SSD for Intel RST?

[ExchequerNL]

edit: I meant SRT!

Hi there. I am looking for an affordable, but good, SSD to use as cache.

Unfortunately new SSD's like the Crucial M500 seem to have really low writes on the 120 GB models and 64 GB ssd's seem to be out of production. The Samsung 840 EVO also does not make sense because of how its turbo cache works (a part is SLC).

Any tips?

Reason:
I will be upgrading my girlfriend's pc soon. I personally using a 120 GB SSD OS drive and it is always full. E.g. Battlefield 3 takes 35 GB. This means I have to mess around with moving certain texture packs and update to my HDD with Symbolic links. I also have to chose which games I put on my ssd, and which I do not. A process my GF will not be willing to do.

Next best thing would be an SSDH. So I thought about a Seagate SSHD of 1 TB but that only has 8 GB of cache.

Since I will be upgrading to a 4670K with a Z87 I figured why not just use SRT with a 30-60 GB cache. That way most of the OS and regularly played games should be cached.

 

[beginner99]

I would not. Put the OS on the ssd and buy a lare enough one so that the most important stuff fits on it. Hell, the 240 and 480 GB M500s are dirt cheap IMHO.

If that is still not in the budget, just put the games on a good ole platter drive. This only affects level load time, nothing else. I have my games on a 5400 rpm green drive...I don't see much of a benefit by putting them on an SSD.

 

[ExchequerNL]

Caching seems like the best option to me for several reasons...

First of all there are some games where using an SSD is essential. In bf3 I save 60 seconds on map load and on League of Legends it dramatically reduces patch time (since the launcher directly writes thousands of <4 KB files).

The 480GB is outside of the budget, I am already pushing it with the 4670K with Z87 chipset.

Regarding the 240 GB: I bought a 120 GB Intel 520 for 150 eur in 2012 which seemed fine compared to the 60 GB alternative. Now it is 2014 and I only have 2 games on it; Bf3 and League of Legends... And every week I have to battle for free space. Right now I am at 10 GB and that is because I moved a lot of stuff with Symbolic links.

So 240GB in 4 years will probably result in the same issue for her, especially if you dump everything on C:/Program Files. If you want Steam on your SSD its instantly filled (unless you start messing around with the libraries, but again this pc is not for me). Just checked her HDD and she has 259 GB of games of which she currently plays 16+8+4=28GB.

Caching seems like a much better option because it does not require the user to get involved in file placement. It also makes more sense to me... For example I always play Caspian border and CQ in Battlefield. The other maps I literally never play. Why would I want them on my ssd? I do not. Let the caching just "learn" that I always play the same maps and games in a certain month.

 

[Cerb]

The caching benefit is mostly-read, and SRT caps out at 64GB.

When a write goes to both the SSD and HDD, it is not considered complete until the HDD says it's done, just like if the cache weren't there (you can disable this, but don't). Now, this still results in a speed-up when dealing with writes, because a following read that can hit the SSD cache will not need to access the HDD at all, so the HDD can be busy only writing. But, if there would not be mixed reads and writes, then the SRT setup will not be faster than a plain HDD, either.

So, the slower writes than other SSDs don't matter, because you'll be waiting on the HDD to complete them. And, random reads are so much faster than an HDD by itself, that I don't think that's worth worrying about. And, the cache misses, dropping you back to HDD speed will make up enough performance that the relative speed differences between SSDs won't matter in a practical way, either.

If you're going to go with caching, relative performance worries are largely wasted. I wouldn't save $10 and get a known-to-be-very-slow SSD, like a Sandisk Readycache, today, but past that level, don't worry about it.

 

[infoiltrator]

Not a fan of RST,
SanDisk 32 GB ReadyCache
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Deskto...0&amp;keywords=ssd
But performance goes up with size in SSDs, and that one will not repurpose later,
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-SATA2-...5&amp;keywords=ssd

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Solid-...1&amp;keywords=ssd

http://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Premier-...2&amp;keywords=ssd

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Info...4&amp;keywords=ssd

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Info...6&amp;keywords=ssd

 

[Sunburn74]

The 480GB is outside of the budget, I am already pushing it with the 4670K with Z87 chipset.

I'm not sure I understand. Is the purchase for your PC or for your GF? Does she have a SSD or not?

