SSD caching a HDD is a worthless gimmick

[taltamir]

Just built my system 2600k and z68 board and installed the OS on a 120ssd drive and plan to install the games to my 2Tb drive this system is just for Gaming would using the ssd for caching work better...Thanks

Oh and how would I get the OS to the 2Tb drive?

How many games do you need to have installed?

If you can actually fit them all into the SSD then don't use SRT and it will be faster.

If you want more games than can fit unto your SSD installed at the same time then use SRT for a good speed boost over just the HDD (but not quite as fast as running it directly off the SSD)

Fancy cache has 2 algorithmns, Least Frequently Used or FIFO (first in first out).

Does it allow you to set both algorithms to run at once?
For example, 1GB of FIFO cache and all the rest on "Lease Frequently Used out first"?

Earlier in this thread I considered it and figured it's not worth bringing up the crippling effect on performance of using only one OR the other because it seemed obvious enough that anyone would use both at once.

Since using only one of those results in a lot of misses on various workloads. Yet using both covers them all for max benefit.

 

[KingFatty]

I'm unclear on one technical point: why is the SRT less efficient? Is it only due to potentially having to cache something not already loaded?

Or, is the inefficiency evident on something that is already cached?

As an example, lets say I only play one game that would fit entirely on my SSD, but I'm using SRT and the game was installed on my hard drive. So I play it a dozen times and the SRT kicks in and caches the game to my SSD.

At that point, when i load the game that is cached to the SSD based on SRT, would the game still load slower than under the Non-SRT scenario where the game had been installed directly to the SSD?

So that's where I'm unsure - does the SRT's very existence apply a slight inefficiency to every single read and write, even to those things that have been predictably cached?

As an extreme, assume my SSD is actually bigger in size than my hard drive, so SRT eventually caches every single thing from my hard drive to the SSD. At that point, when SRT no longer has to copy anything from the hard drive to the SSD, would SRT still cause inefficiency when accessing the already-cached things that are on the SSD?

I just wonder if the only inefficiency of SRT is the initial caching, and also only when you get a "miss" and SRT has to retrieve something from the hard drive and evict something from the SSD cache to make room for caching it?

 

[MobiusPizza]

Does it allow you to set both algorithms to run at once?
For example, 1GB of FIFO cache and all the rest on "Lease Frequently Used out first"?

Earlier in this thread I considered it and figured it's not worth bringing up the crippling effect on performance of using only one OR the other because it seemed obvious enough that anyone would use both at once.

No but it's always opportunistic in a sense that if there are empty space in the cache, every disk activity gets cached until it's full again. The Algorithm only works out which data to be evicted for more room. Either the least used data, or the oldest data.

I don't see how a combination of two can compliment each other, since there will be overheads and conflicts as to which pool to use/dump

 

[groberts101]

not to keep harping about FancyCache as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.. but some seem to be missing the bigger picture with it.

You can use the RAM first.. THEN.. you can use level 2 caching for the rest up to the max size of ANY SSD. Could be wrong on the "ANY" part but I know it goes to at least 240GB SSD's. Too lazy to look. Then again.. if you had a 240GB SSD what would be the advantage of using SRT for an OS volume anyways? FancyCache would still have its use even in that setup.

The problem with SRT(as I see it) would be similar to using a ramdisk in that it may not be large enough and new data will eventually shove out the previously cached data that you may want to revisit again. So, let's say that you don't use a game for 10 days.. will that last level load that was previously cached still be waiting for you on the SSD? Doubtful.. but obviously dependant on workload between those game play's. Now what if you have the ability to use a 120GB SSD for caching?.. will that data still be there after 10 days? Much more likely.

 

[taltamir]

No but it's always opportunistic in a sense that if there are empty space in the cache, every disk activity gets cached until it's full again. The Algorithm only works out which data to be evicted for more room. Either the least used data, or the oldest data.

I don't see how a combination of two can compliment each other, since there will be overheads and conflicts as to which pool to use/dump

its fairly simple and easy to make it not conflict. You set a specific amount of RAM for FIFO (say, 20&#37 and the rest goes to LUO.

FIFO is a running cache of your last opened files, when something gets "evicted" from FIFO it doesn't get automatically evicted from cache immediately, instead it is then compared to LUO to determine whether it or something else gets evicted.

If it ties or falls below the other least used sectors it is evicted, if it has more uses than something else, then that something else is actually evicted. Date last used is a tiebreaker.

