Samsung RAPID mode

[BonzaiDuck]

Doesn't the OS already have to cache all reads and writes in RAM anyway?

It sounds to me like what is going on here is RAPID is doing something that the OS does anyway, then claiming credit for it by measuring R/W speed on the wrong side of the SATA bus.

The OS reads into RAM programs and data from the HDD, not different much in any way from the old Von Neumann model describing the architecture of most computers since the first hard disk was forklifted onto a large MAC truck's trailer. But for every program suite read into RAM, it doesn't "stay there" after the program is closed -- that RAM remains available for something else.

We're basically talking about the same caching strategy you see when the CPU pulls these programs and data from RAM: That's why there is L1 cache -- fastest and most expensive, L2 -- larger but slower, and L3 cache -- still even larger but a tad slower.

With ISRT, we had an SSD of NAND memory possibly four times larger than RAM, but also slower. This SSD was a cache for an HDD with much greater capacity but much slower speed.

Using part of RAM as a cache, there may be 2GB that had been loaded from the NAND SSD RAM -- available to read back into RAM as it's normally used. And I believe these reads to different parts of RAM are "block moves" using some of the basic extended CPU instruction set.

And my best guess also follows: the relative speed of RAM and SSD, perhaps as compared to electro-mechanical HDDs, means that a smaller amount of cache is sufficient for similar volumes of progs or data read off the storage device at the "bottom of the pyramid."

In other words, if ISRT using a 60GB SSD cache gave you a three-fold improvement in data throughput over a standalone HDD, the 500GB SSD only needs 2GB of RAM to double the speed of transfers over a standalone SSD running at it's advertised specs.

 

[AndreyT]

It creates it's own startup entry called "SamsungRapidApp" which in turn starts two background processes called "SamsungRapidApp.exe" and "SamsungRapidSvc.exe" but once enabled and rebooted, you are free to remove the Magician start up entry like I have done.

A number of corrections for those who search for it on Google:

1. Samsung Magician is not necessary for RAPID mode. However, it installs itself to run at every user logon through Task Scheduler. Note: it runs at logon through Task Scheduler, not through autoruns entries in the Registry. The entry for Samsung Magician is located right in the root of Task Scheduler tree. The purpose of that entry is to do some checks of the drive health and to check for firmware updates. You can disable it if you want.

2. RAPID mode adds an HKLM autoruns entry to the Registry called SamsungRapidApp, which runs so called Samsung RAPID Mode Notification Utility (SamsungRapidApp.exe). It does not start SamsungRapidSvc.exe though. (The latter is a service.) The purpose of that Notification Utility is not exactly known, but the test show that it is not needed for RAPID mode. You can remove that autoruns entry from the Registry.

3. RAPID mode adds a service called SamsungRapidSvc (SamsungRapidSvc.exe) which is the actual implementation of RAPID mode. This is the only thing that you need for RAPID mode.

 

[coercitiv]

And one more thing to note: if you right click on the Samsung Magician icon in the taskbar, you will find the option to disable autorun on system start.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Geez!! Youse guys resurrected a year-old thread on this topic!

My last post was May 2014. I've since gained an education.

RAPID, ISRT and Hyper-Duo seem to be attempts to "proprietize" a solution that never needed to be proprietary. Why should you need be limited to either AHCI or RAID mode for one or the other? Why should you be limited to RAM-caching only a single drive of the same manufacture?

You don't. Instead, you buy the $30 life-time license to Romex Primo-Cache.

I've discovered that you can run RAPID for a Samsung drive while using the "L2" SSD-caching feature of Primo to "accelerate" an HDD with a second small SSD.

But it would be no less reliable for a simplifying solution: disable RAPID, cache your SAMSUNG to RAM with PRIMO, maybe cache a large HDD to a small second SSD with the L2 feature. You can RAM-cache or SSD-cache a RAID array of HDDs, if desired. I suspect there are other possible combinations or options -- more complicated -- but why explore anything much more than what I've outlined here?

 

[Essence_of_War]

RAPID, ISRT and Hyper-Duo seem to be attempts to "proprietize" a solution that never needed to be proprietary.
...
You don't. Instead, you buy the $30 life-time license to Romex Primo-Cache.