Why not just hold off on the SSD upgrade and buy one when you can afford it rather than throwing good money at a half compromise solution? SSD prices will only continue to fall, whilst your storage needs (is needs the right word here? does anyone NEED a SSD?) don't appear particularly dire and won't be changing anytime soon. I have a steam account too and have something like 40+ games on steam. I keep 6-7 installed at a time at max, and somehow I survive on a 240gb ssd... Maybe there is something to learning self control?

Anyway my recommendation if you absolutely had to make a move right now would actually be a raid-0 arrangement where you can quickly and cheaply acquire another 120gb of storage without too much compromise and probably stay in your budget.

 

[Cerb]

For the record, I'm not pro-SRT, here, either. Just that if the OP is going that way, anyway, the relative slowness of a 120GB SSD won't matter.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've been using ISRT (Smart Response with the IRST (Rapid Storage) drivers) since I build the rig in the sig back in summer 2011.

I've thought it has been really great. I don't have any . . . "hourglass" experiences. It uses a Patriot Pyro 60GB cache SSD.

It is significantly faster than the VelociRaptor it accelerates. The VR is "SATA-III" but connected to an SATA-II port. This latter factor means little or nothing, since the throughput for the VR is about 140+ MB/s (sustained), or half the maximum for SATA-II. So on an SATA-III port, there's virtually no difference.

Now, the plot thickens . . .

I've been troubleshooting a "random-reset," "occasional lockup," even more infrequent "BSOD" problem for a couple months. Sometimes the system (24/7 operation with 24/7 media center and HDTV) will go a month without this problem. More likely, it occurs every 7 to 9 days. I even swapped out the RAM. It simply cannot be the PSU. I thought it was the NVidia driver, and I thought I had it licked, but it happened again today -- two weeks since last time.

So I ran some more web searches on the problem, adding "ISRT" to the search string. Uhhh . . . . HUH!! More MS forum posts insinuating instability with Z68 chipset and ISRT. So now, I've upgraded the ISRT driver. We wait . . . another week or two to see what happens.

Just with this possibility in mind, I purchased a Samsung 840 Pro (MLC) 500GB. It's still sitting in the retail box. And since I was planning on building another computer this year, I had second thoughts about using it as replacement for the ISRT configuration.

I'd say if you're upgrading to a Z87 motherboard, I'll give you mild encouragement. But like you say -- it's hard to find a 60GB SSD these days. If you do, you want sequential reads and writes to be ~500 MB/s. My Pyro meets those specs. But I was looking around a month ago for a drive that size, and I think all I found was Mushkin. Which!-- might be fine for the specs.

I had tried using a 128 GB Intel Elm Crest SSD for caching when I first built this machine, and it gave me problems. I think it gave me problems whether I used it for caching exclusively, but certainly when I formatted and attempted to use the remaining space.

If you do deploy ISRT caching -- and it's stable -- you can set it to "Maximum" performance so that writes are delayed. This may offer more risk if any crashes or lockups occur -- in terms of HDD corruption. But like I said -- if it's stable, less risk.

 

[birthdaymonkey]

I was running a Seagate 1TB SSHD in my media server for a while, and I hated it. Maybe it's fast compared to a pure hard drive, but for someone who is used to SSDs, it's not a worthwhile compromise. Program uninstalls and Windows updates take at least 5X longer than with a a real SSD. Every minute I spent working on that machine was a pain. I picked up a used Intel 320 for that computer a couple weeks ago, and I haven't regretted it for a second.

If GF really needs a >256GB drive, wait till she can afford one. There was a sale here in Canada (usually more $$$ than US) for a Sandisk Extreme II 480GB for $290. Prices seem to be coming down after a period of stagnation.

Caching is a stopgap technology. Why let Windows manage your fast storage when you can do it yourself with minimal hassle? 240-256GB (allowing for OS and usual apps) is a LOT of games. Who can really play so many at once?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I was running a Seagate 1TB SSHD in my media server for a while, and I hated it. Maybe it's fast compared to a pure hard drive, but for someone who is used to SSDs, it's not a worthwhile compromise. Program uninstalls and Windows updates take at least 5X longer than with a a real SSD. Every minute I spent working on that machine was a pain. I picked up a used Intel 320 for that computer a couple weeks ago, and I haven't regretted it for a second.