An alternative method is to use points. Usage amounts gives points of relevance, so is how recently it was used. And then you just evict the data with the lowest amount of points. This is also fairly flexible because point awarding doesn't need to be linear. It can look at ranges, take hour of the day into account, etc.

not to keep harping about FancyCache as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.. but some seem to be missing the bigger picture with it.

You can use the RAM first.. THEN.. you can cache the rest up to the max size of ANY SSD. Could be wrong an on the "ANY" part but I know it goes to at least 240GB SSD's. Too lazy to look. lol

it certainly sounds superior to SRT as well as to MS's superfetch and readyboost.

I'm unclear on one technical point: why is the SRT less efficient? Is it only due to potentially having to cache something not already loaded?

Or, is the inefficiency evident on something that is already cached?

In theory, the overhead slowdown is negligible. And your proposal of caching a small HDD with an SSD larger then it should demonstrate exactly how much it is in practice.

The loss of performance is due to the caching algorithm incorrectly predicting what you are going to use, and not having it cached, requiring you to load it off the HDD.

 

[michal1980]

your looking at it backwards.

ssd caching is used to speed up hard drives.

not harddrives are used to slow down ssd.

By your logic any cache used to supplement other storage is a waste, because its slower then some other form of memory.

 

[GotNoRice]

The loss of performance is due to the caching algorithm incorrectly predicting what you are going to use, and not having it cached, requiring you to load it off the HDD.

I wonder how much of your dissatisfaction with SRT comes from simply not understanding how it works? SRT definitely isn't "predicting" or caching anything in advance.

The first time you launch a program or a game, it does load from the HDD and not from the SSD. All blocks (remember SRT caches blocks NOT individual files) that were accessed during the first load will be cached as they are accessed from the hard drive and will remain in the SSD cache. Subsequent launches of that game/app will then benefit from the SSD cache.

So if you are constantly loading programs/games that you haven't touched in weeks, you're going to see a lot of loading from the hard drive. Any app or game that you use with any degree of regularly would pretty much always be cached.

 

[taltamir]

I wonder how much of your dissatisfaction with SRT comes from simply not understanding how it works? SRT definitely isn't "predicting" or caching anything in advance.

1. None of it.
2. I understand how SRT works. I might not know their exact prediction algorithm, but AFAIK that is not publicized.
3. We are discussing SSD caching of HDD not just SRT. There is currently SRT from intel, FancyCache, Readyboost from MS, and some others are working on products soon to be released.
4. I am not "dissatisfied" with it, I don't own it. I analyzed the data from all the reviews and came to the conclusion its worthless. So far all of you managed to come up with one and exactly one fringe case where it has a use.
5. Regardless of whether it uses FIFO, LUO, or an intelligent hybrid with extra prediction all my points stand (MS implementations of superfetch & readyboost claim to not only hybridize the two but even predict based on time of day and your history of use based on time of day, order of programs ran after boot, etc... as well as analyzing the the order in which files are accessed by an application as it launches to put them all in order on the HDD so they can be read sequantially from it... Yes I know SRT is intel and not MS, I am just giving an example of an intelligent algorithm)

The first time you launch a program or a game, it does load from the HDD and not from the SSD. All blocks (remember SRT caches blocks NOT individual files) that were accessed during the first load will be cached as they are accessed from the hard drive and will remain in the SSD cache. Subsequent launches of that game/app will then benefit from the SSD cache.

So if you are constantly loading programs/games that you haven't touched in weeks, you're going to see a lot of loading from the hard drive. Any app or game that you use with any degree of regularly would pretty much always be cached.

1. FIFO is a way of predicting what the user will use. It is the stupidest and least useful way, but a way nonetheless. Its one advantage is that it is the easiest and cheapest to implement.
2. Where did intel reveal that they use FIFO?
3. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are using an actual intelligent algorithm (what with intel not revealing their algoritm). If SRT uses simple FIFO without any more intelligence to the algorithm then that makes it worse, not better.

EDIT:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4852/ocz-releases-synapse-ssd-for-caching

Intel is limiting their Smart Response Technology (our review) to 64GB as well. To briefly summarize the idea of caching; the software analyzes your usage and moves the most frequently accessed files to the SSD, while keeping the less frequently used files in the HD.

Doesn't sound like intel is using FIFO to me. Either anandtech is wrong or you are.

 

[GotNoRice]

I am not "dissatisfied" with it, I don't own it. I analyzed the data from all the reviews and came to the conclusion its worthless. So far all of you managed to come up with one and exactly one fringe case where it has a use.

