SSD caching a HDD is a worthless gimmick

[taltamir]

Hey guys, feel free to create a separate thread discussing the merits (or not) of SSD caching.

Forked at Zap's request from original thread.

My point is that it is better to have the SSD and HDD as separate entities rather then to set the SSD as a cache device to the HDD.

An SSD caching a HDD means completely relinquishing your control as to what is on the SSD and what is on the HDD to an automated algorithm.

It benchmarks as having "almost the same speed as an SSD", that is, it has actually lower performance than the SSD by itself.

It can never cache more then the SSD's size so it can only give you near SSD performance for as much data as you could have placed on the SSD and anything beyond that must come from the HDD.

Current implementations suck extra hard by limiting you to 40GB AND limiting you to read acceleration only.

I do know one fact...prior to SSD caching, my FSx game used to take 2-3min for loading texture data .
It now takes from between 20-30sec.
Any other games it now is either a blink of an eye or just a matter of few seconds.
So do not kid yourself this is a gimmick.

And if you had opted for running the SSD and HDD as separate entities as I said, and put the game on the SSD, it would have loaded even FASTER than 20-30seconds. Making the SSD caching a worthless gimmick.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

The quote from videopho seems to show there is some benefit. I understand what you mean that a SSD storing the programs is much faster than using just SSD cache.

Truthfully on my next build likely around december, I plan on getting a large primary SSD (120-160 depending what i can find on sale) and a second smaller SSD for caching like a 64gb m4 to pair with a 1/2tb drive for main storage. Ideally primary SSD will hold OS SW:TOR and maybe one other game for maximum entertainment use. I'm thinking a select chunk of games I play will get a decent little boost even if it's not going to be as good as just being on an SSD. I'm hoping the intel cache will be smart enough to hang onto the data from the few games I play pretty regularly to give me a bit speed when playing them without having to fuss around with moving some games back and forth from HDD to SSD.

 

[sub.mesa]

My point is that it is better to have the SSD and HDD as separate entities rather then to set the SSD as a cache device to the HDD.

I would disagree with that, Taltamir.

SRT caching is one of the best software innovations for the Windows platform. Sure it's proprietary, but it sure has many benefits.

SSDs are great and all that, but an often heard complaint is their high price compared to their relative low capacity. This is not a big problem for those who just want to store an OS and can do with 32/40/60GB capacity, but it is a major pain for those who want their game collection to gain SSD-like speeds, for example.

SRT allows you to 'upgrade' the performance of a 2TB harddrive, or even RAID0 of mechanical drives, with the random I/O performance of an SSD. Well, almost, since of course a real SSD is still faster. Still, the boost is huge, and it combines the best properties of both technologies - SSD and HDD - into one drive. HDD are good at sequential workloads, SSD are good at random workloads. SRT caching allows you to combine those best properties and remove the negative properties of both technologies.

An SSD caching a HDD means completely relinquishing your control as to what is on the SSD and what is on the HDD to an automated algorithm.

Which is like it should be! You as a user do not know which data is accessed sequentially and which data is accessed randomly. If a game uses 25GB of files where about 80% is accessed highly sequentially, and the other 20% is access non-contiguously, then you would want the SSD to store that 20%, which can be snippets of large files. The software is intelligent enough to cache LBA ranges, rather than whole files, to the SRT cache device.

It benchmarks as having "almost the same speed as an SSD", that is, it has actually lower performance than the SSD by itself.

Depending on your SSD you:
- have higher sequential write performance than the SSD, because most HDDs can write faster than small capacity SSDs (64GB)
- have about half the random I/O performance of your SSD

That still means a ~5000% boost to random I/O performance. I think that's pretty significant.

It can never cache more then the SSD's size so it can only give you near SSD performance for as much data as you could have placed on the SSD and anything beyond that must come from the HDD.

The technology assumes that the HDD stores a mixed dataset where the most data is accessed sequentially, and a much lower percentage is random access. By determining and prioritizing the random access, you can let the SSD store those parts of the HDD where the HDD would have the lowest speed, making the speed gain the most significant. If you use the HDD to store a large SQL database all accessed non-contiguously, then yes SRT would have little benefit. But that is not an average users' case.

