If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial Adrenaline
Would like an opinion on Crucial Adrenaline CT050M4SSC2BDA 50GB Solid State
Cache for Windows 7-based PCs. I would install it on my desktop running Windows 7 Professional and Microsoft Virtual Drive running XP Professional |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial Adrenaline
Roy Colson wrote:
Would like an opinion on Crucial Adrenaline CT050M4SSC2BDA 50GB Solid State Cache for Windows 7-based PCs. I would install it on my desktop running Windows 7 Professional and Microsoft Virtual Drive running XP Professional Here's the link that you omitted to describe the Solid State Cache product: http://www.crucial.com/store/ssc.aspx Disadvantage: It's just a cache. The first open on a file (for read or write) is still going to come from your hard disk. This is a *cache* product. Well, until you put the file into the cache it won't be there so you'll still be going to the slower hard disk to get the file the first time. Eventually entries get pushed out of the cache which means going back to the slower hard disk again. You won't get the higher overall throughput of using an SSD. Even the site acknowledges that by showing a graph of performance for HDD, SSC, and SSD on their web page describing the product. Advantage: Not having to transfer files from old to new drive. The SSC is the same price as the SSD. So why not go with an SSD? Because the cache doesn't require you to transfer your OS and files from an old hard disk to the new SSD. The SSC slide in place with your old hard disk so everything remains the same as before except for the power load of the SSC and memory consumption for the background software (hopefully a system service and not a user-mode process). I haven't used the product but am wondering if there may be one other advantage to users of older versions of Windows (pre-Vista) that don't have support for sector alignment. SSDs use a different alignment than old HDDs (there are newer "advanced" drives the use the new alignment). Vista, and later, have support for this whereas XP users have to run an alignment utility; otherwise, performance will be very poor due to misalignment. Assuming this cache requires no change to the hard disk then it adds a large fast cache to improve performance but without the alignment concern. You slide it in an existing [old] system too get a big boost in speed - after the first time you've accessed a file (unless their software preloads the cache with likely suspects). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial Adrenaline
Roy Colson wrote:
Would like an opinion on Crucial Adrenaline CT050M4SSC2BDA 50GB Solid State Cache for Windows 7-based PCs. I would install it on my desktop running Windows 7 Professional and Microsoft Virtual Drive running XP Professional This is all you need to know. If even *one* person has a problem like this, that's enough to influence your buying decision. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2T5HM7...R2T5HM7VT2TEXM If you buy a regular SSD, you'll need no Dataplex driver installed on your system. And that means, you'll have one less issue to worry about, when it comes time to do maintenance. If you use an SSD, you should have regular backups of it. It's not the fault of the flash memories, as much as it's an issue that the SSD has a processor inside and firmware. When I see reports of an SSD working one day, and "disappearing" the next day, that tells me the firmware inside the SSD causes more problems, than the reliability of the flash memory chips themselves. As for the Adrenaline, someone made a mounting tray with one chip on it, which performed the same kind of caching function, but without any additional driver. So this idea has been done before, but with hardware. (It's possible they've placed a chip inside the SSD package to do this, and it's the same solution, but I don't remember the other approach using anything other than a regular driver.) I currently keep Windows 7 in a 40GB partition on my laptop. It's a tight fit, and not everyone would be pleased with what happens when you squeeze things that much. But it also indicates that purchasing a regular 40GB SSD, could make Windows 7 faster, and support "normal" kinds of maintenance, without having to worry about any (Dataplex related) issues. A 60GB SSD might be enough to give you a bit of elbow room (re-enable System Restore for example). You *can* have the benefits of an SSD, without the risks that one user above experienced. You should always do regular backups of your SSD anyway. With the Adrenaline approach, you know your files are somewhere on the "SSD+HDD" but not exactly where. Which could complicate recovery, when you need recovery done. If you use an SSD the regular way, then you know exactly where things are. Either the files are on the SSD and are OK. Or the SSD is trashed, and your last backup to the external hard drive, has the good copy. That's a simplified operating model, for the SSD owner. And it works well, if the SSD is relatively small and the small size encourages daily backups. I have the same issue with RAID disk technology and home users. Home users don't take the time, to learn what to do when the RAID is broken, and they're in a panic. While RAID might have some tiny benefits, those benefits are swamped by the feelings of panic when the RAID is broken. Sometimes, a less reliable, but easier to understand setup, is preferred for peace of mind. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial Adrenaline