I would argue that everyone in this thread who has seen a performance boost from SSD caching has found a "use" for it. The fact that you are content constantly swapping games around or using ghetto workarounds doesn't mean those of us who don't want to deal with any of that are wrong to go with SSD caching.

And again, using a SSD on it's own requires that you either buy an SSD big enough to fit everything you need ($$$) or swap stuff around constantly. SSD caching opens up a 3rd avenue where you can get excellent performance benefits from an SSD that would otherwise be too small to be of much use on it's own, potentially saving hundreds of dollars in the process. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a "use" also.

It's even possible to have SSD caching performance surpass that of using a dedicated SSD, since you can focus on getting the fastest SSD you can afford instead of trying to buy one that has enough space for all your stuff.

And even if you do go with a bigger SSD, you still have the option of using as little as 20gb of that SSD as cache for a mechanical drive while still being able to use the rest of that SSD directly - so even those who do prefer to run their most valued games directly from an SSD can still benefit from SSD caching. Is that not a "use" either?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Because it took that long for ANYONE to come up with a viable scenario. And I would bet money that the overwhelming majority of people do not fall into that specific user scenario.

1. Have you even read my posts? Where did I suggest you put ALL your data, including movies and photos on the SSD? In fact I explicitly stated you should not.
2. A game install goes on the SSD for max benefit. MANY games installs, too many to fit on the SSD, that you are actually going to play, that benefits from SRT.
3. Movies and photos (not software icons, photos you took) do not benefit in any way shape or form from SRT.

There has only been one, exactly one, usage scenario that anyone here was able to come up with where SRT has a use. If there are so many how come nobody can name them?

I, for one, wasn't going to go to the trouble of listing all the use cases because this thread is overly melodramatic/sensationalistic. Tiered storage is the basis of the entire storage subsystem of computers. CPU cache to RAM to HDD is the old tiering. The caches on CPUs are faster/smaller than RAM which is faster/smaller than HDDs. The jump from RAM to HDD is a *huge* performance and size difference (compared to CPU cache to RAM which is not that big a difference comparatively). RAM responds in nanoseconds, hard drives in milliseconds. SSDs are in the microsecond range, so they fit in between there perfectly. Therefore, *all* use cases can theoretically benefit from another tier inserted in there.

You are cherry picking your argument to try to make your refutation so narrow (your whole "we are not talking about the difference between SSD + HDD compared to whatever" etc.). *All* use cases can benefit from an SSD in front of your HDD. It's really that simple.

But since I'm sure you'll still be pedantic...

Photo editing
Graphics work
Database development
3D modeling
Gaming
Loading your OS
Yadda yadda

Any time you have a set of data on disk that you will be accessing over time that doesn't fit nicely onto your SSD, and you're not a masochistic type that is willing to spend the time manually moving your active data set onto the SSD -- or you work with enough data on a regular basis that you *can't* effectively always have it on the SSD -- then SRT will bring you benefits.

 

[taltamir]

I would argue that everyone in this thread who has seen a performance boost from SSD caching has found a "use" for it. The fact that you are content constantly swapping games around or using ghetto workarounds doesn't mean those of us who don't want to deal with any of that are wrong to go with SSD caching.

I am not constantly swapping games around. I install my games to the SSD. Then I play them. Then I finish them. Then I uninstall them and don't play them anymore.
The "games I play" all fit easily in the SSD.

I, for one, wasn't going to go to the trouble of listing all the use cases because this thread is overly melodramatic/sensationalistic.

So you refuse to mention even one then?

Tiered storage is the basis of the entire storage subsystem of computers.

Sure, that doesn't mean that every implementation is a good idea.

Photo editing
Graphics work
Database development
3D modeling
Gaming
Loading your OS
Yadda yadda

None of these benefit from using an SSD to cache a HDD with the exception of a fringe use of gaming (where you keep a very large library of games installed concurrently).

Photo-editing: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD. Cache just slots it down.
Graphics-work: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD. and if it doesn't than the cache doesn't help any.
Database: Massive benefit from SSD but extremely expensive to house on entirely SSDs. But large databases take a raid array to store and will not see any benefit at all from SSD cache. They will massively benefit from an SSD as a log device though (google ZIL (ZFS intent log) and SSD)
3D modeling: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD.
Loading your OS: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD.
Gaming: Benefits more from pure SSD. But some gamers have a massive library that they keep concurrently installed. For those people SSD caching makes sense. This is the one argument that was put forth so far... and I conceded that point.

