• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How to CORRECTLY optimize your SSD for windows 7

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually Acronis'ed a veyr fresh install but directly from my old drive. I think due to the fact it WAS a very fresh install (which was why I simply did not want to do it again, too much work 🙂 ) I have had excellent luck with it. Perfect actually.

However, I also receommend a fresh install as a best practice when and where ever possible.

These babies are really starting to take off! We used to be doing all this arguing about SPINNERS! Remember them???

Oops, better change my sig to reflect NOVA Corsair 128GB and DROID Incredible!

Three cheers for SSD's. The future is here NOW.
 
I have found the only difficulty with Acronis, and other similar programs, is that one needs to learn how to reduce the size of the clone for the SSD. I have had no less than 5 emails of people stating that their drive would not clone in moving it from a 160Gb (example) HDD to a 80Gb SSD even though they have only used say 30Gb in total. They don't understand that they must reduce the size of the partition to the same specs of their drive before trying the clone.

Further, they dont realize that if they cut it right down to the exact size, they will be left with unallocated space on the SSD as well...

I would also believe that ghosting with Acronis can result in problems as you are moving the exact HDD setup onto a SSD. To me, its kind of like putting a VW engine in a Porsche but the good thing is we can always fix er up...just more work is all.

Just to correct this misinformation for anyone reading this thread...

Acronis 2010 allowed me to clone from a 2TB RAID-0 array to my 50GB SSD. 40ish GB of data was on the array. Acronis cloned to the SSD just fine without me having to resize the partition. Acronis also partitioned the SSD to allocate all of its space.
 
Just to correct this misinformation for anyone reading this thread...

Acronis 2010 allowed me to clone from a 2TB RAID-0 array to my 50GB SSD. 40ish GB of data was on the array. Acronis cloned to the SSD just fine without me having to resize the partition. Acronis also partitioned the SSD to allocate all of its space.

Misinformation? Can you spell tool? Because something worked for you doesn't make it common for others. I myself have had to do exactly what I described because the program wouldn't "automatically" resize correctly. Others have experienced same....
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with leaving it...this is simply an advanced idea to save even more space.

OK, I left my 100MB Win7 partition as is.

Are you saying Win7 doesn't need this partition? Is it for system restore or some such? I turned off system restore, and indexing. Defrag and superfetch were already disabled by Win7.

What am I trading off by eliminating this 100MB partition?
 
Quite frankly, I cant answer that with authority but believe it has to do with system repair. I haven't touched mine and have elected to leave it like it is. I might play with it in the future as I start testing disks and Win7 again.

By eliminating it you are gaining back 100mb of space and thats it. The OP who brought up the theory of removing it may be able to better explain what is being lost.
 
If you turn off the systen restore feature, you don't need that additional partition Win7 creates, right?

That's the question, I don't think it has been answered, unless you mean to be answering the question with your post above?

I have a feeling a little bit of simple googling will answer this for me but I am silly lazy at the moment and in dire need of getting back to work so I prolly won't seek a more formal answer until tomorrow...unless someone beats me to it and posts the answer here first.
 
Misinformation? Can you spell tool? Because something worked for you doesn't make it common for others. I myself have had to do exactly what I described because the program wouldn't "automatically" resize correctly. Others have experienced same....

Tool.. lets see.. flamen... blah, I can't spell it.

I think your problem was you were "ghosting" with Acronis rather than cloning. I know for a fact what Acronis 2010 did for my array(s) and SSD.

Perhaps it was magic. Maybe I can sell my copy to some big money research institute for them to figure out how I was able to perform these miracles. Cha-ching!
 
OK, I left my 100MB Win7 partition as is.

Are you saying Win7 doesn't need this partition? Is it for system restore or some such? I turned off system restore, and indexing. Defrag and superfetch were already disabled by Win7.

What am I trading off by eliminating this 100MB partition?

MS says that the 100MB partition is needed if you want to use the bitlocker encryption, as well as containing all boot info and a bunch of other files that used to go in "C:"
If you disable it you cannot use bitlocker, and all those system files are dumped into C:

so if someone tricks you into deleting all those "hidden virus files on C drive" (I think I was 6 years old with our first family computer when an a-hole told me to do that... my dad then had to pay 100$ for a computer technician to repair my computer... that certainly taught me a lesson about believing people), you can't, they are not on C drive anymore (or any drive you can access for that matter). although... i guess nothing is stopping them from telling you to do other things that would mess up your computer.
I think it would also complicate matters for programs that would try to access and modify said data.

I like it as it keeps my C drive less cluttered. 100MB is a small price for not having to see all those system files anymore.
 