Closed source binaries are proprietary. It may be modestly more flexible, but that doesn't make it NOT proprietary, it's just not locked to the same vendor as the hardware.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Closed source binaries are proprietary. It may be modestly more flexible, but that doesn't make it NOT proprietary, it's just not locked to the same vendor as the hardware.

Well, then I err in a semantic distinction. But I'd say that's a lot more flexible. It's not locked to the hardware vendor, but it's also not exclusive to different storage modes, nor does it require any configuration at the controller-BIOS level like Hyper-Duo.

I approached it cautiously with a laptop I rebuilt -- knowing that the laptop wasn't "essential" to my computing needs. I acquired it and "upgraded" it as a sort of experiment. So it was a pleasant surprise to find the trial period for Primo to be 90-day instead of 30.

With equal caution, I installed another 90-day trial to a desktop system. The desktop system was already going south because of a bad PSU, but Primo didn't complicate the problems. Since then, I purchased the 3-PC license and installed it on two desktops in addition to the laptop.

It's just too easy for me to bring it up in these discussions about RAPID, etc. Ignoring any arguments of "benchmark" versus "real-world," the benchmarks show comparable benefits. It's like a Swiss-army knife of caching options.

 

[R0H1T]

Geez!! Youse guys resurrected a year-old thread on this topic!

My last post was May 2014. I've since gained an education.

RAPID, ISRT and Hyper-Duo seem to be attempts to "proprietize" a solution that never needed to be proprietary. Why should you need be limited to either AHCI or RAID mode for one or the other? Why should you be limited to RAM-caching only a single drive of the same manufacture?

You don't. Instead, you buy the $30 life-time license to Romex Primo-Cache.

I've discovered that you can run RAPID for a Samsung drive while using the "L2" SSD-caching feature of Primo to "accelerate" an HDD with a second small SSD.

But it would be no less reliable for a simplifying solution: disable RAPID, cache your SAMSUNG to RAM with PRIMO, maybe cache a large HDD to a small second SSD with the L2 feature. You can RAM-cache or SSD-cache a RAID array of HDDs, if desired. I suspect there are other possible combinations or options -- more complicated -- but why explore anything much more than what I've outlined here?

That's the thing, in the "high" end SSD space (even the mainstream drives to a lesser extent) the only way you can command a price premium is through some form of "differentiation" in which case a game/software bundle is the more obvious choice, long(er) term warranties like with the 850 Pro & Extreme Pro being the only other option.

The top end SSD's are honestly so close to each other that in a blind test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference 99 out of a 100 times, probably even less of a chance, so this is what sells SSD's in those marginal cases where a potential customer is conflicted OR more precisely to sway someone who hasn't already made his mind up as to what brand he'll go with.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

That's the thing, in the "high" end SSD space (even the mainstream drives to a lesser extent) the only way you can command a price premium is through some form of "differentiation" in which case a game/software bundle is the more obvious choice, long(er) term warranties like with the 850 Pro & Extreme Pro being the only other option.

The top end SSD's are honestly so close to each other that in a blind test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference 99 out of a 100 times, probably even less of a chance, so this is what sells SSD's in those marginal cases where a potential customer is conflicted OR more precisely to sway someone who hasn't already made his mind up as to what brand he'll go with.

That's sound economic reasoning as to why they offer the software bonus.

I KNOW that Intel had been working on ISRT for some time before release of the Z68 chipset. Since they manufacture SSDs, one could imagine they'd think the feature would help them boost some extra sales of 60GB SSDs. But it wouldn't be essential to their introduction of the feature.

Maybe it was just "the writing on the wall." An option whose "time had come." But caching in the general sense has been a concept well-established in IT. If it's just a "phony gimmick," then why should processors have L1, L2 and L3? The "gimmicks" just extend the concept to the lower rungs of the pyramidal hardware architecture where the gaps in speed and overall storage capacity between levels are more noticeable, and some intermediary storage solution offers a caching opportunity.

 

[AndreyT]

... but why explore anything much more than what I've outlined here?

Well, firstly, my post was not about RAPID mode per se, but rather about various software components that Samsung software installs and attempts to run. Many people, me included, do now like to run various autostarting pieces of software unless they are really necessary. I hope that answers your "why explore" question.

