Does it make sense to use mSATA SSD for data partition?

[serpico]

Recently bought a T430 and installed a 120GB SSD in it. I could partition this into OS and data partitions, but I was wondering if it makes sense to use a mSATA SSD as a data partition. For what it's worth, the T430 user guide doesn't recommend using a mSATA SSD as a boot drive, and suggests using it for cache purposes only.

I don't need a large partition for data, so typical 32GB mSATA size would be plenty sufficient. And it would free up the 120GB SSD for one large Windows partition.

No interest in getting an ultrabay adapter and putting a spinner in there since I just don't need large storage and much prefer the quickness of SSD.

[Dekks]

IMO using it as /HOME on a ssd is fine as the i/o isnt too bad, i've set a CF card on one of my x32s in just that way. With 8GB it would be easy to set up a ramdisk for tmp files.

[Thinkpad4by3]

For a 120gb ssd it makes no sense for me to do that. It would make more sense if you were going to encrypt the second partition with a password for backup but at that point just put in a second drive. You should try going with a WD Black2 (Squared) which has a 120gb ssd and 1tb hdd in a 2.5" package if you want 2 partitions for os and data. Also gives the advantage of no need for partition corruption problems if it ever happens.

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

[serpico]

For a 120gb ssd it makes no sense for me to do that. It would make more sense if you were going to encrypt the second partition with a password for backup but at that point just put in a second drive. You should try going with a WD Black2 (Squared) which has a 120gb ssd and 1tb hdd in a 2.5" package if you want 2 partitions for os and data. Also gives the advantage of no need for partition corruption problems if it ever happens.

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

I don't follow your reasoning.

As I explained in the OP, I don't want a large HDD because (1) I don't need that much storage, and (2) I much prefer the quickness of SSD's. Given that, can you elaborate on your reasoning?

[Thinkpad4by3]

The problem is that you should use the 120gb for the OS and data because 32gb for the os will give you problems because you will have to install programs on the data drive which will lead to many problems down the road.(ask me how I know...)

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

[serpico]

The problem is that you should use the 120gb for the OS and data because 32gb for the os will give you problems because you will have to install programs on the data drive which will lead to many problems down the road.(ask me how I know...)

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

Thanks for clarifying. I think perhaps your first post was based on a misreading of the OP. In the OP, I mentioned using the 32gb mSATA for data, NOT the OS.

The entire point of using a mSATA SSD is so I can free up the entire 120GB SSD for the OS partition.

[RealBlackStuff]

If you want to do it properly, use a 120GB or larger mSATA for OS and main programs, and up to a 2TB HD or SSD in the drivebay for data.

[Thinkpad4by3]

Yea, I didn't read the op closely the first time. Whoops!

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

[Thinkpad4by3]

I once had a 120gb Sata I hdd in my desktop a few years back. Boy I thought I couldn't fill that thing up until 8 months later I needed to put in a second one. You should definitely go for atleast 256-512gb for data IMHO.

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

[serpico]

If you want to do it properly, use a 120GB or larger mSATA for OS and main programs, and up to a 2TB HD or SSD in the drivebay for data.

I once had a 120gb Sata I hdd in my desktop a few years back. Boy I thought I couldn't fill that thing up until 8 months later I needed to put in a second one. You should definitely go for atleast 256-512gb for data IMHO.

Perhaps I should elaborate. When I said that 32GB is plenty of space for data storage, I was not being naive. This laptop is my secondary machine, and everything that would go on the data partition is either replicated in the cloud or synchronized to my primary machine after every use. This data ends up being a small subset of the data stored on my primary machine.

So, assuming 32GB is more than sufficient for data storage, is there any downside to using the mSATA slot for a 'data' drive, even though Lenovo recommends it be used as a 'cache' drive?

[Thinkpad4by3]

If that is the case why do you even need the 32gb data storage if you have the 120gb drive. If you have more than 2gb of ram then a cache drive doesn't make sense since it only fixes seek time, not speed. I would get a msata to IDE and pop that drive an a 20 series machine and have an ultrafast windows 98 machine. Then you can put a bigger drive if wanted. Anyway, removing is weight savings, am I right

Sent from my E6553 using Tapatalk

[axur-delmeria]

So, assuming 32GB is more than sufficient for data storage, is there any downside to using the mSATA slot for a 'data' drive, even though Lenovo recommends it be used as a 'cache' drive?

TBH I don't see any issues.