SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News, and Advice)

Except when you have 8GB RAM, and say "let windows manage" it reserves 8GB of your SSD space. On a 60GB SSD that is a premium amount of space.

 

that is a few different things. What you are saying are Windows maps read only files(in the case of DLL or EXE) into memory, that is not what we term paging technically(this does have the effect of extended the usable memory a bit as say minimized program don't need the memory for their DLLs). Paging as in the context we are talking about(the page file) is really a process of using a backing store(a file/partition on a block device) as RAM for writable thing.

memory mapped file is yet something else which usually is done by specific programs.

disk cache is just a second class 'citizen/application' in that whatever memory it has taken and used would be taken back by the anything OS when needed, unlike say Excel which would only get that treatment when the OS is really have no more memory to serve its own need.

 

That was my thought too but after reviewing it, I may switch side.

Windows would definitely allocate that 8GB out of the current drive but it is not written to if I am not mistaken as I don't see activity when I did that.

So to the SSD, these space are still 'free' and would be the same as my over-provisioned space and can be used as buffer for its own wear leveling process.

It would be until Windows begin to swap things out to it, that would mark the space as 'used', from the SSD perspective and it would never be released.

So the unknown is still, how aggressive Windows is in swapping. If it only swaps when needed, those space may be always allocated from the OS perspective but free from the SSD perspective.

 

No it doesn't reserve 8gb. It allows the maximum size of the pagefile to be 8gb. The pagefile is only as big as is necessary. Virtual memory allows Windows to use more memory than is physically available. Its not dumb, so it won't slowboat from your HDD for the hell of it just because you let it handle pagefile.sys.

This is exactly what paging is. You guys need to read about virtual memory and how it works in Windows. Classic case in point: disable pagefile.sys, run Latmon and let your computer idle. Watch the page faults roll in.

So many people don't seem to understand that Windows is pretty much always maintaining a backing store. That is, you have a copy of everything in RAM on disk. If you need to use more memory than you have physically available, Windows can clear physical memory very quickly because the contents can be paged back in from the storage disk when necessary. If Windows doesn't need to do that, it won't do it. If Windows doesn't need to swell pagefile.sys because the contents are elsewhere on the disk, it won't do it. It won't gobble up storage disk space for the hell of it.

This article explains the basics very well.

 

I am not sure about that. on my machine which has 4GB RAM, it automatically allocated 4GB pagefile.sys, my used memory was 2GB or so at the time I made the change.

 

If I set my machine to "System Managed Size" it sets my pagefile to 8GB = RAM. No it may not be "used" as in writes being made, but it is still unavailable for use. The system reports it as using 8GB of space whether it is or not. I have no clue how SSD firmware manages this space for GC either. The more free space, the more efficient the GC, and the SSD firmware may see this as used so less room for GC.

And I'm well aware of the "swap file", "pagefile", or whatever you want to refer to it as since I've been an avid user since the days before Windows 3.1.

 

If Windows is automatically managing the size of your pagefile based on your virtual memory needs then it is what it is and it is whats best for you.

If you are truly pressed for storage disk space, you do have the option to restrict the maximum and minimum size of pagefile.sys.

For everyone else, just leave the pagefile alone because Windows knows how to manage virtual memory. You don't.

 

The only way Intel can see it as 'used' is when it has been written to as there is no ATA command to communicate that a block is 'allocated'. The TRIM is actually a later addition so that a block can be 'unallocated', before that it was just read/write.

Now over time(again no one knows how Microsoft would use the page file), these page file blocks may all be written to(say if they did round robin) and yes that would slowly reduced the 'free' block seen by the SSD.

 

Who says Microsoft knows whats best for my system? Just because I automatically say "system managed" and regardless of system it sets pagefile = amount of RAM, how is there any intellegence put into that? Sounds like a fixed parameter to me. If I put a range, then at least the allocated space grows as needed.

You're saying that even though 8GB is "reserved" that the drive still sees it as free space? I'd like to see evidence of this. In that case, every single 0 block on the SSD would be considered free space then would it not, even if it's part of a "file"?

Also, assuming this would be the same behavior then for vhd's with a fixed size? It allocates the size, even if it's only partially full.