Secondly, I wonder if anyone actually knows what the purpose of that "Samsung RAPID Mode Notification Utility" is. What exactly is it supposed to "notify" about? And who? It shouldn't be something terribly important for RAPID mode (everything important is implemented in the service) and disabling this "Notification Utility" does not seem to affect anything.

So, does anyone have any idea of about what purpose it serves?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, firstly, my post was not about RAPID mode per se, but rather about various software components that Samsung software installs and attempts to run. Many people, me included, do now like to run various autostarting pieces of software unless they are really necessary. I hope that answers your "why explore" question.

Secondly, I wonder if anyone actually knows what the purpose of that "Samsung RAPID Mode Notification Utility" is. What exactly is it supposed to "notify" about? And who? It shouldn't be something terribly important for RAPID mode (everything important is implemented in the service) and disabling this "Notification Utility" does not seem to affect anything.

So, does anyone have any idea of about what purpose it serves?

I guess I couldn't say. If I add Magician, it is not only for the RAPID features. I can tweak Magician so that it doesn't run at boot-time. And if I don't use RAPID for caching, I can use Primo. Then I can start Magician when I want from the start button, and terminate it just as easily.

 

[Skurge]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/...w-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/5

It was quite a bit faster in their workload tests.

 

[sxr7171]

Windows does it's own caching and trust me MS worked on the strategy for many years. Rapid might do something for some fringe use cases but mostly the most visible of those is benchmarking. Samsung should be honest about what it really does and which if any fringe cases actually benefit.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Windows does it's own caching and trust me MS worked on the strategy for many years. Rapid might do something for some fringe use cases but mostly the most visible of those is benchmarking. Samsung should be honest about what it really does and which if any fringe cases actually benefit.

I thought that Windows did its caching at the file level, while these RAM-caching options (RAPID and Primo) operate at the block level. I won't entirely dispute what you say there, but the caching sure made a difference on a 2007-release Centrino-Duo laptop I refurbed with an SSD connected to its SATA-II controller.

Throw into this discussion the SSD-cached HDD "acceleration" possibilities. Those definitely improve performance to 80% of standalone SSD, provided the SSD is plugged to an SATA-III port.

I'd only offer the point that if caching was just a gimmick, then why have L1, L2 and L3 cache in processors? It's a well-established technique.

I look at it this way. I've got 16GB of RAM, and that's plenty to spare. I wouldn't implement either RAPID or Primo-Cache if they introduced instability. To date and for the last full year, I haven't had a problem with either. I'd emphasize that I don't do RAM-caching with both at the same time. If I wanted to surmount the RAPID limitation to a single Samsung SSD, Primo-Cache would do it, and I could kick RAPID out the Window(s).

 

[sxr7171]

I thought that Windows did its caching at the file level, while these RAM-caching options (RAPID and Primo) operate at the block level. I won't entirely dispute what you say there, but the caching sure made a difference on a 2007-release Centrino-Duo laptop I refurbed with an SSD connected to its SATA-II controller.

Throw into this discussion the SSD-cached HDD "acceleration" possibilities. Those definitely improve performance to 80% of standalone SSD, provided the SSD is plugged to an SATA-III port.

I'd only offer the point that if caching was just a gimmick, then why have L1, L2 and L3 cache in processors? It's a well-established technique.

I look at it this way. I've got 16GB of RAM, and that's plenty to spare. I wouldn't implement either RAPID or Primo-Cache if they introduced instability. To date and for the last full year, I haven't had a problem with either. I'd emphasize that I don't do RAM-caching with both at the same time. If I wanted to surmount the RAPID limitation to a single Samsung SSD, Primo-Cache would do it, and I could kick RAPID out the Window(s).

Caching itself is not a gimmick. Windows handles it pretty well. It probably uses your entire 16GB as it sees fit for that purpose.

With Rapid it only caches Samsung SSDs. Using an SSD to cache an HDD is what a hybrid drive does and I'm going to assume it holds a lot of Windows OS DLLs and files which get loaded to RAM on startup.

What I'm saying is that probably MS has put more man hours into a RAM caching strategy than any 3rd party. That wasn't true with Windows 98, and 2000. Back then we were using 3rd party optimization strategies. I've personally put files on RAM Disk etc. But I think with modern Windows it just does it for you.