Current implementations suck extra hard by limiting you to 40GB

I believe SRT is limited to 64GB? If you're talking about disadvantages and/or limitations of SRT, I would name two:
- proprietary technology only works on Z68 chipset and Intel platforms; should be a technology present in Windows instead
- due to the outdated NTFS filesystem, SRT cannot detect corruption. If the SSD is partly corrupted, SRT will serve corrupt files from SSD even if they are non-corrupt on HDD. This occurs relatively often with SSDs that lack support of supercapacitors to protect their mapping tables from corruption

And if you had opted for running the SSD and HDD as separate entities as I said, and put the game on the SSD, it would have loaded even FASTER than 20-30seconds. Making the SSD caching a worthless gimmick.

For that game you would have a minor boost, which may not be noticeable. But for the other 1000 games that people might have, the performance would suck because it is stored on HDD because their SSD has limited space. That is the whole idea behind this technology: give your 2000GB drive SSD-like performance. And it works!

Of course, ZFS with L2ARC is much better. But for the Windows platform this is as good as it gets.

 

[taltamir]

The quote from videopho seems to show there is some benefit.

This is, I believe, the wrong way to look at it.
The benefit comes from having an SSD as part of the equation. Caching is faster than HDD by itself, but we are not comparing a 50$ HDD to a 250$ package of HDD + SSD. We are asking "If I spent 250$ buying 1 SSD and 1HDD, do I get better performance out of running them as separate drives or using a software solution to set the SSD as a cache device".

The caching actually costs you performance compared to having a naked SSD without caching.

Which is like it should be! You as a user do not know which data is accessed sequentially and which data is accessed randomly.

I actually do, moreover I know what I want to run faster. I can prioritize the OS, heavy software and heavy games where I would best benefit from the extra speed.
And my mother can be told "Keep everything except your music and movies on the SSD" (my mother does not run large databases) and since she has neither music nor movies that means everything on the SSD.
My brothers needs the addendum of installing games to the SSD, but uninstalling if they don't use them. Which they are certainly capable of.

If a game uses 25GB of files where about 80% is accessed highly sequentially, and the other 20% is access non-contiguously, then you would want the SSD to store that 20%

An SSD is nearly 100x faster in random access, and 2 to 2.5x the sequential speed. If the game has long load times I want all 100% of it on my SSD for maximum benefit. The vast majority of game loading comes from sequential files not random, and that 2 to 2.5x speed improvement can make a significant difference in load times.

- have higher sequential write performance than the SSD, because most HDDs can write faster than small capacity SSDs (64GB)

I am going to have to disagree about the "most" part. Granted there are drives that are faster in sequential writes...

I believe SRT is limited to 64GB?

Yes, you are right. The limit is 64GB. still that is lower then my actual SSD size and I bought mine a while ago.

The technology assumes that the HDD stores a mixed dataset where the most data is accessed sequentially, and a much lower percentage is random access. By determining and prioritizing the random access, you can let the SSD store those parts of the HDD where the HDD would have the lowest speed

Most of your "bulk storage" comes from:
1. Installing hundreds of games and never uninstalling any. - an unhealthy practice that will give you poor results in either configuration. However I concede it will have less of a negative impact on an SSD as cache system.
2. Movies / Music - Absolutely no reason to have those on the SSD.
3. Databases - Much better performance on the SSD, doesn't benefit from SRT. So either put it on the SSD for high price and performance. Or an HDD For low price and performance.

Everything else you can easily fit on the SSD. If you place the games you are actually currently playing on the SSD you will see better results, software on the SSD will give you better results, OS files and databases and logs... and all of those are small enough to fit on an SSD easily many times over.

The thing about games is that old and/or indie games are already going to be blazing fast. I can install them on my HDD and see no difference; it is heavy modern games where I want and enjoy massively reduced load times. So what you are looking at is a case where someone has far too many new games installed all at once, giving up some performance by spreading the SSD caching between some of the files of all those games rather then giving full SSD benefit to only a few games.

If you absolutely must have ALL your games installed at once then SSD caching is going to allow you to do so and still get most (but not ALL) the benefit of an SSD. I concede that.
But unless you are of the rare few who actually is going to cycle the same dozen games over the course of the week/month then there is no reason to keep all those games you aren't actually playing installed. If you only have the games you play installed and you only play a few games simultaneously then you can install them fully to the SSD for maximum benefit.
For anything OTHER than gaming I still see no reason for the use of SRT.

I should point out that SRT isn't something your average user can set up. And managing an SSD separate from an HDD is.

 

[gevorg]

An SSD caching a HDD means completely relinquishing your control as to what is on the SSD and what is on the HDD to an automated algorithm.