 

There is no way Windows can know that I need 8GB when I had only 4GB RAM and never encountered OOM. So I don't see why it is best for me.

More likely, it is simply because that would be large enough to hold a coredump. I have disabled the coredump feature though.

 

Yes. Until you actually write to a block, the SSD doesn't know a block is 'important/none free'. This was never an issue before SSD as it is the OS's responsibility to keep track of what data is valid or not on that block(why Norton can recover data from FAT), HDD don't care. Then the SSD came in and needs free blocks to do its wear leveling(for performance as well) and the concept of over provisioning is introduced. This however is not good enough for consumer market as that is a tax i.e. for reasonable performance there needs to be 20% or so OP(always and it becomes hard to sell check Sandforce). TRIM is designed as an alternative so it give us a choice of using a 64GB as 64GB drive so long it is not filled to the last bit.

If you do a quick format, the only part the SSD has been written to are those metadata blocks, all the rest is still free to it(internally).

That is how a block device(well HDD/SSD) work. A block device has no concept of partition or file system or anything like that. The ATA command only has read/write and other very high level things say secure erase. The partition table for example is just a block on it that the OS/BIOS use.

 

I agree that a pagefile, be it on a disk or on into ram, is only reserved space, a buffer until windows actually uses it and writes some data, indeed;

I also agree that window’s got much better memory management it used to;

Agreed as well that pagefile or not, some processes still read and write to disk;


Again, with 2GB in XP, and 4GB in Vista/Seven, never did I had to use a pagefile;
Never went out of memory.

And I’ve been using 5400 flavour HDD, where access time is clearly a bottleneck…

On SSDs, it’s more about the writes saved, still, speed is also a huge factor.


Looks to me like decompressing files in RAM instead of DISK is a real improvement on the speed side and, as well, it saves a lot of writes to my SSDs, reducing the wear.

On top, having temp files and histories and cookies and so and so written there allows for other writes, those windows or app’s processes’ writes for instance, to occur concomitantly instead of consecutively which, at the end of the day, speeds up the whole thing.

From the beginning, I am NOT talking about a pagefile, I don’t use that since 8 years, I created a RAMDISK out of my 8Gb of RAM, for two major reasons:


1. Windows never needed to fill my previous 4GB; how will he ever fill 8GB?

2. By Managing via a RAMDISK to redirect some temporary data there, I prevent some wear to my SSDs, and speed-up the whole rig two ways:

I/O are much faster in RAM, and while they occur in RAM, DISK is free for other I/O accesses.​

Makes sense ?

 

Sure.

If you are very sure that you would not need more than 4GB(and that Windows will never use that as cache), of course making the rest 4GB as RAM DISK make sense as this becomes a situation similar to my DOS case.

For my case, I see that I can see almost all the unused RAM is used as cache, I don't need to go through the hassle of RAM DISK as my RAM is put to use.

 

What files do you cache to your RAMdisk? Just curious. I may do just that.

 

An obvious candidate is 'temperary internet file' especially if you download lots of video etc.

or like his case where he knows that a downloaded file is going to be thrown away, i.e. anything that usually goes under c:\temp

 

Sigh. The type of stuff that goes into pagefile.sys is the stuff that you do which doesn't have a copy on disk. It is usually the contents of RAM that isn't backed by a file on the storage disk. The undo buffer is a neat example of this idea. Theres no point having for example, 100 level undo branches in RAM all the time and you don't save 100 files on the storage disk for every action that you want to do. The least used branches (the furthest back) can be paged out so the system can release more RAM quickly for things that actually need it. Unless you regularly find yourself using 100 level undos in which case RAM will be pre-emptively prepopulated with multiple undo branches anyway because it will be faster than having to page all that stuff back in. It works out better for you because its determined by whatever you do the most frequently.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, disabling pagefile.sys because you have loads of physical memory increases the need to have more physical memory because you arbitrarily restrict how much of the content of RAM that isn't backed by a file can be paged out when not in use.

Things like crash dumps are also a pagefile thing sure. Some people actually do look at .dmp files and try to figure out why their computer crashed. The writing of .dmp files upon reboot will fail if you have no pagefile or your pagefile is way too small.