Somewhere on teh intarwebs VanguardLH wrote:
Roy Colson wrote: Would like an opinion on Crucial Adrenaline CT050M4SSC2BDA 50GB Solid State Cache for Windows 7-based PCs. I would install it on my desktop running Windows 7 Professional and Microsoft Virtual Drive running XP Professional Here's the link that you omitted to describe the Solid State Cache product: http://www.crucial.com/store/ssc.aspx Say's "improve the performance of your Windows 7 PC". Disadvantage: It's just a cache. The first open on a file (for read or write) is still going to come from your hard disk. This is a *cache* product. Well, until you put the file into the cache it won't be there so you'll still be going to the slower hard disk to get the file the first time. Eventually entries get pushed out of the cache which means going back to the slower hard disk again. You won't get the higher overall throughput of using an SSD. Even the site acknowledges that by showing a graph of performance for HDD, SSC, and SSD on their web page describing the product. Advantage: Not having to transfer files from old to new drive. The SSC is the same price as the SSD. So why not go with an SSD? Because the cache doesn't require you to transfer your OS and files from an old hard disk to the new SSD. The SSC slide in place with your old hard disk so everything remains the same as before except for the power load of the SSC and memory consumption for the background software (hopefully a system service and not a user-mode process). I haven't used the product but am wondering if there may be one other advantage to users of older versions of Windows (pre-Vista) that don't have support for sector alignment. SSDs use a different alignment than old HDDs (there are newer "advanced" drives the use the new alignment). Vista, and later, have support for this whereas XP users have to run an alignment utility; otherwise, performance will be very poor due to misalignment. Assuming this cache requires no change to the hard disk then it adds a large fast cache to improve performance but without the alignment concern. You slide it in an existing [old] system too get a big boost in speed - after the first time you've accessed a file (unless their software preloads the cache with likely suspects). Bleh! Personally I don't see why you wouldn't just buy a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB HDD. Sure, it does't have as much NAND as the Crucial Adrenaline but the algorithms are much better and it not only works better with XP it's a 2/5" HDD so works in laptops. This whole "adrenaline" thing is a poor second (IMO) to a Momentus XT (Mk III). -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Crucial Adrenaline
~misfit~ wrote:
Bleh! Personally I don't see why you wouldn't just buy a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB HDD. Sure, it does't have as much NAND as the Crucial Adrenaline but the algorithms are much better and it not only works better with XP it's a 2/5" HDD so works in laptops. This whole "adrenaline" thing is a poor second (IMO) to a Momentus XT (Mk III). The idea is to slide the Adrenaline into an existing system (along with having to install their driver or service software), not to go replacing hard disks. Seagate bundles the hybrid into one package. Crucial is not a hard disk manufacturer or distributor. They distribute rebranded memory so obviously that's what they'll offer, which is also a hybrid setup but not in an integrated package. As to one having better caching algorithms than the other, you'll have to provide some empirical evidence (testing an measurement by a recognized lab or trusted and known resource) to prove that claim. How can you say Seagate's algorithms are better when Crucial doesn't divulge what they use? Both Seagate and Crucial are providing open source driver files so they can be interogated with "better" being based on interpretation of the coding versus comparative testing? Crucial's 50GB Adrenaline cache employs their m4 SSD. I find benchmarks for SSDs that include Crucial's 64GB m4 SSD, like: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...te,3103-4.html where it isn't the top performer in all tests. I've yet, however, to find a benchmark between the Adrenaline with a hard disk and the Seagate Momentus XT. Know of any independent benchmarks? Then there's the cost factor. Sure, you might only be buying one so maybe the difference between $100 for the Adrenaline and $175 for the 750GB Seagate Momentus XT might not look like much. A business that is buying a couple hundred of either of these is going to notice a significant difference in cost. After buying just 200 of these, the Seagate would be $15,000 more expensive - and for how much change in performance from the Adrenaline? Even