This is the reason why I'll never use SSD caching.

Boot/App SSD + Storage HDD is much better.

 

[moriz]

the problem with SRT is that it's already done: it's called fancycache. it allows you to form a software based cache between anything. yes, you can make a cache between a compactflash card and a floppy disk if you really feel like it. what's more, it can form a hybrid drive with system RAM, allowing ridiculous transfer speeds upwards of 6GB/s.

in light of this much better alternative, intel's SRT looks pretty useless, especially since fancycache runs on any windows based system, regardless of CPU/chipset.

 

[videopho]

I had my doubt when just started using it but it did take a while to cache on or catch on.
I play mostly FPS and flight sims (FSx, DCS Shark/A-10 stuffs) where SSD has proven most helpful. Load time for these Flight sim games used to be so SLOW that was just plain stupid.
For me it seems to work great if you execute or load the same old large amount of data i.e. earth texture over and over again.
I do know one thing...1TB SSD is still years away from my affordability.
That being said SRT perfectly fulfills my needs.

Some spec: 64gbd SSD (A-DATA) in caching with my 2nd HDD or a WD BC 1TB (gaming storage).
Mobo is GB-Z68XP-UD3, i5-2500k @ 4.2ghz, 8gb DDR3 and a pair of GTX460s in SLI.
Gaming mostly in Nvidia s3D with Mits 73" DLP display.
The rig I built is actually for HTPC, yeah a pretty powerful one at that.

 

[taltamir]

I play mostly FPS and flight sims (FSx, DCS Shark/A-10 stuffs) where SSD has proven most helpful. Load time for these Flight sim games used to be so SLOW that was just plain stupid.

How many gigs do those games you are currently playing take up?

Also

where SSD has proven most helpful

We are not discussing SSD vs HDD.
We are discussing using the SSD and the HDD separately or as a cache device on a machine that has both

 

[videopho]

I meant SRT (has proven...) not SSD...Sorry my err
On company travel at the moment but if I had to guess...probably within 2gb or less, just a guess for now.

 

[taltamir]

I meant SRT (has proven...) not SSD...Sorry my err
On company travel at the moment but if I had to guess...probably within 2gb or less, just a guess for now.

Is 2gb or less the answer to my question about the size of the games? I am not sure.
But if it is then there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have installed them on your SSD if it was used in JBOD rather then SRT mode.

 

[Voo]

An SSD is nearly 100x faster in random access, and 2 to 2.5x the sequential speed. If the game has long load times I want all 100% of it on my SSD for maximum benefit. The vast majority of game loading comes from sequential files not random, and that 2 to 2.5x speed improvement can make a significant difference in load times.

The problem is, you're doing as if the vast majority of people could afford large enough SSDs for all their games. Now you can solve this by copying games around and only leaving the ones on the SSD you're playing actively at any time, but I think it's obvious why that's anything but a great solution (and moving 60gb around (ie swapping 2 games) does take its time and negates the advantages of the SSD in the first place).

My whole steam catalogue at the moment is certainly approaching 1tb at the moment - so comparing "SSD vs. SSD caching" isn't really sensible. It's either "manually moving stuff around with the SSD vs. SSD caching" or "ah heck me I'm not going to manually move games around, I'm using the HDD vs. SSD caching". Which makes the whole situation completely subjective - you may be fine with manually managing your games and waiting several minutes while games are being moved around (and updated/patched if we're talking about steam - and that will take more than a few minutes) before playing - others may not.

 

[taltamir]

The problem is, you're doing as if the vast majority of people could afford large enough SSDs for all their games.

No I am not, I explicitly spent several paragraphs discussing exactly this issue.

See post http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32386157&postcount=4

There is no reason to have over a TB of installed games simultaneously, there has never been. I have yet to see an explanation as to WHY you would install 1TB+ of games at once.
"I want inferior performance just because" is not an argument in favor of actually doing something like that.

 

[Voo]

There is no reason to have over a TB of installed games simultaneously, there has never been. I have yet to see an explanation as to WHY you would install 1TB+ of games at once.

Yeah and as I said the alternative is to put the games you're currently not playing on a HDD. As a consequence if you want to play one of those games, you have to swap one of the games on the SSD with the one on the HDD. And that means copying about 60gb of data around and then waiting for updates and patches to install on the copied game (or is there a way to get steam to apply updates and co for games not in the steamfolder?).