You are cherry picking your argument to try to make your refutation so narrow (your whole "we are not talking about the difference between SSD + HDD compared to whatever" etc.). *All* use cases can benefit from an SSD in front of your HDD. It's really that simple.

No, I am taking money into account. I am discussing the benefits at no extra monetary cost. If money is not an issue just go ahead and have nothing but SSD.
But money is an issue. So for an identically priced system which has an SSD + HDD, do you want to configure it as cache, or as JBOD.

20gb of that SSD as cache for a mechanical drive while still being able to use the rest of that SSD directly

This would be a legitimate use... because such a cheap drive would slot in a price-point below that of a full sized SSD. if you could find a fast and cheap 20GB SSD let me know.
However, the smaller the SSD the slower it is. And when you drop down to the 20GB tremendously more so, as it simply doesn't have enough channels to access in parallel.
I just looked at newegg. there is no 20GB SSD. There is a 30GB (of which the only remaining one is a vertex 1, for 70$). And there is 32GB which are similar drives. They are nowhere near the performance of a modern SSD though. However they are cheap.

 

[Zap]

It's even possible to have SSD caching performance surpass that of using a dedicated SSD, since you can focus on getting the fastest SSD you can afford instead of trying to buy one that has enough space for all your stuff.

Actually, larger SSDs are faster than smaller ones. I'm not sure how it compares across brands/models, but I'm sure there may be times when it overlaps.

The performance gain is only if you compare a HDD to an SSD cached HDD.

That's exactly where we see benefit. This is for anyone who is unable to afford an SSD big enough for ALL of their applications (versus data/media). Why run only a few chosen applications on the SSD and relegate the rest to a HDD when you can accelerate ALL of them?

And of course the other reason we've already gone over, which is for those who just want one drive letter, or setting it up for those not as computer savvy. Or sometimes, it is just for convenience.

YES, running stuff off an SSD is faster than the same SSD caching a HDD. However, you are ignoring all the other use cases out there.

 

[GotNoRice]

I am not constantly swapping games around. I install my games to the SSD. Then I play them. Then I finish them. Then I uninstall them and don't play them anymore.
The "games I play" all fit easily in the SSD.

I'm not sure how you "finish" a game unless you're just playing single-player. Multi-player is certainly a valid reason to keep a game installed.

If get hit up by my friend on steam asking me to jump into a game, am I going to tell him to wait because I need to re-install the game first? lol I'll pass.

It also seems like you just don't play many games.

I can believe that you might not benefit much from SSD caching but how that makes the tech a "worthless gimmick" for the rest of us is where your logic escapes me.

None of these benefit from using an SSD to cache a HDD with the exception of a fringe use of gaming (where you keep a very large library of games installed concurrently).

I doubt this is really as "fringe" as you would like to believe.

Photo-editing: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD. Cache just slots it down.

I'm not sure how cache would slow anything down especially if you have write caching enabled.

Graphics-work: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD. and if it doesn't than the cache doesn't help any.
Database: Massive benefit from SSD but extremely expensive to house on entirely SSDs. But large databases take a raid array to store and will not see any benefit at all from SSD cache. They will massively benefit from an SSD as a log device though (google ZIL (ZFS intent log) and SSD)
3D modeling: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD.
Loading your OS: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD.
Gaming: Benefits more from pure SSD. But some gamers have a massive library that they keep concurrently installed. For those people SSD caching makes sense. This is the one argument that was put forth so far... and I conceded that point.

Easily fit? Is that before or after you have to uninstall some of your games to make room?

Your only retort to these examples is not that SSD caching won't benefit, but that a dedicated SSD would be faster. Even if an SSD is faster, this thread was about you calling SSD caching a "worthless gimmick" remember? That obviously isn't stopping you from constantly changing your argument to fit your pre-formed conclusion.

This would be a legitimate use... because such a cheap drive would slot in a price-point below that of a full sized SSD. if you could find a fast and cheap 20GB SSD let me know.
However, the smaller the SSD the slower it is. And when you drop down to the 20GB tremendously more so, as it simply doesn't have enough channels to access in parallel.
I just looked at newegg. there is no 20GB SSD. There is a 30GB (of which the only remaining one is a vertex 1, for 70$). And there is 32GB which are similar drives. They are nowhere near the performance of a modern SSD though. However they are cheap.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167062
That drive is 20gb, on newegg, and particularly well suited to SSD caching.

