SSD Caching

[mnhoff]

Hello,
I'm looking to set up a second drive for SSD caching: I will have a i7-2600K CPU running on an ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, and will be using various computationally intensive non-gaming programs.

I see a sale on the Intel 311 20GB SLC for $60, and the OCZ Vertex 3 SATA II 60GB can be had for $100. Does it make sense to spend the extra $40 for the OCZ?

 

[Vdubchaos]

20gb will leave you with MAYBE 3-4gb for caching AND you will be close to full capacity.

I would do 90-120GB or nothing

Even 60gb is pushing it IMO

 

[Diogenes2]

( I think the OP is planning on using the drive for caching only )


The 20gb will severely limit your cache depth compared to the 60 ..
If your budget can handle it, I believe it is well worth at least +$40 ..

I like the Crucial M4 64gb, On sale at B7H for $105 ..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4_SSD_2_5.html

If you can hold off for black friday , there will probably be some real good SSD deals out there then ..

 

[nanaki333]

20gb will leave you with MAYBE 3-4gb for caching AND you will be close to full capacity.

I would do 90-120GB or nothing

Even 60gb is pushing it IMO

he is referring to z68 caching, which has a minimum of 20GB and a max of 64GB.

 

[GotNoRice]

Are you all just guessing that 20gb will be too small and cause caching issues as a result?

I personally set a 64gig cache using my X25-M G2 but the drive that intel used to showcase the tech was only 20gb.

They released this drive basically just for caching purposes: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167062

It would seem to me that 20gb should be plenty.

Most people seem to overestimate the amount of information that gets cached. Someone plays a game that has a 15gig install directory and assume it's caching 15gigs when it's probably caching a 1/3rd of that at most. Remember SRT caches at the block level so even if you have a huge texture file, it's only caching the portion of that file that you actually use. It's pretty efficient.

 

[Diogenes2]

From the Anand review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/5

Although Intel felt that 20GB was the ideal size to balance price/performance and while SRT is supposed to filter out some IO operations from being cached, it's clear that if you frequently use ~10 applications that you will evict useful data from your cache on a 20GB SSD 311. For lighter usage models with only a few frequently used applications, a 20GB cache should be just fine.

So it really depends on expected usage.. 20gb Seems a little light to me ..

If budget is a problem, I would at least go with 32gb, which can be found in $60's...

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I would go second tier for a caching drive. M4, Intel and the better SandForce drives are first tier, in my mind. Go for a V+100, WD, Toshiba, or Agility/Solid caliber drive for a caching drive.

 

[mnhoff]

Thanks folks. I read Anands article, but it didn't discuss the caching abilities of a 60GB SATA III. GotNoRice has some good points...I'm leaning towards the 311 now, seems like a safe bet at $60 for now, and I can always buy a big SSD later when prices come down. Although I see an Agility 3 60GB for $80...hmmm.

Diogenes2, a 32gb is definitely out of the question; the small amount of increased cache space would probably not amount to the ease of use of the 311 (designed for SRT) and it's SLC technology. I'd like to wait for Black Friday, but I doubt prices in Canada improve then, as we already had our Thanksgiving!

 

[mnhoff]

I guess it's a balance between the 311 evicting from cache if more then 10 apps are frequently used, and the potential price/performance hit from using a MLC 60GB SSD (although maybe the SATA III MLC's would be comparable to the 311 SLC?)

Seems strange that no one has done a thorough comparison of SRT using the 311 and various 60GB SSDs. Since SRT only allows for up to 64GB caching, it seems like a logical comparison. Maybe everyone's ignoring this stuff and thinking more about loading the OS/apps on a separate SSD drive, but then you're looking at a $200-$300 investment in a 120GB SSD to do this safely. I'll wait for the prices to drop before attempting that.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Here's how I would approach that particular decision:

SLC is really fast for writing. If your workload will involve lots of writes, then this is the drive for your SRT. Lots of writes would be stuff like video editing.

MLC is comparable to SLC for reads. If your workload will mostly be reads, which is almost all normal users, then you'll be fine with an MLC drive, and will see real benefits from the larger size over the 20GB SLC drive.

 

[mnhoff]

OK, I'm sold on getting a 60+GB SSD as a boot OS+apps drive, with data on a HDD.

But I'm considering using a Intel 311 20GB for caching until SSD's are a bit more affordable...will there be any use to having all 3 drives (60+GB SSD for apps/OS, 20GB 311 for cache, and a HDD) later on? Will the 311 be of any use in caching once I have an OS/apps SSD boot drive?

No educated guesses please, just let me know if you have heard of this being done/read about it/ tried it etc...

 

[greenhawk]

Here's how I would approach that particular decision:

+1

That is my understanding of which SSD to get as a caching drive. It is also why I think that some of the 64GB SSD drives is not worth getting for some people (ie: cheaper sandforce) as the boasted speeds are not so special for writing incompressable data. Makes it a poor choice for best performance if writing/editing lots of compressed data.

 

[greenhawk]

No educated guesses please, just let me know if you have heard of this being done/read about it/ tried it etc...

the issue is that it sounds like you want bentch marks numbers to back the decision, but in that setup (SSD OS/apps and SSD caching another drive), their is not any bentch mark can return a meaning full indication of that setup being any good.

The issue is that the caching only works if
a) you are using that drive
b) you are using common data.

If the above two things are not met, then the benifit from using a SSD cache drive are eliminated. Of course, there will be some files that will be commonly used even if you do not do it activly (ie: reading of the file allocation table or something), and so cacheing will give a advantage for that, but it will proberly be small and depending on your money situation weather it is worth the cost.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

If you are going to use a dedicated SSD for your OS/Apps then I would not worry about SRT for your HDD. Just buy a newish 7200RPM drive and you won't really notice that it's slow, since all your normal actions within Windows will be sped up by the SSD.

My "educated guess" there comes from running multiple computers with SSD for OS and HDD for data. I've never wanted to SRT my HDD to get more speed from it. If I didn't have an SSD for the OS, then I'd be doing SRT. Also, there's no way I would spend ~$100 on an SLC drive just for SRT. Put that $100 on top of whatever you were going to spend for your OS SSD and get a better/bigger one.

 

[mnhoff]

Haha convinced! I got caught up in the hype and bought a 120gb Kingston HyperX today for $195. Was wavering between the Mushkin Deluxe for $185 and the M4 for $190, but I went for speed. Thanks y'all.