If you play a game once and then throw it away, yes sure it'll work nicely just putting it on the SSD, but that doesn't mean everyone else does that as well. And you really uninstall games and download gigabytes of data + patches again when you want to play it sometimes later? Well I generally prefer not having to wait an hour or more before playing, so that IS a pretty good reason for me at least.

 

[taltamir]

Yeah and as I said the alternative is to put the games you're currently not playing on a HDD. As a consequence if you want to play one of those games, you have to swap one of the games on the SSD with the one on the HDD. And that means copying about 60gb of data around and then waiting for updates and patches to install on the copied game (or is there a way to get steam to apply updates and co for games not in the steamfolder?).

Ah I see the problem. You are buying games on steam(ing pile of ... junk).
I only buy indie exclusives on steam when they are available nowhere else.

Yes steam REFUSES to allow you to install games to different folders. but it is NOT the only player in town. For example there is impulse that lets you install games where ever you want. So does GOG, direct to drive, and pretty much any other direct download service I ever saw. Most services actually let you download an individual game installer for just that game. You do need to re-install it if you want to replay it. But that takes very little time thanks to the installation target being the SSD.

If you play a game once and then throw it away, yes sure it'll work nicely just putting it on the SSD, but that doesn't mean everyone else does that as well. And you really uninstall games and download gigabytes of data + patches again when you want to play it sometimes later? Well I generally prefer not having to wait an hour or more before playing, so that IS a pretty good reason for me at least.

The vast majority of games I play once and never again, some really good ones get played again. I explicitly admitted that IF you are a person who keeps on revisiting your older games then SSD caching serves a purpose. I did that many posts ago. But AFAIK that is pretty rare, most people don't constantly shuffle through the same old games.

Do you really PLAY your 1TB of games on a regular basis? or is it just that steam forces you to keep them all on the same folder?
PS. you can get around that steam BS by using symbolic links, but it is a poor solution honestly... I would rather just buy from better distributes than steam.

 

[Voo]

For example there is impulse that lets you install games where ever you want. So does GOG, direct to drive, and pretty much any other direct download service I ever saw.

So GOG lets me change the installation folder of a game AFTER the installation? How? If not and I can just specify where it's installed to, HOW exactly does that help me? After all I still want to play the game from the SSD, which means I'd have to reinstall the game to the SSD to change the installation folder by that. If gog let's me change the installation folder after the fact, so I can store games on the HDD, keep them up to date and just copy them around if I want to play again - that'd be quite nice, but I've yet to find the mystic button for that. So I assume it still doesn't do that, so it's basically the same effort as steam.

I mean I could theoretically use symbolic links and just change those after copying data from HDD to SSD (just put them in a different folder and not the steamfolder itself), so I could keep the games up to date - actually thought about that some time ago, but I turn out to be too lazy for that much effort.

Also if you've deleted the game, you'll have to download the gamedata again no way around that. Or you can backup the data to the HDD (which steam lets you do just as well) or just move it around and let the app in the dark. Either way you're once again manually chuggling data around...

 

[taltamir]

So GOG lets me change the installation folder of a game AFTER the installation?

1. I clearly stated that they let you choose the directory of installation and download an installer so you don't have to redownload gigs into the same directory. Which explicitly answers your complaint that you would have to spend hours re-downloading the deleted data.
2. Actually GOG just happens to let you have it in any directory you want because it is totally DRM free. You just move it to the new location and it works.
While with impulse you can store "bacukups" of your downloaded game data (at any time you can use that feature to compress a game installation folder into a zip file) which can at any time extracted into a directory of your choice (aka "installed")
And almost everyone else just gives you an EXE you can run to install the game to a directory of your choice. you keep that EXE on your HDD. If you decide to reinstall you double click on it and tell it to install to SSD. It is very quick and when you are ready to put the game away you uninstall it and the EXE remains on the HDD.

If not and I can just specify where it's installed to, HOW exactly does that help me?

You don't have to redownload the game?

After all I still want to play the game from the SSD, which means I'd have to reinstall the game to the SSD to change the installation folder by that.

No, you uninstall old games you don't play. If you suddenly decide to play it you install it to the SSD and play it.
And before you make claims about how SSD Cache lets you play it instantly I should not that an old game you haven't played in a long time? It is NOT going to be cached on the SSD by ANY algorithm. As such if you want SSD speed playing you are simply not going to get it, period, with SSD caching. While with other download services it merely requires copying it to the SSD or installing it to the SSD from a file (very fast compared to installing from a DVD).