 

I don't need to figure out why my computer crash. For the very rare occasions(I think may be 3-4 times for the last 3 years or so), I kind of knew the reason and didn't bother to report or track it down.

As for my RAM requirements, I am very happy to have the current RAM size and it is not going to save me much(what is the difference between 2GB vs 4GB anyway) and all my RAM are used as cache.

Your undo analogy is not convincing but I see no point of going on in that.

 

I don't think there is a right or wrong way fellas. If the system works without a pagefile, who cares, go that route. If you want Windows to manage it, then do so.

The one thing that I'd like to know, however, what is best for the performance of the system and/or reduced write cycles to the SSD.

 

Pagefile humbug.... 4Gb ram or more and it is useless to 99% of the population.

Dont believe me? Start 50 of anything and then see how much memory is still available...its what Win 7 does best - prioritization.

It adds needless writing to the disk and offers no (zero, zilch, zero) improvement with an ssd as a boot drive.

(ok putting on my bomb suit)

 

fire up the resource monitor and see what is written to. then decide.

However, I would suggest you to use the Intel tools to check how much bytes has been written to the SSD then decide if it worths the time to do the tweaking.

On this notebook, I recorded about 2-3G/day on a 5 day/week. or 20 days or so for my work pattern. That is 60G/month. My 80G is rated by Intel as 7TB or so before I need to worry. That comes to 110-120 months, 10 years. I have added a bit of OP so even if not doubling that, I should get 15 years based on the current pattern and Intel's figure.

So do you think I would care ?

 

I first downloaded DataRam;

Set-up like this and note the Create TEMP directory on the right:


Then open Control Panel → System → Advanced system settings on the left...

Click Environment Variables

Set it like this, and note that for both value, you need to point to one file only of you RAMdisk, it's the TEMP one, because RAMdisk creates it everytime windows boots, (see first capture above) and it does not create any TMP file...


Reboot.


At that point, you can delete the temp directories outta your SSD, usualy:

C:\Windows\temp
C:\Users\ YOUR-USERNAME\AppData\Local\Temp


there's more to be done, for instance, copied from there:

Change Location of temporay files in IE8:
1. Open IE, go to Tools->Internet options (press ALT if the menu bar isn't shown).
2. On the General tab, in the Browsing History section, click on Settings.
Note the current location of the Temporary Files.
3. Click the Move Folder button, select your RAM Disk and click OK until all windows are closed.
4. If prompt to log-off, do so.

Change location of cache files of Google Chrome to the RAM Disk: (Where R is your RAMDISK Drive Letter)
1. Create a new folder on your RAM Drive, for example: R:\ChromeBrowserCache
2. Right-click on the icon you use to open Chrome.
3. In the Target field, add the following at the end: -disk-cache-dir="R:\ChromeBrowserCache"
So it should look something like this:
"C:\Documents and Settings\YOUR-USENAME\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" -disk-cache-dir="R:\ChromeBrowserCache"


Now, some people might have told you you're plain stupid, not knowing siht about what you're doing when not letting windows fully control how it stores stuff, of course, many people knows way better than us don't they, and they actually might even be right, while I seriously doubt, but as we never know, I have to tell you that in no way I am responsible if you decide to try that outta your own rig brotha, you follow me ?

And yes Les, pagefile nowadays is completely useless with 4GB of RAM, been saying that since 8 years...

 

Thanks for all that aye i cap'n! +1. I have used gavotte ramdisk in the past successfully. Easy to use. RAM is getting considerably cheaper, I got 8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill DDR3 1333 for $80. Considering my new laptop has four slots maybe get another 8 (because I'm just that way) and use it for a RAMdisk for temp folders, browser cache, and (gasp ) pagefile. Of course I do use VM's periodically, so maybe just a 4GB RAMdisk and use the rest for the system and VM's.

 

This would serve you just fine in my humble opinion.

Oh, while I think about it...

I had to use windows capture tool to be able to post the images in my previous post to imageshak.us and link them here, right ?

Now, where do you think I saved the picture ?

You're right, straight to my RAMDISK drive...