Otherwise there are numerous 40GB sandforce based drives that should deliver great performance:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820233177

Which SSD would you recommend that has enough space for typical users to fit most of their stuff while not carrying a massive price premium over a smaller SSD?

 

[taltamir]

That's exactly where we see benefit. This is for anyone who is unable to afford an SSD big enough for ALL of their applications (versus data/media). Why run only a few chosen applications on the SSD and relegate the rest to a HDD when you can accelerate ALL of them?

1. The SSD cannot accelerate all of them. It can only accelerate some of them. It tries its best to accelerate the right ones.
2. It would be a legitimate claim, but where are the 50$ cache SSDs?

There is an intel one with simply atrocious performance, 20GB of space, and 120$ price tag.
And there is an OCZ one:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4852/ocz-releases-synapse-ssd-for-caching
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227755
Where 32GB (the 64GB model is actually 32GB available to user, OCZ is using funny naming again) that costs 155$

So you bought yourself a shiny new expensive Z68 mobo and top of the line CPU from intel. That cost a lot of money. You then buy a 50$ HDD. Now your choice is a 155$ 32GB cache SSD... or you can get a top of the line Vertex 3 120GB for 180$... Makes much more sense here.
Not to mention that most people can fit what needs to go on the SSD on a 64GB SSD.
I know I have no use for a 120GB SSD myself. of my 80GB intel G2 I am using 30GB+Games. And as I said, I don't have a large amount of games installed concurrently. If you need to, go right ahead and get caching.

But until we actually get reasonably sized, priced, and fast "cache" type SSDs this theory of a 20GB 50$ SSD on a budget cache device remains wishful thinking.

It also seems like you just don't play many games.

I play a massive amount of them. But I don't do much multiplayer. And the original argument that I conceded as a legitimate use was for LAN parties. So we can just extend that to "you need a lot of games installed concurrently for multiplayer".

Even so, those games are not exactly going to benefit from your shiny SSD cache if they aren't played regularly.

Photo-editing: easily fits entirely into & benefits the most from SSD. Cache just slots it down.

I'm not sure how cache would slow anything down especially if you have write caching enabled.

Don't be obtuse. You know full well within the context of that conversation that I was saying SSD as a cache device is slower for photo editing compared to just editing photos on the SSD by itself, since photo editing takes very little HDD space (although lots of ram)

Easily fit? Is that before or after you have to uninstall some of your games to make room?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Your only retort to these examples is not that SSD caching won't benefit

Actually, you brought up the examples, I told you they are all wrong. Except for the one who was a previous example which I conceded as the one use.

Even if an SSD is faster, this thread was about you calling SSD caching a "worthless gimmick" remember? That obviously isn't stopping you from constantly changing your argument to fit your pre-formed conclusion.

I never once changed my argument

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

Jesus, 120$... why would you pay 120$ fora 20GB SSD to run as a cache? 120$ can buy you more then 3x the size of SSD to fit everything properly, not as cache but actual data.
PS. I see why I didn't find it... Newegg splits SSD to Internal SSD, External SSD, and Enterprise SSD. And that 20GB one is an enterprise drive (which explains the ridiculous cost).

Which SSD would you recommend that has enough space for typical users to fit most of their stuff while not carrying a massive price premium over a smaller SSD?

A 64GB to 120GB of good performance is the same price or marginally more expensive (respectively).

 

[GotNoRice]

But until we actually get reasonably sized, priced, and fast "cache" type SSDs this theory of a 20GB 50$ SSD on a budget cache device remains wishful thinking.

Where did you get $50 from, or is that just an arbitrary number you came up with to try and make your argument look good?

No, I am taking money into account. I am discussing the benefits at no extra monetary cost.

You obviously feel the smaller SSDs are too expensive, but i'm still waiting for you to explain how someone could go with a larger SSD instead for "no extra monetary cost".

Not to mention that most people can fit what needs to go on the SSD on a 64GB SSD.

When I had my OS installed on my 80GB X25-M G2, the only game I had room for was World of Warcraft which left about 3GB free on the drive afterwards. 64GB is absolutely and without a doubt too small for common usage. Unless you're saying people shouldn't have their OS on the SSD? That's just silly.

 

[taltamir]

Where did you get $50 from, or is that just an arbitrary number you came up with to try and make your argument look good?

