Login Page - Create Account

Support Board

Date/Time: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 23:39:17 +0000

[User Discussion] - Buying a New Computer

View Count: 6196

[2013-05-24 15:05:30]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
yes, an SSD will need to be updated. i am not sure on the time, it may be a few years. but the HDD will last as long as your computer does. its always good to have a bit of breathing room, windows alone will take up like 80g.. I have a 1tb HDD and i hardly use it for anything and i use 200gb on it, and i use 100g out of 167g i have on my SSD.. and all i do is use sierra charts/think or swim and google chrome. what would likely happen if you just use a low capacity SSD is you will run out of space on it and your computer will not be running efficiently. $80 is not a big deal when it means you will have space for your computer to breathe and you can use your SSD to execute programs, but do what you want. talk to your local computer guy
[2013-05-24 15:10:50]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
thanks a lot, User
[2013-05-24 16:53:14]
SgtJ - Posts: 154
Not sure if you mean win8 (never loaded it here), but 80gig for the os is highly bloated. My last win7 install was <25gig.
[2013-05-24 16:56:56]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
it is windows 7 ultimate, had to install something for Intel i7 quad processor and NVIDIA video card as well.. that may have had something to do with it, maybe not 80 but at least 70.. somewhere around there
[2013-05-24 21:48:18]
TastyRisk - Posts: 119
I have my Windows and Sierra on a 80GB Intel SSD. Any big media files or backups go onto a external USB 3.0 hard drive.

There`s no need for the regular computer user to have a mechanical HDD within their desktop today. ESATA and USB 3.0 are sufficiently fast enough interfaces for high capacity backup / near-line hard disks.

[2013-05-25 17:06:06]
User75101 - Posts: 12
SSD's were not just made for "execution"... they are made for storage as well... the issue with SSD used to be the cost per GB... but now you are able to find deals with $1/GB or less... so using a 256GB SSD for trading and storing your trading data is no longer an issue... personally, I use two SSD's and 2xSATAs.... 1 SSD for the OS (128GB) another one for Critical Data (256GB or 128GB) and a pair of mirrored big sata drives (3TB+ each).... my C:\Users\USERNAME is on the second SSD... and I use the SATA as archives and backups...

all my computers boot within 30-45 seconds even when I do post...

oh, the trading computer is dedicated... nothing else but trading stuff in it... I dont even browse the web with it given it has no AV or FW software...
[2013-05-25 17:32:34]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
they were made so your computer can execute applications faster and get quicker response times out of your pc.. there was no problem with how things were stored prior to an SSD

but both of you just made my point on having external sources aside from your SSDs, whether it be HDDs, USBs, whatever. something else is needed besides SSDs for a long lasting computer. about the SSD being $1/GB, i thought we were trying to be cost effective here. my entire computer cost $2000 with monitors and everything, there is no reason at all anyone should be spending $500-$1000 on an SSD unless they were hardcore gamers, and that is not necessary for someone who says he will only be using sierra and windows. a USB is also alot more expensive than an HDD, im looking at $90-$150 for 128gb, multiply that by 8 and you are getting 1024gb for $800, which is no better than using a huge SSD. both of these paired against an $80 1tb HDD, i dont see what is wrong with using that. Using SSD for most important applications like windows and sierra, and HDD for everything else would cost him $200 and give him the most bang for his buck.. am i wrong?

and yea tastyrisk, i was mistaken it was both sierra and windows that took up 70g
[2013-05-25 18:00:45]
User75101 - Posts: 12
51479.... SSD's were the natural evolution of RAMdisks... which still exist and are used over SSD's (meaning in combination with de-staging to SSD)... if I wanted to get quicker response from a PC (depending on what you classify quicker response) I wouldnt use a SSD but a RAMDISK.... again, depends what we are talking about when you are referring about eliminating latency within a computer...

in any event, assuming consumer products here and retail use... SSD's are more than adequate and as you stated it lowers a consumer latency...

I do agree with you as to there being no need to place all data on SSD's... that to me is just pointless as well... as you stated, 4TB drives run for under $200 (I know as I just bought 4 of them last week to place inside my N54L) so that is what one should use (mirrored at all times for protection of one's data of course) for storing their data and save SSD's for critical OS/Apps and Critical Data... SSd's still fail and get corrupted, I know from experience.

as to spending $2K on a trading computer... I get my workstations refurbished from HP Z420's.. and my monitors are HP as well... (but new) ZR2740w's.. a pair of 27".... I spent around ~$2500 for two systems ... cost of doing business... "cost effective" is relative to how long you plan to keep your investment for... I don't have to lifecycle my computers for another 2-3 years... at which point in time they will be another write off... but I certainly wouldnt spend $2K on an SSD ...

lastly, HDD's will fail, so will SSD's... nothing will necessarily last the "life" of a computer.. keep in mind a computer can last decades... media, not necessarily... always protect your data by mirroring it .. specially now that cost per GB on SATA side is so cheap.. personally, I prefer to use a separate server for my backups... that is why I got the 2 pairs of 4TB's... those are going on my N54L using ReFS, single pool mirrored with two volumes 4TB each... if a disk fails, which it will before its prescribed MTBF.. I am protected... oh, the N54L also has an SSD for the OS... a 64GB...paid about $60 for it..

anyhow, I think we are of the same point of view just from different perspectives.

