the possibility that they have a different file on the HDD then on the SSD, Like 192b vs 96b that some can hear (I cannot), that would make a difference or the music player is remembering a different setting for the HDD file then the one on the SSD