Last edited:
so if someone tricks you into deleting all those "hidden virus files on C drive" (I think I was 6 years old with our first family computer when an a-hole told me to do that... my dad then had to pay 100$ for a computer technician to repair my computer... that certainly taught me a lesson about believing people), you can't, they are not on C drive anymore (or any drive you can access for that matter). although... i guess nothing is stopping them from telling you to do other things that would mess up your computer.

Does it make me an awful person that I can't stop laughing when I read this post of yours? I mean that is just wickedly terrible of someone to do to a 6yr old, but gawd-dam that's hilarious stuff from a situational-comedy perspective. That's just diabolical and awesome all at the same time.
 
That hIOMon tool is a great way to validate that TRIM really DOES work on the SSD.

Here's a capture after copying and deleting some multi GB files and then running SSD toolbox:

2010-05-24_2325.png
 
Does it make me an awful person that I can't stop laughing when I read this post of yours? I mean that is just wickedly terrible of someone to do to a 6yr old, but gawd-dam that's hilarious stuff from a situational-comedy perspective. That's just diabolical and awesome all at the same time.

heh, I totally understand actually.
 
MS says that the 100MB partition is needed if you want to use the bitlocker encryption, as well as containing all boot info and a bunch of other files that used to go in "C:"
Are you sure about the second part? Sounds strange. From what I know that hidden partition contains only the stuff you need to repair your install if something goes wrong (e.g. you don't need the DVD/image to fix it) and some similar nice, useful tools, but I don't think they copied stuff from the system dirs onto there and used hard links for backwards compability.. also I'm rather sure you can delete the partition everytime you want and Win7 won't stop working.
Though I'd still let it be, since that's still rather useful and what are 100mb today?

PS: What I find mean on the story about the deleted files is that someone really took 100$ to boot from a Win CD and let it fix the install.. that's something everyone can do if you tell them and really no work.
 
Tool.. lets see.. flamen... blah, I can't spell it.

I think your problem was you were "ghosting" with Acronis rather than cloning. I know for a fact what Acronis 2010 did for my array(s) and SSD.

Perhaps it was magic. Maybe I can sell my copy to some big money research institute for them to figure out how I was able to perform these miracles. Cha-ching!

In my recent experience, AdamK47 speaks the truth about how Acronis operates.
 
I have found the only difficulty with Acronis, and other similar programs, is that one needs to learn how to reduce the size of the clone for the SSD. I have had no less than 5 emails of people stating that their drive would not clone in moving it from a 160Gb (example) HDD to a 80Gb SSD even though they have only used say 30Gb in total. They don't understand that they must reduce the size of the partition to the same specs of their drive before trying the clone.

Further, they dont realize that if they cut it right down to the exact size, they will be left with unallocated space on the SSD as well...

I would also believe that ghosting with Acronis can result in problems as you are moving the exact HDD setup onto a SSD. To me, its kind of like putting a VW engine in a Porsche but the good thing is we can always fix er up...just more work is all.

I cloned a 300GB Velociraptor to my 256GB Crucial C300. Both data and alignment were kept in place after the clone, and the clone allocated the entire space available on the SSD. I believe you can actually set the partition size in the options before cloning as well. If you clone a smaller drive to a larger unformatted drive (recently did this going from a 500GB games install drive to a 600GB RAID 0 array), it will only format the new drive to the size of the cloned drive that the data came from. Simply extending the partition with MS disk manager cures this issue quickly and painlessly.
 
Are you sure about the second part? Sounds strange. From what I know that hidden partition contains only the stuff you need to repair your install if something goes wrong (e.g. you don't need the DVD/image to fix it) and some similar nice, useful tools, but I don't think they copied stuff from the system dirs onto there and used hard links for backwards compability.. also I'm rather sure you can delete the partition everytime you want and Win7 won't stop working.
Though I'd still let it be, since that's still rather useful and what are 100mb today?

PS: What I find mean on the story about the deleted files is that someone really took 100$ to boot from a Win CD and let it fix the install.. that's something everyone can do if you tell them and really no work.

The 100MB partition only contains files used to boot into recovery mode under Win7. If you preformat a disk and do a clean Win7 install without formatting (i.e. use the existing formatting) this partition is not created.
 
Are you sure about the second part? Sounds strange. From what I know that hidden partition contains only the stuff you need to repair your install if something goes wrong (e.g. you don't need the DVD/image to fix it) and some similar nice, useful tools, but I don't think they copied stuff from the system dirs onto there and used hard links for backwards compability.. also I'm rather sure you can delete the partition everytime you want and Win7 won't stop working.
Though I'd still let it be, since that's still rather useful and what are 100mb today?

PS: What I find mean on the story about the deleted files is that someone really took 100$ to boot from a Win CD and let it fix the install.. that's something everyone can do if you tell them and really no work.

not folders, files.
the second part I can confirm, I go into my C drive contains "hiberfil.sys" and "pagefile.sys"... all other files that are normally found there are gone (when using the 100MB partition).
 