If a 3rd party caching strategy is better for your use case then its a good thing, but I think the majority will not benefit much if at all.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Caching itself is not a gimmick. Windows handles it pretty well. It probably uses your entire 16GB as it sees fit for that purpose.

With Rapid it only caches Samsung SSDs. Using an SSD to cache an HDD is what a hybrid drive does and I'm going to assume it holds a lot of Windows OS DLLs and files which get loaded to RAM on startup.

What I'm saying is that probably MS has put more man hours into a RAM caching strategy than any 3rd party. That wasn't true with Windows 98, and 2000. Back then we were using 3rd party optimization strategies. I've personally put files on RAM Disk etc. But I think with modern Windows it just does it for you.

If a 3rd party caching strategy is better for your use case then its a good thing, but I think the majority will not benefit much if at all.

Only minor responses . . . RAPID seems to pick its own RAM usage depending on what's available, but with my 16GB I see that Resource Monitor still shows 9,000+ MB "Available." With Primo, you select a fixed level of RAM for the caching. I'm willing to guess that 3GB is excessive.

I'll use RAPID for any Samsung 840 Pro or EVO I have as a boot-disk. The Primo comes in handy for a large HDD and a $40 SSD -- which I consider worth it. In that latter case, there's no doubt it makes a big difference for HDD storage. In this latter case, obviously, there's little use of additional RAM -- I think there's some nominal "overhead" amount, but no actual caching. I think the Primo-Cache is preferable to ISRT, since I don't need to set the BIOS in RAID-mode.

 

[Puffnstuff]

When I used rapid it took up 2gb of my 8gb.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

When I used rapid it took up 2gb of my 8gb.

I allocated 3GB to Primo-Cache on my laptop to cache the SSD to RAM -- which is also a total of 8GB. But I only use the laptop for business apps, easy-chair server-maintenance access, etc. The laptop came to me with 2GB which I'd upgraded with a 2x4GB kit. With that sort of usage and the 3GB of caching, I still have in excess of 2GB "Available."

So your RAPID caching comes down to a trade-off or compromise between whether you think you want the caching feature for a very fast SSD, whether you want to augment the RAM by -- say -- doubling it, and whether the remaining 6GB serves your habits and needs.

That leaves the issue of benchmark scores, which will cause others to yawn or sneeze about their relevance. I think before Samsung issued a version upgrade to Magician and RAPID which allowed for use of more than 2GB regardless the total, I was getting a sequential read score of about 1,200+ MB/s. Whatever the new version actually uses, the score increased to 6,000+ MB/s. But I have a 2x8GB kit of RAM.

 

[Z15CAM]

Samsung Rapid Storage simply does not recognize Intel Sata Raid - It's OK with Intel AHCI Mode. Because I BIOS Boot Intel SATA Raid Mode any Samsung Software is useless to me and would sooner use the Intel IRST driver.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Samsung Rapid Storage simply does not recognize Intel Sata Raid - It's OK with Intel AHCI Mode. Because I BIOS Boot Intel SATA Raid Mode any Samsung Software is useless to me and would sooner use the Intel IRST driver.

Understood. I had to make the transition myself, even though I was no longer building arrays of drives.

Unless you're absolutely averse to the idea, you might find it interesting to download the 90-day trial to Primo-Cache. It's storage-mode-agnostic. You should be able to cache a RAID array, or any of several feasible combinations. Of course, if you're RAIDing SSDs, even a benchmark difference would seem meaningless.

But I think you could "accelerate" an HDD RAID array with Primo's "L2" SSD caching, and you could probably cache the result to RAM. Or you could cache an SSD RAID array to RAM. Or you could cache the HDD RAID directly to RAM.

Knock yourself out, I say!

 

[Z15CAM]

I BIOS Boot Intel SATA RAID Mode with 4 Storage Devices: 1 SSD (Not a member of an ARRAY) as the Boot Drive with 2 HDD's in an ARRAY for a FAST Playground which includes "Downloads" and "My Documents" (Which I never use unless looking for a lost File) and lastly 1 HDD for Storage and Backup (Not a member of an ARRAY).

I do use a RAMDisk to slough off Win and Application Crap.

