Windows and secondary drives

[Examigan]

I remember it was always said it's good to have the data/samples on the secondary drive and Windows on the main boot drive.

I have a smaller boot drive (SSD) and want to buy a 2 or 4 TB SSD to replace it. Is that fact still true if its a SSD? For instance, are SSDs so fast that it doesn't matter much if samples are stored on the same drive as the OS or should I keep them separate as I always do? I would think I should still keep them separated.

[whyterabbyt]

One upon a time it was possibly about speed, these days it would be more of an organisational thing. So on a larger single drive I'd still partition it. If you've got 2Tb of samples or other data, you really dont want to lose them if, for example, you have to reinstall your OS.

[Vocalpoint Studios]

Agreed with whyterabbyt.

Separate the Steak from the Sizzle.

I use SSD/NVme for all drives but keep everything on it's own. System drive is always NVMe now and no bigger than 500GB. Only the OS and app installs go on here.

Everything else from all user data, samples, instrument libraries etc are all on their own drives. I have 3 drives for data now - 1 SSD, 1 NVME and 1 HDD. Works great.

VP

[Examigan]

Got it, thanks

[metamorphosis]

I remember it was always said it's good to have the data/samples on the secondary drive and Windows on the main boot drive.

I have a smaller boot drive (SSD) and want to buy a 2 or 4 TB SSD to replace it. Is that fact still true if its a SSD? For instance, are SSDs so fast that it doesn't matter much if samples are stored on the same drive as the OS or should I keep them separate as I always do? I would think I should still keep them separated.

It used to be true because with HDD's the outer rings (ie. beginning of drive) were about 30% faster than the inner rings due to data density per-rotation. So with a secondary drive you could keep data closer to the outer rings.
Anyway, no, it no longer has any effect on SSD's.
(note: I'm a computer technician with 20 years experience)