Split install across SSD and HDD - optimum layout?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 15:54:50 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:17:37 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>>I think 4TB SSD's are still quite expensive aren't they?  
>
>They are quite expensive, OTOH computers at the times of Commodore,
>Atari and Jochen Merz's QL Emulator, let alone a few years before that
>time, were way more expensive. Nowadays computers are cheap products.
>Compared to the prices of home computers in the 80th and 90th, let
>alone before that time, even 4TB SSD capacity are cheap nowadays.
>
>A combination of SSD and HDD is less cost-intensive, but managing a
>combination of a SSD for speed and a hard disc for capacity is
>illusory, if the 4 TB are needed for daily work or a project. If so,
>the HDD is a bottleneck and you gain less, perhaps nothing from the
>SSD's speed, no matter how smart you assign directories to the SSD and
>HDD.
>
>Everything you really need for a project or daily work should be on the
>SSD. The HDD should be for archiving seldom needed data. If the data on
>the HDD should be needed, you should temporarily copy it to the SSD. If
>4 TB are needed all the time, you probably can't avoid getting one
>or more SSDs providing 4TB.

PS:

The field of application matters a lot. For real-time audio productions
HDDs are fast enough, what we gain from SSDs in this domain is, that
SSDs are silent (HDDs are noisy). To open a GTK3 app very fast,
the bottlenecks on my machine probably are the CPU and GPU. Those
GTK3 apps likely require a CPU and GPU cooled by several fans and
they likely require their own power plant to open fast. 2 or more fans
aren't silent anymore and energy saving is also something to consider.