Also if you've deleted the game, you'll have to download the gamedata again no way around that. Or you can backup the data to the HDD (which steam lets you do just as well) or just move it around and let the app in the dark. Either way you're once again manually chuggling data around...

There is no also, its the same argument you made before. Keep the installer EXE on the HDD. And yes, delete the game.

You are using a ton of hypotheticals. Do you actually replay your older games this often? Have you tried any download service OTHER than steam?

 

[Voo]

So I can get EXACTLY the same result with steam just as well as with GoG but with LESS work (actually gog also has to install old patches again that the steam install could already have, so more work there). As instead of having to install the game from the exe, I can just copy the data back (and copying data around is faster than installing it)? Not really an advantage that. The only advantage GoG has, is that it would make it simpler to play games from the HDD - aka the one thing we're not interested in the first place.

The difference between installing anew on SSD and the cache is, that the cache will have loaded the data again after the first few minutes/whatever playing - installing a game, patching it up, etc. takes longer and you can't play anything while staring at bars.

The whole argument is one about comfort - SSDs involve additional effort for several usage scenarios and while people do live with that (well I do for one), you surely can see the advantage of not having to worry about any of this stuff and just playing any game you like and the performance getting better over time without any work.

 

[taltamir]

So I can get EXACTLY the same result with steam just as well as with GoG but with LESS work

You can install games to different folders in steam? NO
You can move or rename an installed game in steam and have it still work? NO

(actually gog also has to install old patches again that the steam install could already have

Uh, no... gog games come prepatched.

As instead of having to install the game from the exe, I can just copy the data back

And that is easier how?

(and copying data around is faster than installing it)?

Not with a proper installer.

The difference between installing anew on SSD and the cache is, that the cache will have loaded the data again after the first few minutes/whatever playing - installing a game, patching it up, etc. takes longer and you can't play anything while staring at bars.

It takes most certainly longer than that for the cache to decide that this game you are playing is "used often enough" to warrant a place in the cache. If your usage scenario is really to jump between dozens of games in such a manner the cache will likely never see any use for gaming.

The whole argument is one about comfort - SSDs involve additional effort for several usage scenarios and while people do live with that (well I do for one), you surely can see the advantage of not having to worry about any of this stuff and just playing any game you like and the performance getting better over time without any work.

Except you have lower performance, need to set up SRT, and must be a fringe case of a user who keeps a TB of games installed and replays a bunch of large games you finished before every now and then. And if that is you, knock yourself out... it would indeed be EASIER to just have them all installed.. you just wouldn't get the same PERFORMANCE as installing the games you are actually playing to the SSD.

 

[Voo]

You can install games to different folders in steam? NO
You can move or rename an installed game in steam and have it still work? NO

Process to get an old game to work on steam:
- copy data from HDD onto SSD in the steam folder

Process for GoG:
- install data from HDD onto SSD

Now you claim that installing is faster than copying, but how that'd work I'd like to see. Installing a modern game takes its time with all the decompressing involved, etc. Copying a few gb sequentially around is rather straightforward compared to that.

Is it easier? No, but I never claimed that - just that it isn't more work - it actually saves several clicks.

Uh, no... gog games come prepatched.

Which doesn't help if you copy the existing installer onto the HDD. Except if you download a new one, but that obviously isn't what we want here..

 

[taltamir]

Now you claim that installing is faster than copying

It is when you use a proper installer. GOG installer merely extracts a single zip file directly to the target and then makes shortcuts. Which is faster becaue it reads one single large file from the HDD sequentially, while the copy procedure requires reading individual files of varied sizes, many of which are small. Try it for yourself.

You are thinking installs must be slow because you are used microsoft installer which is a POS...
MS installer:
step 1: Extract exe into an msi file.
Step 2: Run MSI file
Step 3: Extract multiple cab files
Step 4: Extract actual files from cab files one by one, place each in a temp directory with a temp name.
Step 5: Move and rename each file, one by one while keeping track of the whole thing so that if at any point you hit cancel they can be deleted individually.
Step 6: Write registry entries.
Step 7: Make shortcuts

Proper installer:
Step 1: Extract into target directory.
Step 2: make shortcut

 

[adamantinepiggy]

Personally, I think Intel only came up with it to be able to sell their old, "tiny", expensive 311 20GB Larson Creek SSD. Without the SSD caching scheme, there would be absolutely NO market for that drive.. The fact that Intel specs expensive "SLC" NAND (and no matter how you cut it, SLC NAND is MUCH more expensive to make than MLC NAND) for their preferred "cache SSD" tells me that the caching SSD is gonna run full all the time and is also gonna get the crap beat out of it with continual writes.

