[mrob]

I don't think statistics will make better predictions than I can. For example, consider a moderately large file (eg. 100MB), which is only ever read occasionally, by sequential low speed streaming. It seems reasonable to place it on the HD, but it's music, and I want it on the SSD so I can have the HD powered down for lower background noise when I'm listening to it. And I could have another almost identical file which is a podcast instead, and that should go on the HD because I don't care about minimum background noise when listening to podcasts, so even looking at the file type won't help. The correct place for a file depends on what you intend to do with it, not any measurable property.

[13of40]

I'd assert that it could make a better prediction for the majority of the files stored on your drive. For example, even if it was technically feasable to do with separate drives, do you know which files in the global assembly cache should go on SSD versus HD? Which pieces of your registry hive files? Which bits of your browser cache?

[mrob]

I don't use Windows so I don't have GAC or registry files. Browser cache always goes on the SSD because it's highly latency sensitive.

[Kenji]

You say browser cache always goes on the SSD (I do that too, whenever there's no configuration to put it into RAM, which I prefer). Aren't you concerned about wear? If you stream high resolution video files from, say, youtube or twitch, you write gigabyte after gigabyte into that SSD.

[mrob]

Modern SSDs will survive hundreds of TBs of writes, sometimes even PBs. Techreport did a long endurance test with multiple drives:

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experim... "All of the drives surpassed their official endurance specifications by writing hundreds of terabytes without issue."

I expect to upgrade for increased capacity long before I reach that.