Others have been mentioning the "sub 100$ SSD"
50$ was a rough estimate of what it would need to be considering the sheer difference in size and performance and what you can already get for a 100-120$ (aka 64GB of top of the line SSD).

You obviously feel the smaller SSDs are too expensive, but i'm still waiting for you to explain how someone could go with a larger SSD instead for "no extra monetary cost".

You can buy a 64GB with the latest gen sandforce controller for the SAME PRICE. With more then 3x the size and about 3x the performance.

When I had my OS installed on my 80GB X25-M G2, the only game I had room for was World of Warcraft which left about 3GB free on the drive afterwards. 64GB is absolutely and without a doubt too small for common usage. Unless you're saying people shouldn't have their OS on the SSD? That's just silly.

30GB for wow is obscene. You can fit a dozen other games in that much space. And for those who want wow, they can get a 120GB latest gen sandforce for 170$. merely 50$ more than the 120$ that 20GB drive costs (and again, 3x the performance in the sandforce), and 25$ more than the 32GB cache drive from OCZ.
Note that all of that was linked, priced, and argued in the post from which you cherry picked quotes out of.

 

[GotNoRice]

30GB for wow is obscene. You can fit a dozen other games in that much space. And for those who want wow, they can get a 120GB latest gen sandforce for 170$. merely 50$ more than the 120$ that 20GB drive costs (and again, 3x the performance in the sandforce), and 25$ more than the 32GB cache drive from OCZ.
Note that all of that was linked, priced, and argued in the post from which you cherry picked quotes out of.

So you're suggesting that they get a ~120gb SSD and forgo a mechanical drive completely? That would allow for almost no media storage whatsoever. I agree that a 64gb sandforce drive is probably the way to go - as a cache drive.

Also did you really just claim that you can fit a dozen games in 30GB worth of space? Check your calendar, it's 2011.

 

[Zap]

where are the 50$ cache SSDs?

Patriot Torx 2 32GB is $45 after rebate. I think it is SandForce 1200, which would make for a fine SSD cache. You can also get 60/64GB SandForce 1200 chipset SSDs for $90 or less.

So you bought yourself a shiny new expensive Z68 mobo and top of the line CPU from intel. That cost a lot of money.

Not all Z68 motherboards are expensive, and you don't need a top of the line CPU to benefit. I see Z68 chipset motherboards at $80 shipped.

most people can fit what needs to go on the SSD on a 64GB SSD.

Do you have references on that being a fact?

I'd like to toss out a "fact" that I'm going to invent, but that I believe would be true. "Most people" would rather not have to remember to put some things on a C drive and others on a D drive.

I currently use 210GB of applications space. I could spend money on a 240GB+ SSD, or I can get a cheap fast 1TB HDD and a cheap SSD. The single big SSD can be had for around $300 if you trust OCZ, or close to $400 if you don't. The HDD+SSD cache would run around $150.

Moot issue, as I'm an SSD fiend and have enough to hold everything. :whiste: Still, I'm not so full of myself that I assume what works for me (buying 256GB SSDs) works for others. "They can eat cake" and all that, right?

 

[taltamir]

So you're suggesting that they get a ~120gb SSD and forgo a mechanical drive completely?

I clearly said a 120GB SSD alongside a mechanical drive. Just not configured as a cache.
20GB intel cache SSD = 120$
32GB OCZ cache SSD = 155$
120GB latest gen sandforce = 170$
HDD =~ 50$

Moot issue, as I'm an SSD fiend and have enough to hold everything. :whiste: Still, I'm not so full of myself that I assume what works for me (buying 256GB SSDs) works for others. "They can eat cake" and all that, right?

1. I am not assuming what works for me works for everyone. I am using logic and asking for counterpoints.
2. Fun fact, "they can eat cake" thing is a fabrication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
3. Thank you for actually making legitimate arguments ZAP (no sarcasm, I mean it), you are actually causing this discussing to move somewhere by doing so.
Now on to your arguments:

I currently use 210GB of applications space. I could spend money on a 240GB+ SSD, or I can get a cheap fast 1TB HDD and a cheap SSD. The single big SSD can be had for around $300 if you trust OCZ, or close to $400 if you don't. The HDD+SSD cache would run around $150.

I'd like to see a 20GB SSD make a meaningful difference when you have 210+GB of applications, and then games on top of that.
Actually, I would like to see a 20GB SSD cache make ANY difference at all for games.

