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
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
What's the difference between:
installing your OS and all your programs on the SSD and: using the SSD as a cache drive? If both options give you equal performance in terms of speed what would be the advantage of going with the cache drive option? Jon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
Just be sure to get a current SDD drive. I think there were
problems with early models. Maybe avoid brands that have a bad reputation. Pay attention to how they treated customers who needed to return a drive. I had problems with OCZ SDD drives. And use it as your drive C, with your OS (Windows) and programs. Also... Look to see if they have mean time between failure (MTBF) ratings. At first, they claimed over 1 million hours. Apparently that was a marketing lie. a b.net wrote: What's the difference between: installing your OS and all your programs on the SSD and: using the SSD as a cache drive? If both options give you equal performance in terms of speed what would be the advantage of going with the cache drive option? Jon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
On May 1, 3:22 am, wrote:
What's the difference between: installing your OS and all your programs on the SSD and: using the SSD as a cache drive? If both options give you equal performance in terms of speed what would be the advantage of going with the cache drive option? Jon The OS is only 600meg or so if XP. Clean install. Add some stuff for programs elsewhere, maybe the OS will swell up to 1.5G, matter of efficiency, dependencies, and programing style. Will they actually sell a 2G, 5G, a 10G or 20G SSD for a snowball's chance in hell? . . .Who knows with 8G of DDR3 for $19. So, what's the difference in a 5G SDD going to be, for some, if all the programs, and OS, will go on it? Cache, anyway, is for clouds, massive distribution system, proprietary and in-house applications. Not desktops. Went out with abstract program layering of compressed drives. (Stacker, which MS stole, got sued, got slick and turned around and bought it to release as Doublespace for 95 & 98 Winderz. Past tense. History.) The Prophet Murphy said there will days like this. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
On Tue, 01 May 2012 09:04:01 -0400, Paul wrote:
wrote: What's the difference between: installing your OS and all your programs on the SSD and: using the SSD as a cache drive? If both options give you equal performance in terms of speed what would be the advantage of going with the cache drive option? Jon When you have the facilities to run an SSD as a cache, it "remembers" a fraction of a larger hard drive. Say, for example, you have a 20GB SSD and a 1TB hard drive. The ratio between those two, is fifty to one. The SSD then, can only "remember" 2% of the entire hard drive. And speed up, 2% of the accesses. (This would be a read-cache.) If the caching is intelligent, or, if you make reference to mostly OS files on a given day, perhaps the SSD used as a cache, will end up holding mainly OS files. And then, on the next boot, assuming the cache concept works during the boot phase, the boot will be faster. ******* Now, say instead, you did not use the cache concept. You used the 20GB drive as C: instead, and installed the OS. Now, any file put on the 20GB drive is fast. But if you had any "irrelevant" files on there, they're "wasting" storage space on your fast device. So in balance, the cache concept allows the most recently used things to be cached. And if the cache software is intelligent, maybe most of what is cached is OS files, and OS related things go faster. But if you compared benchmark performance, the cache can never be exactly as fast as using the 20GB drive directly as C:. But if you used a 20GB drive as C:, you'd rapidly run out of space. My Windows 7 laptop, uses at least 26GB as of SP1, so I couldn't even fit all of Windows 7 on there. In which case, I might have no option but to use some caching scheme. (Or, just install to the 1TB, and forget about the SSD entirely...) Using a drive as a cache, in terms of the "wear" properties, really depends on what the LRU (least recently used) policy is doing. Say the cache is "dumb", you view a 9GB movie for a couple hours, and in the process, the cache copies the movie to the SSD. Now, 9GB of other files, are purged to make way for the movie. Next, say you reboot. On the reboot, none of the tiny OS files are on the SSD, because the 9GB of flushing removed them. So the next boot seems slow by comparison. Until the movie is flushed from the cache, and replaced by OS files. So as to how well the scheme works, you need to know a lot about the caching principle, whether all files are treated generically, or whether OS files take priority somehow. The idea has pros & cons, and the devil is in the detail. Paul Do you know if the software allows you to manually select which programs you want to remain in the cache? In other words say "don't allow these programs to be purged from the cache". I haven't seen a feature like this mentioned while reading about SSD drives. That would seem to be the solution for the 9 GB movie scenario you described. thanks to all who answered Jon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
Rick writes:
You will quickly run out of space if you run both the OS and programs on the SSD. How do you know that? You don't know. I have a netbook with a single 80GB SSD and dual-boot Win 7 and Ubuntu...every fits and works just fine. I have a Win7x64 desktop with a 120GB SSD and the OS and programs are all on there with plenty of room to spare. I think that the expense of having several large SSD's would be cost prohibitive. HD's are bad enough expense wise, SSD are worse. You're a ****ing idiot, quit posting ****. HD's are dirt cheap. SSDs are more expensive but since when is the OP asking about "several large" ones? Hangup your dialin connection and go back to watching Jerry Springer. Maybe your cousin is on today. -- Draw your chair up close to the edge of the precipice and I'll tell you a story. - F. Scott Fitzgerald |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A question about solid state drives
Bug Dout buggsy2 mailinator.com wrote:
Rick pawalleye gmail.com writes: You will quickly run out of space if you run both the OS and programs on the SSD. How do you know that? lol I'm so glad you asked the obvious. Maybe he thinks that multimedia is part of "programs". You might need to keep an eye on certain large data or unnecessary installed programs. That's never been a problem for me. An SDD is like a huge RAM drive, just what I always wanted, ever since 4 MB was a lot of RAM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
?Do solid state drives wear out quickly | mm | Storage (alternative) | 2 | September 13th 10 05:36 PM |
just curious... solid state hard drives | Matthew[_3_] | Homebuilt PC's | 5 | July 29th 08 08:52 PM |
(OT) Solid state hard drives on the horizon.... | S.Lewis | Dell Computers | 1 | May 1st 07 11:59 AM |
Solid state hard-drives | Lord0 | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | February 6th 07 08:12 PM |
Solid State Drives - 3 questions... | vlds8 | Storage (alternative) | 2 | October 11th 04 12:34 AM |