I don't need that file permanently...

Will dissapear next reboot...

Automatically...

Beautiful...

Love it...

 

Yes, that is a great advantage. I have a huge self made "temp" folder in my pictures folder from all the screen shots. Good idea to save things like that there. No need for cleanup later.

 

I am not sure what VM you are running but that can be one of your source of 'exccessive SSD write' if you are so concerned about that.

Taking the Virtual PC that comes with Windows 7 as an example. It would setup the VM(XP in my case) to use hibernation when you close it. This would thus write the memory of your VM(XP) to the VHD. Now as far as I know, XP doesn't compress anything so it would be a 512MB(or whatever RAM you assign) write each time you close it. Doing it a number of times a day, that would be quite a lot.

 

Right now I'm using VM's on my laptop with a Momentus XT. On my desktop I install and set up all my VirtualBox stuff on my hard drive not SSD.

 

I used to disable page file on this Samsung(HDD, 2.5G) as an old habit developed since XP(I know my usage would not exceed). Reading that Microsoft has been less aggressive in swaping in later Windows, I re-enabled page file again recently.

However, I started to see more of the 'spinning wheel' which while is not annoying(may be a second or two) is noticeable. In addition, I hear a slightly increased fan noise(this machine's cooling system is aging and I am very sensitive to it) as well. Through this time, I have constantly ~1.2G reported as memory used for cache, so I am not short of memory.

This prompt me to disable it again and after 24 hours of so usage, I no longer see the level of spinning wheel as before(when page file was enabled) with the memory profile shown being almost the same.

This indicates to me that Windows still behaves differently when page file is enabled, not as aggressive as XP but still doing unnecessary swaping(I see activity to the pagefile when there are still lots of thing being cached) as indicated by the lengthened spinning wheel time and the fan(indication of more activity in the system).

I would keep the page file enabled on my SSD equipped machine as the slightly increased unnecessary swapping is not large enough for me to worry about endurance and it doesn't caused any noticeable change on it(SSD is fast) but does give me the possible boost of memory if needed.

 

I find it interesting how many would keep page file on just because. To me the service becomes moot with an SSD unless someone can somehow show any reason or performance gains with it on. By show, I mean give me the result not the discussion surrounding it.

Show me the money!

 

page file are used(well for me anyway) as extended memory and SSD actually helps if I need that(i.e. if I have already max out my memory or for any reason don't want to add more memory). So I don't see why it becomes moot with an SSD.

 

It becomes moot because, with an adequate amount of RAM such as 4GB combined with Win 7 and the way it works with memory prioritization, you will never max out your memory.

The only use that I know of page file is that, if for some odd reason your system crashes, pagefile will have saved the dump file which will assist in determining the reason.

I always suggest to people to give a specific example of where pagefile is truly needed in their use and the simple reason is, if there is an example in most cases there is a problem somewhere else limiting memory allocation.

I have been w/o pagefile since the first day we got Vista 64 running several years ago. To this day, not a single prob and I push my system trust me.

In the end, I know of no benefit to its enabling yet the detriment is additional writes to the ssd. In shutting it down, you get yourself almost 5GB of valuable SSD property back and more if you close down hiberfile.

 

Never ? That depends on usage. No matter how you prioritize thing, if your 'dirty' memory exceed the physical memory size, you would face OOM situation. For most people, it is very unlikely but try to run a few VM at the same time, you would see this.

Of course that situation can be mitigated by adding more RAM.

I have always said that given the current price of RAM, max out the RAM first before reaching out the page file as extended RAM but there are cases where page file is still needed, just very rare for modern notebooks(where 8GB is reachable and 8GB DDR3 is considered cheap).

edit:

except for the case mentioned by Judicator where program refuse to run without a 1.5GB page file, luckily I don't need to deal with such brain dead programs.

 

And that brings up another point... Pagefile, when enabled is always in use. The only way to truly force your system to use the ram u paid for is to shut it down. I cannot document a performance increase but its a logical statemen in consideration of ram speed even to ssd speed.

 

Yes, that is why I respone to the claim that Windows only used it when necessary and my observation and test said that it is not the case. Much better than XP but still doing unnecessary swap and why I shut it down on my HDD setup(which shows noticeable slow down).