The other 2 Intel SATA outlets in SATA RAID Mode are used for an Optic and a spare whatever - Neither a member of an ARRAY.

That makes for 6 Intel SATA controllers in RAID Mode. Storage not a Member of an an ARRAY is in AHCI Mode but Samsung Software doesn't recognize it.

Once you have Enabled SATA RAID on the Intel SATA Controller in BIOS Samsung Software is useless.

Prove me wrong as I would like to know?

 

[jkauff]

When I used rapid it took up 2gb of my 8gb.

The latest versions will use up to 4GB of 16GB, while the earlier versions were limited to 2GB.

 

[sxr7171]

Only minor responses . . . RAPID seems to pick its own RAM usage depending on what's available, but with my 16GB I see that Resource Monitor still shows 9,000+ MB "Available." With Primo, you select a fixed level of RAM for the caching. I'm willing to guess that 3GB is excessive.

I'll use RAPID for any Samsung 840 Pro or EVO I have as a boot-disk. The Primo comes in handy for a large HDD and a $40 SSD -- which I consider worth it. In that latter case, there's no doubt it makes a big difference for HDD storage. In this latter case, obviously, there's little use of additional RAM -- I think there's some nominal "overhead" amount, but no actual caching. I think the Primo-Cache is preferable to ISRT, since I don't need to set the BIOS in RAID-mode.

9000+MB available could mean it's reclaimable. It's probably being used for caching but that it can be claimed if any program needs it. We would need someone who knows more about Windows caching to be sure.

On one hand so much work has gone into Windows caching that I find it hard to believe small 3rd parties can do it better, on the other hand this is MS which does put out some crappy software with mind boggling bugs and poor quality.

For the average user startup is the time of the most I/O and that cannot be RAM cached as RAM is volatile memory. Windows offers sleep which is keeping the RAM awake so that the machine can resume almost instantly. If some program were to be accessing a database repeatedly from the SSD I would hope that Windows caching has put that into RAM already assuming there is sufficient RAM. I'm pretty sure it's intelligent enough to realize certain parts of the SSD are being read over and over again and keep it in RAM. Also I don't think it purges RAM unless it has to, so it just automatically keeps things in RAM anyway.

There was a time when I used to use stupid "memory cleaning" optimization software. It's sole purpose was to reclaim such RAM that wasn't in active use to give the user the impression that it reclaimed RAM and hence the user has more available RAM. It probably just claimed RAM for itself and caused Windows to give up non essential RAM. The user felt like he had more available RAM and that's all it is. A program that makes the user feel more in control of their system. The net effect was more along the lines of causing Windows to have to recache often used data. Basically breaking Windows caching.

Most of this 3rd party optimization software is just that, something to make the user feel more in control of their system. To feel like somehow they can, from the outside, know what's better for optimization than the system itself can from the inside. It really is software for the anally retentive who feel they can micromanage the OS better than the OS can manage itself. Maybe in the Windows 95/98/2000 era it was true to some extent, but I can't imagine Windows is that daft today.

It could be possible that a company like Samsung with it's resources has made a caching system that beats Window's built in system, but more than likely it's a caching system that is optimized for one case: BENCHMARKING. Its marketing is also better than Windows marketing. It certainly gets people to buy their SSDs over competing SSDs. Even "experts" wouldn't call it out since I can't imagine which professional reviewer wants to draw the ire of the mighty Samsung. No more review samples for them.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I BIOS Boot Intel SATA RAID Mode with 4 Storage Devices: 1 SSD (Not a member of an ARRAY) as the Boot Drive with 2 HDD's in an ARRAY for a FAST Playground which includes "Downloads" and "My Documents" (Which I never use unless looking for a lost File) and lastly 1 HDD for Storage and Backup (Not a member of an ARRAY).

I do use a RAMDisk to slough off Win and Application Crap.

The other 2 Intel SATA outlets in SATA RAID Mode are used for an Optic and a spare whatever - Neither a member of an ARRAY.

That makes for 6 Intel SATA controllers in RAID Mode. Storage not a Member of an an ARRAY is in AHCI Mode but Samsung Software doesn't recognize it.

Once you have Enabled SATA RAID on the Intel SATA Controller in BIOS Samsung Software is useless.

Prove me wrong as I would like to know?