Windows 7 x64 directory is 17.2GB currently. These files are touched so often that they are bound to be found in the cache. So what is left? Even if some of it is chaff, you are still with under 10GB of cache space for 210+GB of applications + XGB of games.

Patriot Torx 2 32GB is $45 after rebate. I think it is SandForce 1200, which would make for a fine SSD cache. You can also get 60/64GB SandForce 1200 chipset SSDs for $90 or less.

That is actually a reasonable price. While the intel and OCZ cache SSDs are overpriced to the absurd, this as a cache device is a very worthwhile buy for SSD on a budget. It needs some benchmarking to see exactly how well it works out compared to the cache optimized drives but I imgaine that the results with that specific configuration would be quite good.

So you got a second legitimate use for SSD caching ZAP, way to go and high five to you.

PS. I would like to just throw out that it takes about an hour to install one of the modern heavy games to the HDD and its several times faster installing the SSD.

 

[DaveSimmons]

PS. I would like to just throw out that it takes about an hour to install one of the modern heavy games to the HDD and its several times faster installing the SSD.

I buy most games from Steam these days, so my 12 mbit connection is the limiting factor for the initial install not drive speed.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I clearly said a 120GB SSD alongside a mechanical drive. Just not configured as a cache.
20GB intel cache SSD = 120$
32GB OCZ cache SSD = 155$
120GB latest gen sandforce = 170$
HDD =~ 50$

there have been a plethora of deals for ~64GB of SSD for comfortably less than $100, you don't have to buy a cache specific SSD to benefit from it.

I'd like to see a 20GB SSD make a meaningful difference when you have 210+GB of applications, and then games on top of that.
Actually, I would like to see a 20GB SSD cache make ANY difference at all for games.

Windows 7 x64 directory is 17.2GB currently. These files are touched so often that they are bound to be found in the cache. So what is left? Even if some of it is chaff, you are still with under 10GB of cache space for 210+GB of applications + XGB of games.

on a quick note, yes, Win 7 takes up that much space if that's what you let it do. For savvy SSD users there are several ticks you can use to get that down to around 10GB without losing anything crucial.

but even then why stop at 20GB when you can get a 32 or 40 or 64GB drive for less than a Benjamin?

also, do you realize you don't have to use the SSD cache just for the OS? Why not run an SSD + SSD/HDD like you would run a SSD + HDD?

Someone with a decent collection of games (particularly modern ones) might need at least 512GB worth of space which still costs the better part of a grand in SSD capacity. For $100-150 you can have an SSD/1TB HDD for that purpose while still having a dedicated SSD for OS and cherry picked apps and end up spending less than half what you would on SSDs alone but only $50-100 more than what you'd have payed avoiding SSD cache.

 

[taltamir]

on a quick note, yes, Win 7 takes up that much space if that's what you let it do. For savvy SSD users there are several ticks you can use to get that down to around 10GB without losing anything crucial.

No, you are wrong about that.
I am NOT talking about hibernate file, pagefile, and the like. I am talking about windows itself.
You cannot cut that.
the various tweaks to control the size is to prevent it from taking 30-40GB.
That doesn't include the programs that come with windows (like internet explorer and windows media player), because they are not a part of the OS. I was only measuring the size of the OS itself.

 

[Blitz1776]

Got to say I think overall you're being awfully stubborn about this. Keep in mind for a performance user with the ability to get a 120-160+ SSD (Like me), I agree that it is best to have the separate combination. If you are like my brother with every steam game known to man, then you are not fit for a small SSD that can't hold everything. If you are like my dad who can't manage a partitioned system well, then you also don't need a small ssd.

An SRT setup makes sense for the above people or others that can't afford an larger capacity system. Yes it does use an algorithm to decide what should be kept or thrown out, but considering that it isn't required to cache everything, and tries to only cache actively used things. It can be almost considered an advanced form of compression, like using the wow example or windows. Both of them don't require to load everything that lies within the directory, it only uses the information is needs. So this helps your smaller capacity SSD's (Boot drive types) go much further than is normally possible with them, because it may only need to cache 1 gig of data.

Furthermore I've negated the cost and most of the penalty by picking up the 64gig ($95-115) MLC SSD instead of the smaller 20 gig SLC. I figure if you are kicking less stuff out of the cache by being space constrained it overall should have a similar lifespan. In addition to that you will also retain more of the performance benefits of running programs as a cache, since you can store more before it gives stuff the boot. Last part of this argument is how quickly games keep increasing in size overtime, I remember when games were in the meg(s), then gig(s). Now for example Rage is 22 Gigs to install off steam

In the end you are right it does not have as much performance, but it does have it's uses. It gives SSD Like performance for the things you use, along with a form of compression mechanics, while being very cost efficient, and fairly idiot proof once it's set up. I think that alone speaks for itself for what purpose it has, until prices come down.