Sure you could use a cheap MLC SSD, but I don't know if I'd want to as I assume as cache contents change a lot, it's gonna get written and re-written continuously, which is the long-term bane of typical MLC SSD's. Heck, people complain/worry about using the Win page file on their little SSD's, and yet its suddenly OK to use the same MLC SSD's in a manner that is far more rigorous to the drive than the Win page file will ever be?

 

[Voo]

It is when you use a proper installer. GOG installer merely extracts a single zip file directly to the target and then makes shortcuts. Which is faster becaue it reads one single large file from the HDD sequentially, while the copy procedure requires reading individual files of varied sizes, many of which are small. Try it for yourself.

Now if only I'd thought of throwing the files into an archive when copying them back onto the HDD.. oh I did? Well now isn't that nice.

Also I don't see how GoG could avoid the individual installation process of games. Dragon Age for example creates services and registry entries while installing, so at least the first time it's "installed" just copying files around won't do any good and you'll have to run the rather more intrigued installer. Considering that you say "uninstall the game" afterwards (contrary to just moving files around) you'll have to do that again when reinstalling it.

Now you can avoid that by just moving the files around and leaving the registry settings and services alone, but oh well - that's exactly the same as what I'm doing for steam.

 

[cytg111]

I dont get whats not to get here, in my mind it's pretty simple logic.
Implementation aside, SSD caching is, per deduction, the smartest way to go if this is true:

The most expensive bit on an SSD is that wich is written once and never read again.

And i am guesstimating(tm) that it is quite a few bits that we're talking about -> on your average consumer installation. A waste of good fast SSD. If i get a shot at hardware level SSD caching down the road, that's where i am going.

 

[groberts101]

I do see the various viewpoints here but I will just keep it simple and say this about these types of caching programs/drivers.

They are and were ever only intended to be small walking bridge to connect these two different technologies. And that bridge was only built because of simple economics.

Sure some guys "need" to have dozens of games and static data stored on an OS volume and simply don't have the cash to buy 1TB SSD's. That's fine. Then make the compromise and buy a cheap 1TB HDD and cache the frequently accessed data to a small and cheap SSD and enjoy your life. But make no mistake about it.. that IS a compromise versus having the full advantage of pure SSD performance without caching limitations imposed by that SRT setup. If it was really that good then the positive reviews all over the net would be severely reducing the number of SSD's we buy to use as OS volumes. That's not happening for a reason and it's simply because of the inherent limitations that come with hybrid OS volumes(especially one which limits the size of SSD used like SRT does).

Also consider that SRT is not the only player out there that can do this type of thing. One cheaper example would be FancyCache by Romex which can utilize as much RAM as you can afford to squeeze/fit into a system(and trust me here.. RAM blows SSD right out of the water when it comes to latency and R/W speeds with ANY data types..random or sequential). Then if you want to pick at the fact that most can't afford(or fit) 32 gigs of RAM on their system?.. well.. guess what? You can also use ANY sized SSD to do the EXACT same thing as SRT does and so much more, including write caching as well.

Aside from being able to run everything(including booting the OS volume) from RAM ONLY?.. the next best thing is to have a program like FancyCache leveraging those expensive 32 gigs of RAM to a massive 500+GB SSD. That's just fast ALL the time and with ALL data you could possibly use. Even the data that resides on the storage volumes for that matter.

Myself?.. I will take a fast onboard raided SSD array as my OS volume.. and pair it up with a PCI-E raidcard filled with 8 HDD's or more.. any day of the week. Then add some fancycache action to keep the most redundantly used data in those 32 gigs of RAM for the ultimate homemade SRT action. That makes the SRT option quite obviosly look like the stepping-stone that it really is with all it's major drawbacks and puny little 64GB limitation.

As with just about anything these days.. you get what you pay for. You can polish a shape a turd enough to eventually look like a diamond.. but it still smells like a turd.

 

[moriz]

fancycache is absolutely godsend for doing fraps recordings at 60FPS. without it, my RAID0 1TB HDD array is not capable of keeping up.