SSD caching a HDD is a worthless gimmick

[J-Money]

I use my SSD as my boot drive / small APPs and as a cache for my HDD with all my games on it that I still play.

I get ultra fast speeds of an SSD for most used apps and of Windows etc. and also "near SSD performance" for my games. Win-win. Far from "worthless gimmick".

 

[Diogenes2]

Good to hear !

Let us know how you feel about SSD caching after you have had a chance to work with it a while ..

 

[SocalMark]

Not sure if I did this right but it says 48GB data volume and 64GB Cache volume, I thought I would be able to access the data volume?

 

[Diogenes2]

If you run Computer Management and then Disk Management, you will probably see a 48gb data volume that needs to be initialized ..

 

[SocalMark]

Thanks again Diogenes2.

 

[Atheus]

I've recently got 2 SSDs in my new build - one big one intended for OS/apps, and one small one for caching my 1TB HDD which holds my games and work stuff. Am I better off (in the community's opinion) just installing games straight on the second SSD then? Seems to me the algorithm will learn what I play/work with most and cache that - giving me better speed. It even stores routines/instruction, not whole files (right?), so it should cache most of the commony accessed functions?

@taltamir - benchmarks would seem to prove you incorrect...

/edit: FYI I didn't read the whole thread so feel free to mock me if this has already been answered...

 

[Diogenes2]

With RST, it simply caches blocks of data as you use them, not necessarily what you use the most. When it reaches capacity, it flushes out the oldest stuff first.
Depending on the size of your cache drive, you may find an application not loading so fast if you haven't used it in a while.

AS long as the games and such, do not exceed the capacity of the 2nd SSD, there would be nothing to be gained by using it as a cache. The stand alone SSD will always be faster than a cached drive.

One of the better uses of the SSD cache that I can think of, is to have a couple of large spindle drives in RAID 1 for capacity and data protection, and caching it to an SSD to really boost performance.

 

[Dug]

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.

We work in a high end graphics environment and everyone has switched to SSD caching. CS5.5 and Autodesk are seeing such a huge improvement, it's not even funny.
No, our 5TB of data does not fit on an SSD, just what we are working on for that day.

So for you to say that there is no benefit is an outright lie because you obviously don't work in that environment.

My point also extends to everyone else that has large amounts of data. Your simpleton argument of swapping in games that you play doesn't account for the majority of people that use their computer.

 

[ColtMaverick]

Could someone please give results for the three options in seconds for load times on Windows, popular game, and photoshop? I think this would help me make a decision.

1) HDD only
2) HDD w/ SSD cache
3) SSD

Do I need Windows 7 (currently Vista)? What size SSD is recommended for caching?

 

[Diogenes2]

What you are looking for in 1-2-3 is here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4

Maybe not the same programs, but results should be the same..

Works in vista ..

Size - up to 64gb ..

Read here about diminishing returns - depending on size..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/5

A smaller drive ( 20gb )will save you money and probably cover a few frequently used programs really well, but if you are planning on using a 64gb drive for caching, the OS and a couple of frequently programs would be better served by just installing them on the SSD ..

32 - 40gb would probably level things out.. Look for a good deal on the best drive you can afford..

 

[videopho]

64gb is what I'd recommend if you can afford it.
You can find most 64gb around less than $100.
64GB size gives some users some room to grow over time.

 

[ColtMaverick]

It appears I may have been wasting your time. After reading the linked article you provided, it appears to only be available for Z68 chipsets which I assume came out this year. I bought my computer in 2008 for a Q6600 CPU (can't pull up order on Lucomputers for motherboard) which would have used an older motherboard. Let me know if I am misreading the situation though. Thanks.

 

[Diogenes2]

For now it is limited to z68 mobo's..

However , if you can get an add on RAID controller with the Marvell 9130 controller, it also offers an SSD caching option..

 

[groberts101]

It appears I may have been wasting your time. After reading the linked article you provided, it appears to only be available for Z68 chipsets which I assume came out this year. I bought my computer in 2008 for a Q6600 CPU (can't pull up order on Lucomputers for motherboard) which would have used an older motherboard. Let me know if I am misreading the situation though. Thanks.

There are other variations on this tool. This one has much more flexibility and can also make hybrid HDD setups as well.
http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/


you can even use a larger OS based SSD as HDD storage caching after you eat up any spare ram you have available. Actually works pretty slick.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Also known as DRM, something GOG doesn't do.

LOL. Installing is not, "otherwise known as DRM."

Look at this part of my baldur.ini file:

[Alias]
HD0:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\
CD1:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\CD1\
CD2:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\CD2\
CD3:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\CD3\
CD4:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\CD4\
CD5:=f:\Program Files\Black Isle\BGII - SoA\CD5\

You think the game's gonna work if you copy and paste it to your C:\ drive?
A BG2 install is not portable.
This is true of many games. If you cut & paste them to a location they weren't installed in the exe can't find any of its files because it only knows to look in the install directory.

