More newbie ssd - partiitioning

[Craig234]

For an 80gb intel, is a good approach for it to be one partition (C for Win7, with swap space (8GB for 4GB RAM?), the things you want to run fast (World of Warcraft), and the bigger hard drive for the rest?

 

[Seven]

For an 80gb intel, is a good approach for it to be one partition (C for Win7, with swap space (8GB for 4GB RAM?), the things you want to run fast (World of Warcraft), and the bigger hard drive for the rest?

You don't need to partition it. It's unnecessary and not recommended. You can install WOW on SSD, but manage to leave at least 20% free space on SSD. Install other games on storage HDD.

 

[Craig234]

You don't need to partition it. It's unnecessary and not recommended. You can install WOW on SSD, but manage to leave at least 20% free space on SSD. Install other games on storage HDD.

Thanks, by 'one partition',l I meant having the drive be one partition, not adding any extra, it's all C:.

What's the 20% free space for? Apparently you never defrag an SSD from reading other posts?

 

[capeconsultant]

The 8GB of ram swap might be excessive.

 

[Seven]

Thanks, by 'one partition',l I meant having the drive be one partition, not adding any extra, it's all C:.

What's the 20% free space for? Apparently you never defrag an SSD from reading other posts?

There is an anandtech article that suggest to keep 20% free space on the drive for the best performance.. Keep your C for the SSD and you will be all set.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=3

 

[garritynet]

There is an anandtech article that suggest to keep 20% free space on the drive for the best performance.. Keep your C for the SSD and you will be all set.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=3

I would rather take the performance loss and enjoy the benefit of the SSD on a few more programs than give up a full 16gb space. Different strokes.

 

[Gildor57]

I would rather take the performance loss and enjoy the benefit of the SSD on a few more programs than give up a full 16gb space. Different strokes.

Given their current price point. I thought performance was the major benefit of SSD's. At least that's why I decided to shell out the bucks for one.

 

[garritynet]

Given their current price point. I thought performance was the major benefit of SSD's. At least that's why I decided to shell out the bucks for one.

The performance is the major benefit. They perform so well that even if you don't have a full 20% free space on your Intel drive they are still lighting fast. Personally, if I had to choose between adding a few more programs that would benefit from the SSD and having the optimal amount of space for peak performance I would add the programs. I am not saying fill up the drives completely either, just balance it out. A bit of performance lost that I may not be able to even perceive without a benchmark in exchange for mounting a program I use regularly on my SSD is a fair trade for me. Different strokes.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29052490&postcount=29

His poor performance is an ATTO score of 278. I get 188 on my OCZ Vertex which while it may not the performance king of SSDs its no slouch either.

 

[jimhsu]

Re. the post

A word about the 20% - write performance does NOT degrade smoothly. Having less than 10GB or so free is extremely bad for performance (as in I get JMicron like lag when a SEQUENTIAL (not random) write is taking place). It is something about the write-combining that makes it fail miserably at those levels of free space. This is most evident when you have ANY DISK ACTIVITY AT ALL going on when doing a sequential write benchmark, such as those found in Crystaldiskmark. To this date, I don't think any reviews have covered this specific phenomenon yet. Unfortunately, most reviews will never cover this because they never bench a drive which contains the running OS (they use a separate disk).

Some examples (x-axis = time, y-axis = MB/s). The blue line is undegraded performance, the red line is degraded performance.

Expected:

Actual:

The dips are what make it so frustrating to use at low free space.

This is analogous to the minimum FPS argument: Which game has "better performance"? a) One that has a FPS range between 20-40, or b) one that has an average FPS of 60, but dips down to 10?

I'm currently keeping 25GB free for safety. I noticed performance degradation even at 16GB free.

 

[Gildor57]

The performance is the major benefit. They perform so well that even if you don't have a full 20% free space on your Intel drive they are still lighting fast. Personally, if I had to choose between adding a few more programs that would benefit from the SSD and having the optimal amount of space for peak performance I would add the programs. I am not saying fill up the drives completely either, just balance it out. A bit of performance lost that I may not be able to even perceive without a benchmark in exchange for mounting a program I use regularly on my SSD is a fair trade for me. Different strokes.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29052490&postcount=29

His poor performance is an ATTO score of 278. I get 188 on my OCZ Vertex which while it may not the performance king of SSDs its no slouch either.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Gildor57]

I'm currently keeping 25GB free for safety. I noticed performance degradation even at 16GB free.

I am a little confused. My apologies if it was in an earlier post, but those numbers are based on what size drive? I guess I am asking if this phenomena is driven by the percentage free space on a drive of any given size, or is it more of an absolute number, at least on the larger drives(80GB, 160GB, and above)?

 

[jimhsu]

80GB. I have no idea if it's driven by the % of free space, or the amount. Additionally, Indilinx based drives use DRAM to help with write combining, so should dramatically reduce this phenomenon (this is a hypothesis that someone should try to test, but anand mentions something similar to this).

 

[garritynet]

My understanding is that Indilinx controllers do not use spare space outside of the designated "spare area" for LBA and see much less benefit from the additional space than do Intel drives as far as planning writes. That spare usage is one of the things that makes the Intel drives such great performers, along with their advanced wear leveling/multi channel magic.

Because the space is used for LBA there is a ceiling to how much you want to use and still have maximum write speeds. I am pretty sure it is a % as the more space you have the more space you need as a scratch pad and for the LBA.

I believe Anand recommends secure cleaning your drive and then shrinking the "user space" to accommodate the extra "spare space". Supposedly this also reduces your write amplification a great deal. Makes sense to me.

That said I am not overly concerned with sequential writes. That only happens when I install a program or run a benchmark. Write amplification I do care about, to an extent. I figure these drives just gotta last me though 2012ish. Just a little over two years.

 

[Pneumothorax]

For an 80gb intel, is a good approach for it to be one partition (C for Win7, with swap space (8GB for 4GB RAM?), the things you want to run fast (World of Warcraft), and the bigger hard drive for the rest?

I didn't even do a swap space for my 80gb G2, just upgraded firmware, turned on AHCI, and installed Win7. You're going to LOVE WoW on your intel ssd. Dalaran loads up lightning quick. Instances load up "instantly" so quick load times when you "wipe" lol.