There’s also the fact that traditionally, disk manufacturers have been using ^10 rather than ^2 to “falsely” advertise capacity.
I refuse to use these Kindergarten terms “gibibyte” etc. and always mean e.g. *1024 i.e. ^2).
1 Like
No, I’m talking about same units, you buy 1TB you get 960GB with over provisioning (check links I posted).
//EDIT: GB =/= GiB Giga Byte is not Gibi Byte, also some manufacturers advertise the real available space, others do not count the over provisioning.
Nothing personal but it is circle discussion kinda off topic at this point. People are real snowflakes nowadays (that, is personal now, see the difference?).
I’m glad you eventually get it 
2 Likes
That’s exactly what I was referring to. It’s actually powers of 1000 and 1024 (ie kilo, mega, etc), though they also happen to be powers of 10 and 2. Semantics I suppose.
Ah, my bad…but to be fair that’s misleading advertising from the manufacturer though.
However depends on the drive. I have 1TB HDD which shows as 931.5GiB and a 1TB SDD which also shows as 931.5GiB.
2 Likes
Indeed this is the case here; I transferred this OS from spinning rust to the same (advertised) capacity SSD and the reported usable space is exactly the same.
2 Likes
I’m kinda the opposite, kilo literally means 1000, mega is 1,000,000. I think the software should use the proper meanings when referring to storage, they’re more human friendly.
I guess ^2 etc. lines up better with hexadecimal, which is why it was adopted for storage. I mostly used hex values for C64 programming, for example.
I saw a good amount SSD reviews where the SSD lost around 30% performance when they are filled at 80%, for the normal user it doesn’t matter.
But for a gamer, it can be a nice improvement.
Yeah i know. But who cares if the free space is unallocated or just the partition has more freespace?
I knew it’s a hold over from using ^2 (and by extension ^16) in programming and memory.
Not sure how it really matters much regarding storage though, the files get loaded into memory, presumably the software can handle the differences if it’s made to do so. 
Partitioning alone doesn’t fill it up, filling up your filesystem(s) does.
That would depend on your partitioning scheme, at least if it’s part of a partition then you can use it, or not, as you choose.
Even an almost full SSD can still be quick, at least if you choose wisely. I used to have a ~60GB SSD, even when full it was the fastest SATA SDD I’ve ever had, and that’s compared to an empty 500GB Samsung (the next fastest). It depends on the design of the SSD.
The point is that you don’t need to leave a load of empty space for “over provisioning”. For performance reasons…maybe, if you really need it, but then you’re gonna buy 2 x 1TB drives so you can use 1TB or less.
1 Like
I saw in a few cases, some SSD’s which was filled around 80-90% had only HDD speed around 120-150MB/s
Some cheap SSDs go down to ~30-40MiB/s once the cache is full, even when there’s still plenty of space left on the flash.
It also depends on workload and temperature, etc. Whether that’s a problem depends on the workload and the person using it.
I’ve seen a (fast) new and empty SSD go down to less than 1KiB/s, that was a dodgy directory structure though, it was faster on an HDD ~4KiB/s.
I think we’ve sidetracked the thread enough now, so I’m out.
1 Like
I didn’t find the right FFC to SATA connector for the port appropriate for the hard drive that has 8 pins all find is 10 pins FFC cables, so I opted for this solution and added the hard drive from inside the laptop through the USB cable of the laptop and cancelled that USB port from outside (a technician suggested and did this …)
Thanks everyone for the suggestions, I think it’s better if I use the 256GB SSD NVME that came with the laptop for the both systems because it’s obviously faster than the normal SSD I added, I’m just not sure how to go about it, if I move the home folder to the 1TB SSD will that affect the performance or as long as the root folder is in the faster 256GB it won’t matter that much ?
Performance will only be affected for stuff like VirtualBox, assuming you store the virtual hard disks in /home — anything which needs read-write access to /home in large volumes, e.g. Kdenlive.
It depends on where you want to put the “working” files for programs such as these.
2 Likes
I did a little benchmark on the both disks in gnome-disk-utility the current 256 GB NVME SSD is super fast
the average read rate is 614.4 MB/s (100 samples of 10MB)
compared this new 1TB SSD
the average read rate 39.0 MB/s (100 samples of 10MB)
the average write rate 25.4 MB/s (100 samples of 10MB)
I mean it’s a cheap one
I mean, you connected the SATA SSD to a USB port 
(how did you do that, you added some USB controller inside the laptop?)
What model is the 1TB SSD?
Yeah probably that’s why it’s slower, he used some SATA 3 adapter
It’s SomnAmbulist SSD H650 Internal Sata3 Solid State Drive 2.5 1TB, bought it about a year ago from AliExpress for around 30$, I saw reviews with benchmarks with decent speeds around 400-500 MB/s in crystaldisk
Wow, that could explain things. I would advise you to make sure you didn’t get scammed, “common” practice for storage over there (common like in often, not the majority) is to fake hardware (micro SD, USB flash drive, SSD). You think, and your system thinks, there is 1TB, but in reality you may have 120GB or less of cheap flash memory with a poor controller, and a firmware made to trick users and OS (in reality it reports false information, overwrites the data without making it disappear).
People only notice when it is too late, most don’t even know they have been scammed, they thing they had an issue.
Simple test is to fill the SSD with DATA, the whole 1TB (it’s OK if it is only 900GB :D), and then do a simple read test of the data. All the data should be readable (huge files like huge movie files, Blue Ray disc, or similar, are perfect for that, download the biggest video you can find, once, and copy/paste it as much as is needed to fill the disk, then read each file and see if you can skip into the file and read it. If all the files read successfully, it was only a bad SSD or bad “adapter” (why even buy non brand name storage is beyond me, even to store garbage I would not buy noname storage, I guess it is cheap and that is what people are after).
2 Likes
My two cents… I concur with just about everything above, keep windows on one drive and Linux on the other. Install GRUB to the Linux drive and then let it chain load to the windows when needed.
Also, verify, verify that fstrim is enabled;
systemctl status fstrim.timer
If it is not enabled or started, run;
sudo systemctl enable --now fstrim.timer
4 Likes
You have to jump through a few hoops to get Windows running on a USB drive.
I’m not sure that is the intention. Maybe installing from USB?