Does MO kill your SSD on the long run?

[Tremain84]

Hey I have a question:

As I understood, Mod Organizer doesnt copy files into the Skyrim folder, but creates a virtual folder every time you start Skyrim...

I prefer using MO > NMM but doesnt this process writes every time you start Skyrim a hell of a lot of files on your SSD (I used around 200 mods) and kills it therefore faster, then a normal and permanent installation? (remember SSD can only write around 100.000 times data on it, befor its done).

 

Thank you for you help...

If yes. Is it worth installing Skyrim on an SSD? and if it doesnt why not?

 

 

[GrantSP]

Ok thank you for the quick answer..

So Skyrim + MO + 200 Mods should be relativly save to install on the ssd without loosing to much of the ssds life...

If you want to look out for the welfare of your SSD, there's nothing stopping you from installing MO, or just the MO Downloads folder on a HDD and keep the SSD for Skyrim.

 

Like @hishutup said, all the work is done 'in memory' with the VFS, except for any memory swapping to hard-disk. (but if your system is doing that too much, it might be time to invest in more RAM anyway.)

[hishutup]

It's complicated.... but I can tell you nothing is being written to the drive when mo is started.

 

This is because MO use a VFS. When Skyrim is launch through MO. The application can see all of the resources. That are in the Data directory like they normally would be.

 

Its like a redirect on a browser. You go to a webpage and then you are redirects to a different site but instead of changing the URL the page just loads.

[Tremain84]

Ok thank you for the quick answer..
So Skyrim + MO + 200 Mods should be relativly save to install on the ssd without loosing to much of the ssds life...

[Nearox]

You could always check with SSDLife to keep track how its health is. 

[Tremain84]

Thx guys.

Nah I think I keep MO + Skyrim on the SSD... just thinking about doing an install on the hdd first, configurate everything and then copy it on the SSD, so I dont have to install and delete stuff all the time...until every runs smooth.

[Octopuss]

For anyone who unfortunately felt for the nonsense ******** still circulating the internet, and is still afraid of writing few MBs each day:

https://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb

Also read the first article and note the date, and then do the math.

[fireundubh]

From the first article:

 

"Update: After 200TB, we're starting to see the first signs of weakness."

"Update: Our subjects have crossed the half-petabyte threshold, and they're still going strong."

"Update: All is well after 600TB of writes—and after a longer-term data retention test."

"Update: We've now written one petabyte of data, and half the drives are dead."
 

[EssArrBee]

I've seen a few articles doing these types of tests and they all had the same conclusion. Even Samsung's new TLC drives live a long time.

 

I'm not sure that I would want to keep a drive longer than three years without updating it though. Manufactures are improving the size and speed so fast right now your SATA III drives are almost outdated with new stuff coming out for SATA Express.

[phazer11]

Well even if you upgraded the old ones make for good redundant storage or for access of material such as digital video. I'm saddened to learn my Neutron's only lasted 1.2PB Q.Q I guess mine will only last another... 10-15 years.