for one host, your home PC, the extra $75 is coming out of your personal pocket. These days with highly competitive pricing, there's good reason to go cheaper for a huge boost in performance versus paying more for a promise of maybe getting a little better performance. You don't get decent bang for your buck by paying more. In hosts that have 1TB, or larger, hard disks, they would lose capacity by going to the Seagate solution. In a business where down-time is a significant loss hence another cost, the Seagate obviously has the most impact. While it's the same time to open the case to slide in the Adrenaline or Momentus XT, after that you have the time to install the Adrenaline driver and reboot or the time to clone the old OS hard disk to the new Momentus XT and reboot. If the workstations have to go into the IT dept then the user won't notice much of a difference but the IT folks will be busier for longer. If the upgrade is performed at the user's desk, they're down for longer. Then there's the catastrophic failure issue of the cache portion of this hybrid setup. If the SSD cache dies, the entire Seagate solution is scrapped and you start over with a new hard disk. With the Adrenaline solution, you remove that part of the hybrid solution, uninstall its driver, and you're still working. Obviously one will incur a much longer down-time than the other. Depends on how many you are buying. Depends on how much down-time you are willing to incur (for setup and later if hardware failure recovery is needed). Depends if you have existing workstations or are just setting up your one home PC. It also depends on your operating system. Here can be a huge difference. The Adrenaline requires Windows 7 since that's the OS its driver software supports. Adrenaline is a Windows 7 only solution. If you have an older version of Windows (Vista, or earlier) or Linux, forget about Adrenaline. The product manual for Momentus XT at: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100610268b.pdf) doesn't even mention operating systems so it appears to be a slide-in HDD replacement that will probably work under any OS. You don't need to install a driver. With the Seagate solution, the use of the SSD cache is transparent to the OS. It just looks like a SATA device to the OS. No driver to install as with the Adrenaline (and which requires an Internet connection to validate the license for the Dataplex software). Presumably the Momentus XT fits within 1 normal-sized drive bay whereas the Adrenaline will require consumption of another drive bay. Adrenaline install guide: http://edge.crucial.com/pdf/install_...-12_online.pdf With Adrenaline, they specifically warn: - DO NOT detach your hard drive (target drive) or solid state drive (cache drive) while Dataplex is enabled. Doing so puts you at risk of losing data and/or rendering your machine unbootable. If you need to detach or swap a drive UNISTALL Dataplex first." - DO NOT detach your hard drive (target drive) and put it into another SATA port while Dataplex is enabled. Doing so puts you at risk of losing data and/or rendering your machine unbootable. If you need to switch SATA ports, UNISTALL Dataplex first. So you not only have to shutdown but also have to uninstall their software to ensure all data in the SSD gets pushed onto the HDD. So forget about using Adrenaline with hot-swappable hard disks and heed these warning if you move the Adrenaline/HDD hybrid setup to another host or even to a different SATA port in the old host. Their driver can only support one hybrid setup; that is, only one of your hard disks can use their SSD cache solution. Forget about speeding up any other hard disks. So the Seagate Momentus XT is the more elegant and simpler solution for new builds, when you get permission and/or allocation for costs of hardware upgrades, or you are adding more hard disks; however, the Adrenaline is the cost-effective solution for existing builds but *ONLY if those builds are running Windows 7*. If you are a Windows 7 user and you only have one hard disk (or you don't want to speed up the other hard disks) then Adrenaline is the cheaper solution. Whether Adrenaline is slower or on par with Seagate Momentus XT is another issue yet to be proven by benchmark or by real experience to the user (benchmarks don't necessarily reflect actual effect to the user). Since both solutions require more power for the SSD cache, the user should review whether or not their PSU can handle the extra load, especially if they invoke either solution on all of their hard disks instead of just the one with the OS and/or app partitions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are the DIMMs on the Crucial websites the only Crucial ones that will work? | mm | General | 5 | December 5th 10 04:43 PM |
Crucial Ballistix and Crucial Ballistix Tracer | Daave | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | January 31st 08 10:10 PM |
Crucial Deliveries | Stuart B | UK Computer Vendors | 1 | June 4th 07 06:47 PM |
crucial memory | Christo | General | 1 | April 26th 05 11:18 PM |
Crucial Coupon? | Laurie Kwok | UK Computer Vendors | 1 | August 11th 03 04:05 PM |