But my work situation is a little bit different. It use only DDR2 RAM and is currently 2GBx2. I need to run 2 VM simultaneously recently for some projects which push the limit of that to beyond 4GB.

The choice on hand is either I get a 4GB stick which is about 150 or so or I just use page file on the SSD. Obviously the SSD is slower than RAM but given that this requirement is temperary and occasional(i.e. it is only needed for say < 5% of my anticipated usage time), it is ok for me to just use it as slower RAM as I don't care about the 'shortened' life.

 

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/J0v0Sp_DoZo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/J0v0Sp_DoZo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='1280' height="745"></embed></object>

 

It doesn't take anything away from the C400, but doing a side by side comparison with a 1.8" hdd is just sleezy.

 

The C400 is going to be released after the Corsair; the Corsair is expected in Feb and, as per specs, the Corsair is showing better numbers.

They both have the same controller. Personally, I think Micron/Crucial has the advantage having been the pioneer out with the SATA3.

 

X2 for that

Thing is they have better firmware experience for Marvell controller. hope they learn their lessons form first gen.

 

Why do I always do this!? i.e. Buy a product before finding a decent website describing it.. It's hard looking up old products! Although probably didn't find any because I just pasted MMDPE56G5DXP-0VBD1 into google, giving only results from dodgy sites because it omits any result with 0VBD1. There's quite a few 0VBD7's out there. It's definitely not a typo.

Anyway, I read the below article which claims this SSD is pretty good, but the article was written 2 years ago. At £250 it seemed a bargain not worth missing. However, I'd be interested to know what I'm missing out on compared to current SSDs??

Review: Samsung's 256GB SSD offers capacity, speed - Computerworld

 

spleach, the PM800 is a well performing SSD. It doesn't offer the high end performance of the current best SSDs but in reality it will be very hard to notice the difference. Look around on Ebay for best prices and deals.

Les, I deleted your post as it seemed to be aimed at promoting your website.

 

Anyone have any benches / comments on the Samsung MMDPE56G5DXP-0VBD1 like these being sold here at NBR:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/computer-components/547875-fs-trade-two-256gb-samsung-ssd.html

 

Understood and apologies.

 

Les, has done more than most to promote understanding ... he should be commended for his contributions

 

Amen to that! Hey Les!

 

Looking at the pic, it seems to have been manufactured in december 2009... And he says NEW...

For cross-reference, see those here...

Hmmmm.....

 

Thanks. They could still be new as in never used. But who knows. I just had visions of sugar plums dancing in my head. Thoughts of RAID in my new laptop. But I've already gone way over budget so I better just squash the idea.

 

NP.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying they do not worth it; however, I would feel a bit suspicious because of the date. And you're right, they could still be new; would simply wonder then why they haven't been used since over a full year...

I'll let you know if I sell my Intels... (J/K)

 

Ask for the firmware version to be sure they support TRIM. But maybe this doesn't matter as you want to to run them in RAID(0).
I had 2 PM800 128 GB in RAID0 with a PM45 chipset, CPU T9900.
Here are 2 screenshots showing the performance of this configuration.
I believe IRST was 10.0.0.1046, maybe with 10.1.0.1008 you can get better results.

 

Thanks for that detail. I was just looking for an affordable 500GB+ SSD solution. To be honest I'll be happy with my 80GB Intel + 750GB Momentus configuration for the time being. If/when some awesome tech drops pricing then I'll jump on a new SSD. But until then my tried and true Intel will have to do.

 

OVBD1's F/W are supposed to support the TRIM command which, as you say, is completely useless if he RAIDs them...

HOWEVER, if he unRAIDs them in 6 months or a year, he could then TRIM them if they DO indeed support the TRIM command, which he couldn't do if they don't support TRIM.

As far as I know, Samsung's SSDs do support the TRIM command in their OVBD1's F/W version and later.

eYe

 

I'm curious to see the cost of the Intel 300GB and 600GB. With a 17" notebook with dual drive bays opens opportunity for RAID to get more SSD storage at a (relative) affordable cost.