If GF really needs a >256GB drive, wait till she can afford one. There was a sale here in Canada (usually more $$$ than US) for a Sandisk Extreme II 480GB for $290. Prices seem to be coming down after a period of stagnation.

Caching is a stopgap technology. Why let Windows manage your fast storage when you can do it yourself with minimal hassle? 240-256GB (allowing for OS and usual apps) is a LOT of games. Who can really play so many at once?

Well, given the troubleshooting I'm going through (slowly), I can't thump my chest. But I had misgivings about those SSHD's from the time they were released.

The cache is too small. 64MB? My ISRT configuration has a 60GB cache.

So far, I've experienced no disk corruption. I suspected my ISRT drivers as another possible cause for the occasional crash. I can only wait and see. But either of two things will be apparent: either it was the ISRT driver, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then the configuration has been rock-solid and serviceable. If it was, maybe the driver update fixed it.

Another good thing about it: the accelerated HDD doesn't do nearly as much work.

But simple is best. At $0.80/GB (maybe even less), high-capacity SSDs are more affordable. It's still a high price to pay for storage, but the difference in speed makes it worthwhile.

As far as I can see, I get 80% of SSD speed after a few sessions and reboots. I don't know how many people have chosen ISRT, or how many of those are happy, and how many are unhappy with it.

There had been a few lengthy threads here from 2011 on the subject, and you would know . . . I remember "birthdaymonkey's" posts.

Oh. One more thing. You can't just use an SSD for backup and put it in storage. As I understand it, your data begins to "disappear" after some period like six months -- maybe a year. But who would know for sure?

 

[Cerb]

At $0.80/GB (maybe even less)

M500 960GB: $0.47/GB
M500 240GB: $0.52/GB
M500 480GB: $0.55/GB
M500 120GB: $0.62/GB

840 Evo 750GB: $0.55/GB
840 Evo 1TB: $0.56/GB
840 Evo 250GB: $0.63/GB
840 Evo 500GB: $0.65/GB

Ultra Plus 256GB: $0.56/GB
Extreme II 480GB: $0.60/GB

Q 512GB: $0.61/GB

Definitely less.

Oh. One more thing. You can't just use an SSD for backup and put it in storage. As I understand it, your data begins to "disappear" after some period like six months -- maybe a year. But who would know for sure?

The NAND in a consumer SSD should keep data readable for minimum of 1yr once worn to the p/e rating, at ~70F (Intel showed results of testing they had done, at some point back, and temps had an insane effect on retention, so climate control would matter). That's JEDEC's minimums. Actual retention should be much better, possibly into a decade or longer, at low write cycles. Some makers spec their NAND for even longer retention at room temp and some p/e rating, too (IIRC, Micron sells at least down to 25nm as 5yr).

So, yes, you can do that, but like any other backup, verify it and refresh it every now and again. Where with an HDD, you might have to worry about the physical impacts from moving it about, an SSD being stored and retrieved might have some ESD risk, FI.

 

[ExchequerNL]

I'm not sure I understand. Is the purchase for your PC or for your GF? Does she have a SSD or not?

Why not just hold off on the SSD upgrade and buy one when you can afford it rather than throwing good money at a half compromise solution? SSD prices will only continue to fall, whilst your storage needs (is needs the right word here? does anyone NEED a SSD?) don't appear particularly dire and won't be changing anytime soon. I have a steam account too and have something like 40+ games on steam. I keep 6-7 installed at a time at max, and somehow I survive on a 240gb ssd... Maybe there is something to learning self control?

Anyway my recommendation if you absolutely had to make a move right now would actually be a raid-0 arrangement where you can quickly and cheaply acquire another 120gb of storage without too much compromise and probably stay in your budget.

Nope, right now there is no SSD.

Problem is not really "saving" it is more spending it on a pc upgrade. She is not a "gamer" like us that requires the best of the best. I have been suggesting an SSD for over a year now but she simply does not care :awe:. To be honest besides her 2m boot time the browsing experience is just as snappy as on my ssd (dont ask me how/why).

So on a 350 euro upgrade I can throw in say 60-70 eur on storage upgrade. But getting an 840 EVO for 150 eur extra I will not get away with. So to stay within budget I can either get a 60GB caching ssd, 1 TB SSHD or 2 TB 7200.14.