Maybe I wasn't clear. You know that the Samsung software (RAPID, particularly) doesn't work with Crucial or other SSDs, and only works with a single Samsung SSD. But you don't need the Samsung software to cache Samsung or any other SSD(s) (or HDD or HDD array!) to RAM, and you don't need ISRT (limited to RAID-mode) to cache an HDD or HDD array to SSD.

The available solution is storage-mode "agnostic." It doesn't matter if BIOS is configured in RAID-mode, or if other drives on different controllers are in AHCI. I was suggesting you might look at this link, download the 90-day free-trial and see if you might have a use for it:

http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/index.html

The "L1" caching is identical to RAM-caching done by RAPID; "L2" option is parallel to ISRT -- but there's no storage-mode requirement, and it would seem you could use it across controllers and storage-modes. Further, it looks like you could create an "L2" SSD-cache to "accelerate" an HDD or -array, and then cache the whole enchilada in RAM -- allocated for as many GB's as you'd like. This would actually make a 4x8GB RAM configuration "useful" if not needed in some niche rendering or specialized task.

If there's nothing there for you, you can just uninstall it. (90 days gives the prospective user a LOT of time to toy with the product and think about the possibilities.)

 

[Z15CAM]

Thanks DUCK - I'll look into it to see if it has benefits to what I'm using now.

By the way, I am running a Samsung Pro 256MB SSD as a Boot Drive in AHCI (Not a Member of an Array) on the Intel SATA Controller enabled in RAID Mode because I want 2 HDD's in RAID-0.

I find it OK to use the IRST driver and run a RAMDisk to assign any Win or App buffering. The IRST Driver does it's job Cashing Storage devices to ram when the Intel SATA device is Enabled in Raid Mode (Samsung SSD - Whatever). I think we are talking about the same thing.

Seems to me with our almost identical Platforms, we have experienced similar issues with Samsung SSD Software Vs Intel SATA RAID Mode.

One reason why I choose to run 16GB of Samsung Green at 1866 Mhz 9-9-9-24-1T @ 1.34v on this Z68 MB.

I just wish Intel and Samsung could reach a Peace Accord. In other word's nothing solved except for a user work around.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Thanks DUCK - I'll look into it to see if it has benefits to what I'm using now.

By the way, I am running a Samsung Pro 256MB SSD as a Boot Drive in AHCI (Not a Member of an Array) on the Intel SATA Controller enabled in RAID Mode because I want 2 HDD's in RAID-0.

I find it OK to use the IRST driver and run a RAMDisk to assign any Win or App buffering. The IRST Driver does it's job Cashing Storage devices to ram when the Intel SATA device is Enabled in Raid Mode (Samsung SSD - Whatever). I think we are talking about the same thing.

Seems to me with our almost identical Platforms, we have experienced similar issues with Samsung SSD Software Vs Intel SATA RAID Mode.

One reason why I choose to run 16GB of Samsung Green at 1866 Mhz 9-9-9-24-1T @ 1.34v on this Z68 MB.

I just wish Intel and Samsung could reach a Peace Accord. In other word's nothing solved except for a user work around.

Well, I just see a minor question of semantics. Your BIOS storage mode is RAID, certainly. A single drive connected to it is an implementation of AHCI features.

You had already resolved the TRIM issue before last year, which should allow you to get TRIM for either single or arrayed SSDs in that configuration.

I'll be interested to see if the trial software does anything for you with that. The GUI isn't filled with glitz and bling, nor is the ROMEX web-site, but it's neat and functional. It seems to be a Swiss-Army knife of storage caching.

Looking at your configuration, you might actually get something out of it for both the boot SSD and RAID0. Only you can judge. But at least it means that you can get essentially the same thing as you would get with RAPID surmounting the frustration about the storage-mode limitation, and "free" for 90 days. And it has a lot more options than RAPID.

The only "drawback" in comparison: Apparently Samsung's RAPID dynamically assigns an amount of RAM for that caching option, whereas the Primo-Cache makes you choose a fixed amount up front. Whether the actual "feel" of the performance supports the benchmark scores -- again -- you have to judge. I'm just happier about using a single large HDD for the $40 small SSD expense. And I'm very close to disabling the RAPID feature, and using the Primo to cache the Sammy SSD boot-disk instead.