 

[Zap]

I'd like to see a 20GB SSD make a meaningful difference when you have 210+GB of applications, and then games on top of that.

It probably won't, but a 64GB drive probably will. Intel probably made that as the limit because they understand that if you can buy a 120GB SSD, you probably should just use it as a C drive and not as a cache.

That is actually a reasonable price. While the intel and OCZ cache SSDs are overpriced to the absurd, this as a cache device is a very worthwhile buy for SSD on a budget. It needs some benchmarking to see exactly how well it works out compared to the cache optimized drives but I imgaine that the results with that specific configuration would be quite good.

Those drives are indeed absurdly priced, and you won't get an argument out of me for saying that.

The OCZ is absurd because it seems to me a normal SandForce SSD, but marketed as a cache drive and with firmware that sets aside 50% free space, which you can do yourself.

The Intel drive is absurd because, well, it uses SLC. IMO a good MLC drive should suffice because I don't see value in a drive that lasts so long it becomes relegated to the same trash bin that floppy disks are in. Then again, I usually don't keep hardware that long. :whiste:

I think these two statements are safe to say:

"XYZ" is not for everyone.

Some may find "XYZ" to be of use.

Now, "XYZ" can be any number of things. Of course it can be SSD caching, as we are discussing. It can be an SUV. It can be a gaming computer. It can be any number of things.

 

[taltamir]

Got to say I think overall you're being awfully stubborn about this.

I resent this. I am not being stubborn at all.

As soon as someone makes a legitimate point I concede it. It isn't my fault that my detractors were so tight fisted with legitimate arguments. GotNoRice made one legitimate claim (and a dozen false ones) and even then it had issues. ZAP made just one airtight claim. It also put a much more positive light of practicality on the first claim. (since I could still argue that the first claim makes no sense compared to how absurdly expensive those 20GB/32GB drives are; and the limited use of such a small drive as a cache)

And I immediately conceded the legitimate claims as they were made.

See here where I did just that

That is actually a reasonable price. While the intel and OCZ cache SSDs are overpriced to the absurd, this as a cache device is a very worthwhile buy for SSD on a budget. It needs some benchmarking to see exactly how well it works out compared to the cache optimized drives but I imgaine that the results with that specific configuration would be quite good.

So you got a second legitimate use for SSD caching ZAP, way to go and high five to you.

If someone would have made this argument earlier rather then false claims or attack my character (or appeals to ridicule, or whatever) then we could have ended this thread on the first page with me being embarrassed at how I could overlook something so simple. Considering how long it took I see no shame in me being unable to see how anyone at all could benefit from this. (not want, benefit. People want homeopathy too)

It is still very easy to design a cache configuration that makes no sense compared to what else your money could buy or what kind of usage you have.
The issue lies in the cost and size of the "cache SSDs".
Although I am concerned at just how much performance are you going to get out of a 20GB cache SSD with windows taking up 17.2GB for system files alone (not including bundled programs, pagefile,etc), installed programs, and hundreds of gigs of games.

for example Rage is 22 Gigs to install off steam

It gives SSD Like performance for the things you use, along with a form of compression mechanics, while being very cost efficient, and fairly idiot proof once it's set up. I think that alone speaks for itself for what purpose it has, until prices come down.

See above point about concerns for quality. That is, unless you get a large enough SSD as cache, like one of those 64GB ones.
Although, doesn't performance shaply drop above 80% usage or so? and longevity? Those cache SSDs might be doing 50% over-provisioning for a reason.

I'm not so full of myself that I assume what works for me (buying 256GB SSDs) works for others. "They can eat cake" and all that, right?

When I made the original claim it wasn't because I personally didn't have a use for it. But because as hard as I could think, as with all the info I gathered from talking to others, I couldn't see a single reason ANYONE at all would have use for it.
It took a VERY VERY long time for anyone to show me otherwise. So far I was given many FALSE claims, and 2 legitimate claims. And I conceded them.
SSD caching isn't a worthless gimmick. But it is certainly a very limited gimmick that is only sensible during very specific conditions and when choosing the right hardware.