When a write goes to both the SSD and HDD, it is not considered complete until the HDD says it's done, just like if the cache weren't there (you can disable this, but don't).

If that is the case then there is really no point in SRT. I really want it to cache my writes.

This article seemed postive to me: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4

Unlike Seagate's Momentus XT, both reads and writes are cached with SRT enabled. Intel allows two modes of write caching: enhanced and maximized. Enhanced mode makes the SSD cache behave as a write through cache, where every write must hit both the SSD cache and hard drive before moving on. Whereas in maximized mode the SSD cache behaves more like a write back cache, where writes hit the SSD and are eventually written back to the hard drive but not immediately.

Can you convince me why I would not use Maximized mode? When I pull the plug on a hdd during a write I will lose those writes anyway. I do not see added risk besides SSD failure. Am I missing something? Last thing I want is an unstable pc .



ps
Personally I have 569 GB games installed on a Raid 0 HDD array and 38 GB on my SSD :awe:. If you are an enthousiastic Gamer the 240GB will not hold. Bf3 is 35 GB, Max Payne 3 is 30 GB, Hitman Absolution is 24 GB, van helsing is 20 GB, etc.

But this is for my GF so she does not need all games on an ssd, she is not so demanding (on her pc :awe.

 

[Cerb]

To be honest besides her 2m boot time the browsing experience is just as snappy as on my ssd (dont ask me how/why).

Why wouldn't browsing be just a fast? I haven't noticed any speed improvements in web browsers in any desktop, going from HDD to SSD. It's all network, RAM, CPU, and add-ons.

Can you convince me why I would not use Maximized mode? When I pull the plug on a hdd during a write I will lose those writes anyway. I do not see added risk besides SSD failure. Am I missing something? Last thing I want is an unstable pc .

Inconsistent state, often necessitating a CHKDSK to be able to get back online, which may or may not hose some data, v. the chances mostly being confined to what was in the journal. In Enhanced mode, you can safely break the cache, and the results should be no different than if the SSD weren't there. Since the cache is initialized after the HDD is being accessed, data in the SSD but not on the HDD basically means it's not there.

NTFS is a journaled file system. Writes consist of file data, updated file system metadata, and metadata about the state of those writes in the journal. Certain ordering guarantees, and write barriers, will have to be enforced, so that it knows everything is OK. For example, if file data is written, and metadata partially updated, but the intent to do so not in the journal, then what exactly is the state at that time?

A write-back disk cache allows breaking the intended ordering, which is one of the weaknesses of most journaled FSes (FSes like FAT are far worse: the state is basically always unknown). It can get all kinds of hosed up at the drop of a hat, if it's the wrong hat. Typically, enabling a write-back disk cache is not even allowed by storage hardware, without a battery backup unit installed and working.

While I'm firmly in the big SSD camp, and did basically what BonzaiDuck has begun the process of (got a half TB SSD, and then didn't use it until I replaced other parts, too), it is a hefty chunk of change. If it costs too much, SRT would be better than just a HDD, and better than a hybrid drive (WD's Black2 is decent, based on initial reviews, anyway, but costs way too much; while Seagate's and Toshiba's are useless outside of bootup and common program loading speedups). Towards that end, as long as you don't get a drive known to be very slow, today, like a Sandisk ReadyCache (U110), you should be fine.

As well, being that she doesn't need the best and all that, have you considered getting a cheaper mobo and CPU, and just running it all stock?

 

[Sunburn74]

Nope, right now there is no SSD.

Problem is not really "saving" it is more spending it on a pc upgrade. She is not a "gamer" like us that requires the best of the best. I have been suggesting an SSD for over a year now but she simply does not care :awe:. To be honest besides her 2m boot time the browsing experience is just as snappy as on my ssd (dont ask me how/why).

So on a 350 euro upgrade I can throw in say 60-70 eur on storage upgrade. But getting an 840 EVO for 150 eur extra I will not get away with. So to stay within budget I can either get a 60GB caching ssd, 1 TB SSHD or 2 TB 7200.14.

If that is the case then there is really no point in SRT. I really want it to cache my writes.