 

[taltamir]

Actually, with very very VERY few rare exceptions games use relative paths. So without DRM you can indeed move them anywhere you want and they work.

And using absolute paths is either a case in exceptional stupidity surpassed only by its rarity. Or part of a DRM scheme.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Actually, with very very VERY few rare exceptions games use relative paths. So without DRM you can indeed move them anywhere you want and they work.

I just cut and paste the free, open source GIMP from my F: drive to D:

172 error windows on startup.

Second program tried -- Malwarebytes Antimalware:

Oooh, look at that portability!

 

[taltamir]

Neither is a game.

Also:

And using absolute paths is either a case in exceptional stupidity surpassed only by its rarity

open source =! intelligently designed by defaults. In fact, exceptional stupidity can actually happen in open source projects

Also Also: I said it was rare in games, not non existent.

My argument was clear as sunshine. Installing involves both extracting files, and setting up the DRM. Any absolute path placed in registry or config files is done out of obscene stupidity and is rare, or is done out of an intentional desire to inhibit portability for DRM reasons.

Finding those rare examples where a program has no desire for DRM (open source) yet still manages to fall into the "rare stupidity" category by requiring absolute paths for finding its resources does not disprove any of my claims.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Neither is a game.

You are an idiot.

Also Also: I said it was rare in games, not non existent.

It is patently obvious that your familiarity with computer applications pales in comparison with mine.
Your position is based on nothing but your own wishful thinking. It has no connection to reality whatsoever.

Installing involves both extracting files, and setting up the DRM.

And the sad thing is that that's all you think there is to it.

You're a really bad bullshitter. But keep trying. I'll keep laughing at your pitiful attempts.

You talk so big that these forums can't contain you. I'm going to have to throw you out for a week so that the contractors can expand the forums to contain your big mouth.
-ViRGE

 

[GotNoRice]

open source =! intelligently designed by defaults. In fact, exceptional stupidity can actually happen in open source projects

Also Also: I said it was rare in games, not non existent.

My argument was clear as sunshine. Installing involves both extracting files, and setting up the DRM. Any absolute path placed in registry or config files is done out of obscene stupidity and is rare, or is done out of an intentional desire to inhibit portability for DRM reasons.

Yet even MORE stuff I don't have to deal with because I went with SSD caching.

It's nice to have stuff work perfect instead of ranting about DRM or some other nonsense when something breaks during the process of constantly having to move crap around.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm not sure what all the confusion is over GOG games, but they are no different than clicking a link and saving an executable where you want. Then you run that executable and install the game any place you want. Nothing new there.

As for the SSD caching itself, does it look at what you use most and cache only that data? Does it change on it's own if your usage patterns change? ...and from what I understand the OS/boot times do not benefit at all?

 

[GotNoRice]

As for the SSD caching itself, does it look at what you use most and cache only that data? Does it change on it's own if your usage patterns change? ...and from what I understand the OS/boot times do not benefit at all?

There are different SSD caching technologies being discussed in this thread and answers will probably differ depending on which one you are specifically referring to.

As far as Intel SRT goes, there is no special analysis going on that determines what files you use most often. In that sense it is a simple or "dumb" cache. It just caches the most recently accessed blocks (blocks, NOT files, so it's totally possible to only have part of a file cached). Anything that you use with any degree of regularity will still be in the cache next time you need it.

OS/Boot times are definitely enhanced using Intel SRT, because it works all the way down to the bios/chipset level. I'm not sure how that would work with a completely software based solution however.

 

[darkxshade]

Guilty as charged... I am one of those who won't uninstall anything until I need the space. I imagine a lot of people are like me. It stems from the idea that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. So while I never do come back to most of the games that I've stopped playing the majority of the time, I keep them on there because of the nagging feeling that one day I might which does happen from time to time. And you never do know which games you might come back to. So there's your case for SRT that you asked for. It's PEBKAC

And you know what else? When I do need the space, it's so bad that I need to contemplate what to uninstall which sucks because usually it's at a time when I really want to get a game going asap.

 

[taltamir]

Yet even MORE stuff I don't have to deal with because I went with SSD caching.

It's nice to have stuff work perfect instead of ranting about DRM or some other nonsense when something breaks during the process of constantly having to move crap around.

Its actually something that isn't related to nor solved by SSD caching. As such we should not discuss this further in this thread.

You are an idiot.

It is patently obvious that your familiarity with computer applications pales in comparison with mine.
Your position is based on nothing but your own wishful thinking. It has no connection to reality whatsoever.

And the sad thing is that that's all you think there is to it.

You're a really bad bullshitter. But keep trying. I'll keep laughing at your pitiful attempts.

DominionSeraph, if you feel like we can start a different thread to discuss the issue. But you would have to use actual arguments rather then "you are an idiot", "you don't know as much as me" and "I laugh at you are bad at BSing and I laugh at you"

 

[MustangSVT]

is the horse dead now?