The 100MB partition only contains files used to boot into recovery mode under Win7. If you preformat a disk and do a clean Win7 install without formatting (i.e. use the existing formatting) this partition is not created.
Yeah which is what you'd normally need the DVD for right? I think the Memcheck and other stuff is also on that partition.

@taltamir: Ahm maybe I'm confused, but what systemfiles would you be looking for in C:/ itself other than those two? And I think I deleted that 100mb partition on the RC and Win7 still booted up fine, but I'm not 100% sure if I didn't install a new version afterwards..
 
Yeah which is what you'd normally need the DVD for right? I think the Memcheck and other stuff is also on that partition.

@taltamir: Ahm maybe I'm confused, but what systemfiles would you be looking for in C:/ itself other than those two? And I think I deleted that 100mb partition on the RC and Win7 still booted up fine, but I'm not 100% sure if I didn't install a new version afterwards..

Correct, you can run system recovery utilities and some other troubleshooting stuff directly from the locked partition when you hit F8. If that partition isn't there, you'll have to pull out the DVD to load it.

In the event I'd need to use said tools, I'd much rather load them from the SSD rather than a DVD I have to break out of storage. 100MB is a very small waste of space, and worth it to me for the convenience of having those tools handy just-in-case.
 
5. Turn Off Pagefile - I have been through this a million times ofver the past few years. Pagefile is created ONLY to make up for physical ram that isnt there. If you have the ram, it is useless.

Awful advice. Having a pagefile allows the Windows to do a better job of keeping newly-referenced stuff in memory, not the mention the fact that certain applications will flat out refuse to run.

From the horse's mouth: (Mark Russinovich)

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx

Perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions related to virtual memory is, how big should I make the paging file? There’s no end of ridiculous advice out on the web and in the newsstand magazines that cover Windows, and even Microsoft has published misleading recommendations. Almost all the suggestions are based on multiplying RAM size by some factor, with common values being 1.2, 1.5 and 2. Now that you understand the role that the paging file plays in defining a system’s commit limit and how processes contribute to the commit charge, you’re well positioned to see how useless such formulas truly are.

Since the commit limit sets an upper bound on how much private and pagefile-backed virtual memory can be allocated concurrently by running processes, the only way to reasonably size the paging file is to know the maximum total commit charge for the programs you like to have running at the same time. If the commit limit is smaller than that number, your programs won’t be able to allocate the virtual memory they want and will fail to run properly.

So how do you know how much commit charge your workloads require? You might have noticed in the screenshots that Windows tracks that number and Process Explorer shows it: Peak Commit Charge. To optimally size your paging file you should start all the applications you run at the same time, load typical data sets, and then note the commit charge peak (or look at this value after a period of time where you know maximum load was attained). Set the paging file minimum to be that value minus the amount of RAM in your system (if the value is negative, pick a minimum size to permit the kind of crash dump you are configured for). If you want to have some breathing room for potentially large commit demands, set the maximum to double that number.

Some feel having no paging file results in better performance, but in general, having a paging file means Windows can write pages on the modified list (which represent pages that aren’t being accessed actively but have not been saved to disk) out to the paging file, thus making that memory available for more useful purposes (processes or file cache). So while there may be some workloads that perform better with no paging file, in general having one will mean more usable memory being available to the system (never mind that Windows won’t be able to write kernel crash dumps without a paging file sized large enough to hold them).

Also, Gizmodo have article on this as well.

http://gizmodo.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it
 
Last edited:
Terrible advice eh? eheheheh Perhaps you want to dip further into the ice age to find articles that deal with XP and Win Server rather than speaking of personal experience and your own ideas.

Or perhaps you might want to read the articles themselves to which you will find this:

"The big problem with disabling your pagefile is that once you've exhausted the available RAM,"

If you have adequate RAM available in your system, Pagefile is useless...does nothing...and can be shut down. Thats why there is a radio button that allows it. This is actually one of my fav discussions because of all he armchair quarterbacks who like to pull out dated threads or state what they have read rather than using common sense and trying it themselves to see how it will fair.

Having said that, Windows will not have a log to identify the problem should their be a crash but then again, who has a system that crashes any more? Does this still exist?

Anyway, can you speak of personal experience relating to this?

What is even more amazing though is that this is the first you have heard of this eheheheh.
 
Last edited:
Terrible advice eh? eheheheh Perhaps you want to dip further into the ice age to find articles that deal with XP and Win Server rather than speaking of personal experience and your own ideas.

The article above deals with Vista and Windows 7.

This is actually one of my fav discussions because of all he armchair quarterbacks

Who is armchair quarterback? Microsoft software architect or some random guy on the internet, speaking from his "personal experience"? Do us a favor and leave this thread, you are embarrassing yourself.


Leon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top