This article seemed postive to me: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4


Can you convince me why I would not use Maximized mode? When I pull the plug on a hdd during a write I will lose those writes anyway. I do not see added risk besides SSD failure. Am I missing something? Last thing I want is an unstable pc .



ps
Personally I have 569 GB games installed on a Raid 0 HDD array and 38 GB on my SSD :awe:. If you are an enthousiastic Gamer the 240GB will not hold. Bf3 is 35 GB, Max Payne 3 is 30 GB, Hitman Absolution is 24 GB, van helsing is 20 GB, etc.

But this is for my GF so she does not need all games on an ssd, she is not so demanding (on her pc :awe.

I think you have answered the question yourself. She doesn't care meaning you could do nothing. You also could start small with a 120gb SSD and have her try the experience. If she likes the performance and feels the space is cramped, then plan an upgrade in the future when the money is there. If she doesn't notice a difference and considers it a pain to manage the storage, then you've answered the question: she doesn't need a SSD for her workload and you can move on to other things in your life.

You've heard my piece about managing install sizes. All those games you listed above only take up <100 gb simultaneously installed and those are massive games (the storage on Max Payne 3 is absolutely ridiculous for what the game actually provides). On a 240gb hard drive, that's less than half the storage. Most steam games are on average <5 gigs. Furthermore, as you may already know, steam allows you to choose the drive to which to install your games. Have her put the most playable games on the SSD and the lesser playable games on the HD. Then move things around as her interests change via steams backup and restore system.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think you have answered the question yourself. She doesn't care meaning you could do nothing. You also could start small with a 120gb SSD and have her try the experience. If she likes the performance and feels the space is cramped, then plan an upgrade in the future when the money is there. If she doesn't notice a difference and considers it a pain to manage the storage, then you've answered the question: she doesn't need a SSD for her workload and you can move on to other things in your life.

You've heard my piece about managing install sizes. All those games you listed above only take up <100 gb simultaneously installed and those are massive games (the storage on Max Payne 3 is absolutely ridiculous for what the game actually provides). On a 240gb hard drive, that's less than half the storage. Most steam games are on average <5 gigs. Furthermore, as you may already know, steam allows you to choose the drive to which to install your games. Have her put the most playable games on the SSD and the lesser playable games on the HD. Then move things around as her interests change via steams backup and restore system.

He's not talking about native, standalone SSD; he's asking about ISRT. I was going to answer this before your post, although I wasn't so sure of my answer. The question would seem to be: how much risk is there for having your disk-writes occur immediately, as opposed to their piling up to be written later?

It just seemed from what I'd read when this ISRT feature was new in 2011 that there was a greater chance of data loss from a system crash with "Maximized" that there was with "Enhanced." I've had my system running in both modes at different times. Somehow Enhanced seems "good enough," but I'd noticed a slight positive difference with Maximized.

UDPATE: They're still selling the small SSDs for caching. The Mushkin models seem fast enough:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820226335

There was also a 60GB model, similar specs. My Pyro uses a Sandforce controller, and works fine.

Despite what others have said -- and they might be "more right" than wrong -- I just spoke to a techie-friend over the phone. He insists that more and more statistics are showing failures on some Samsung 840's than what you'd expect. At least with the caching configuration, you still have the HDD. My friend may be an alarmist. And I can only say my PYRO is still working after 30 months.

I'm going to post another thread about the Z68 chipset and IRST (for ISRT) drivers -- sort of a poll or "call for experiences."

 

[Sunburn74]

He's not talking about native, standalone SSD; he's asking about ISRT. I was going to answer this before your post, although I wasn't so sure of my answer.

I understand that quite well. He has a small amount of money to spend on a SSD for his GF. He's described her workload as one that questionably benefits from a SSD, though likely it does. He also describes her as someone relatively pleased with her current level of perfomace. He can buy either a SSD for caching purposes, a SSD that is relatively small and may need some storage management capabilities depending on how the person chooses to use it, or save and buy a SSD that is large enough to offer both speed and optimal capacity.

My recommendation is to buy a small but reasonable sized SSD that his GF can try and see if it really does improve her PC experience. After some period of use, she can make the decision regarding a need for upgrade or add additional storage space in the form of a RAID-0 array. (I did this actually with my GF about 4 years ago. She swore up and down she didn't need a SSD. I bought one and she likes it but swears up and down now that she is happy with the performance and the storage capacity despite it being a smaller 3-4 generation old drive). The other recommendation is to simply wait as her needs are stable and not dire, and SSD prices continue to fall.