[2013-05-25 18:40:40]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
anyhow, I think we are of the same point of view just from different perspectives.

exactly what i was thinking lol

but, i didnt spend $2k on my SSD i spent it for my entire computer.. i built it and it has some really quality new parts, i may have paid a premium for everything but im fine with that.
[2013-05-25 18:46:39]
User75101 - Posts: 12
lol.... yep... I used to build my computers long ago... I tried to build me an overclocked monster this past january... spent like $1500 in quality parts... the pc is still sitting in my office in the basement unfinished ... sadly, in reality... with so little time it would have been easier and same cost to just buy me an HP E5-2620 2P refurb... :) so I dont bother trying to build anymore...
[2013-05-25 18:52:26]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
yes that is a good description of my computer lol overclocked monster, 7.9 windows index.. i built mine the same night it came in the mail, but of course i was trading from a laptop before that
[2013-05-27 18:41:10]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
One last query, if I may..

If someone used a PC with a standard hard disk (no SSD) for running Sierra Charts 24-7 with, say, 300 live intraday (3min+ minute) charts all with live data feed, will that create constant disk activity and thus shorten the life of the disk?

Or does Sierra automatically keep disk writing low (buffering in memory etc)?

(I'm sure modern hard disks are very good these days, but not sure how long one would last if it took that kind of constant stress.)

Thanks again, all.

[2013-05-27 18:51:30]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
i may be mistaken but im pretty sure the HDD or SDD which you are retrieving the application from, sends it over to CPU to continuously run the application and the CPU uses RAM to store temporary information (unsaved information or info that cant be saved) that it is using on the app you are currently running. what wears the HDD and SDD is the amount of times you retrieve the apps from it and burn apps into it (saving apps), but usually it is a pretty good number of years say 5-8
[2013-05-27 18:59:36]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Thanks User51479.

The Sierra data for each intrument is kept in separate files on the hard disk, isn't it.

So to be clear, are you saying that as data pours into hundreds of charts (of many eg 40 instruments), that you think that this does not cause (alomost) constant disk activity as the data is first buffered?

If so, it should not unduly shorten the life of the hard disk even if this setup was run 24-7 - right?


[2013-05-27 18:59:39]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
i dont know what kind of performance you are looking for. but i use 16gb of RAM with an intel i7 quad core processor for that reason
[2013-05-27 19:01:36]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
right, my hard drive doesnt fill up a little more everytime sierra runs. this is done through the CPU and RAM, mainly CPU.
[2013-05-27 19:03:26]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
I'm not looking at performance as such, just the problem of unduly shortening the life of the disk due to constantly updating 300 charts across 40 instrument (as an example) - full time 24-5.
[2013-05-27 19:04:49]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Right thanks - so I wonder how much minimum RAM would be needed - it currently has 4GB.
[2013-05-27 19:08:30]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
that specific scenario will wear on the CPU and RAM, not the HDD or SDD. only time HDD and SDD is used is for storing and retrieving data (saving and opening files/applications).

it looks like the sierra data files are saved on the disks, but the files are so small they are measured in KB so that is nothing to worry about.

what kind of computer are you looking at?
[2013-05-27 19:14:08]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
It's my 2.5 year old i5 with 4GB RAM, 1TB Hard Disk and 4 screens, that has kinda died, so I'm wondering about options now that it needs a repair. The repair chap has not yet looked at it but from my description he suspected the Hard Disk may need replacing.

Date Time Of Last Edit: 2013-05-27 19:14:51
[2013-05-27 19:20:39]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
whats wrong with it?
[2013-05-27 19:43:12]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
I got a blue screen on it the other day, then all the csreens went black and stayed that way ever since.

if I switch it on now, it appears to start powering up, there seems to be disk activity according to the idsk light and sounds, there the usual beep, but then disk activity appears to cease and nothing else happens; just the power light is on and fans spinning etc. Nothing on screens as it clearly failed to boot up.
[2013-05-27 19:48:05]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
yea he is right. that sounds like windows failing to start because of the hard drive if everything else is working like you said. if you were fine with how the computer ran before that then just replace the hard drive and you would be fine. if you want a tune up, id buy another hard drive and an SDD and add 4 more GB of RAM.. it would likely feel like a whole new computer if you did that.
[2013-05-27 19:59:14]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
It seemed to run really well, but there seemed quite a bit of disk activity I think, when running Sierra, but I'm not 100% sure really, and it looks like it is the hard disk that has gone faulty!

So yes, i'm fine with how it ran before, but not fine if I'm shortening the life of the hard disk. And it has not been running extensively as i describe above for the last 2.5 years, but I have started trading again very recently and using Sierra again and do want to vastly increase my use and workload on the system with Sierra from now on.

Not using the PC for much else, so now unsure how a second hard disk plus SSD would help, especially if Sierra is not after all stressing the hard disk (you say it using RAM and CPU mostly).

I also thought that one of the beauties of Sierra was that it was not demanding on systems as some other charting and trading platforms, and so didnt really need a high spec.

Thanks again for your help! Much appreciated

[2013-05-27 23:46:38]
FcL - Posts: 101
how should i do so that SC save the data in the second HD (HDD) and not in the SSD ?
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2013-05-27 23:48:31
[2013-05-28 00:11:19]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
you need to install the entire sierra charts to your HDD.. but it is optimal to have it installed on your SSD so it runs to its fullest/fastest, the data files are not large at all as i noted earlier they are measured in KB which means they take up virtually no space at all on your disk


To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account:


Login Page - Create Account