I just see the caching as a poor compromise. It may not be fast enough to really show her the benefits of a SSD thus not answering the question for either of them, and the money spent on that small drive will likely be money lost forever for several reasons (small drives are more expensive per gig, not worth adding additional drives in RAID-0 for additional storage, are not particularly sought after on the used market, etc).

 

[CA19100]

I've been using Intel SRT on my H77-based machine since about a month after I built it nearly two years ago, and have been very pleased with its results. If money were no object, I'd of course have gone for a huge SSD. But money is an object, and this gave me a machine that's nearly as fast as a pure SSD machine, for for hundreds of dollars less.

I dropped a Corsair Accelerator 30GB drive in at the time, and it's been perfect. If a ~64GB drive isn't much more money, you can have a larger cache with that, but honestly, the 30GB has been plenty for my needs. If you have a large game you load regularly, that would probably make a larger cache drive useful.

The whole point for me was to speed up the OS (Win 8.1), and my core apps that I use every day (browser, e-mail, Office). It's doing exactly that, and better than I expected. Plus, because it's a cache drive, I don't have to deal with moving anything between it and the giant magnetic drive. Logically, it's a single volume; the Intel software figures out the most-used data, and caches it appropriately. In practice, it's been accurate with what it caches.

If I were buying a cache drive right now, I'd probably look at something like this: http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Deskto...276923&amp;sr=1-35

Hope that helps! I'd love one of those 1TB 840 Evo drives, but I can think of a lot of things I'd rather spend the extra $500 on compared to my SRT setup.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've been using Intel SRT on my H77-based machine since about a month after I built it nearly two years ago, and have been very pleased with its results. If money were no object, I'd of course have gone for a huge SSD. But money is an object, and this gave me a machine that's nearly as fast as a pure SSD machine, for for hundreds of dollars less.

I dropped a Corsair Accelerator 30GB drive in at the time, and it's been perfect. If a ~64GB drive isn't much more money, you can have a larger cache with that, but honestly, the 30GB has been plenty for my needs. If you have a large game you load regularly, that would probably make a larger cache drive useful.

The whole point for me was to speed up the OS (Win 8.1), and my core apps that I use every day (browser, e-mail, Office). It's doing exactly that, and better than I expected. Plus, because it's a cache drive, I don't have to deal with moving anything between it and the giant magnetic drive. Logically, it's a single volume; the Intel software figures out the most-used data, and caches it appropriately. In practice, it's been accurate with what it caches.

If I were buying a cache drive right now, I'd probably look at something like this: http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Deskto...276923&amp;sr=1-35

Hope that helps! I'd love one of those 1TB 840 Evo drives, but I can think of a lot of things I'd rather spend the extra $500 on compared to my SRT setup.

I just wish I'd updated my IRST software much earlier since I built this system.

The sequential read spec on the Sandisk is about right -- and ample. The write spec leaves much to be desired, and so I'd probably spend the extra money on one of those Mushkins. But maybe the write-rate is not all that critical in "Enhanced" mode, since you'd get bottlenecked by the accelerated HDD anyway.

 

[Cerb]

Also, SRT can use a larger cache (though why they cap it so low is beyond me--if you got the space, they should let it be used!), so why not get a larger drive?

When 120GB SSDs were commonly $100+, I think the $50 Readycache had its place, but when they're $65-80 every day, basically the same prices as 64GB drives, and blow away the poor thing away in random reads, I don't think so. If you're going to compromise with SRT, at least make the most of it with a newer better SSD, rather than a souped-up USB stick, IMO.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/10/17/sandisk_readycache_32gb_ssd_review/4#.Uv0RGLTeOn9

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Also, SRT can use a larger cache (though why they cap it so low is beyond me--if you got the space, they should let it be used!), so why not get a larger drive?

When 120GB SSDs were commonly $100+, I think the $50 Readycache had its place, but when they're $65-80 every day, basically the same prices as 64GB drives, and blow away the poor thing away in random reads, I don't think so. If you're going to compromise with SRT, at least make the most of it with a newer better SSD, rather than a souped-up USB stick, IMO.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/10/17/sandisk_readycache_32gb_ssd_review/4#.Uv0RGLTeOn9

I tried that once. But of course -- that particular driver version was buggy -- which is why I belatedly replaced it.