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

What are you doing (with the computer, of course)?

Not always the best suggestion; even stated by Microsoft themselves.

 

I sent my request to corsair for the beta updater and fw.

I'll post it if they give it to me

 

Source?

And what OS? Windows 2000?

 

I remeber OCZ stated that TRIM firmware has a lot of problem to deal with

 

See first paragraph here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482

Doesn't matter what O/S, an intelligent and well thought out strategy for pagefile.sys parameters beats MS's 'one size fits all' approach that they even state is lacking.

The very fact that these parameters are still, very adjustable, even in late 2009 just shows that MS is confident that most users will find that the defaults will provide as many users as possible with the least (major) issues.

This does not, though, ensure that performance is optimized for a specific case. Especially in systems with 4GB of RAM and higher, the 'simple' and least common denominator approach Windows ships with almost ensures that the 'default' or 'system managed settings' are wrong for those systems.

Well, 'wrong' is a strong word - let's just say 'not optimized', both in terms of space wasted on our storage subsystem and in performance - especially if/when we have a chance to point the pagefile to a seperate, faster physical HD.

 

your performance statement is a lie (except for the different-disk-option).

the only difference when adjusting the pagefile size on vista, win7, is the amount of reserved disk space.

 

davepermen,

And what, may I ask, tests have you conducted to reach this conclusion?

 

I already see one flaw - the suggestion for XP to move the pagefile to another partition in paragraph 1 is stupidity - because if its on another partition the HDD's head has to travel further to select between the pagefile and the system files it wants...
If its on another drive - logic dictates that should increase performance (as MS stated)

Also, the article refers to XP not Vista and Win7.

What's more - as far as I am aware the pagefile is managed dynamically and not statically.

 

I don't see that suggestion to move the pagefile to a different partition on the same drive?

As to your last statement, you just proved my point - that is where the performance increase comes from; by not having to dynamically change the pagefile while you're trying to do work.

XP, Vista Win 7 the pagefile algorithm has not changed - that's why it needs to be optimized for our specific use.

 

They speak about moving it to another partition without specifying that it must be another drive.

On a side note - the dynamic change in size shouldn't impact performance - its the actual process of using it - not changing the size - but then again, on a SSD you shouldn't be bothered any more.

And with respec to using the pagefile - a larger pagefile wouldn't help, and a smaller one can lead to too little space bein available causing an out of memory message because fiels can't be paged out.

 

Mostly web surfing and HD movies. No gaming

 

No, re-read it. That is not what is stated at all.

Even an SSD operates at finite speed. The dynamic change in size will impact performance so much that it will bring 4 Raptors to their knees - if you set it up to allow and see it 'dynamically' change itself. I know, I've done it.

For your last point, I'll agree that past a certain size, anything larger will not provide performance improvements, but the reverse is also true too.

When, for example, I use my system at the most intensive that I want/need and notice that the pagefile never went higher than 128MB, for me, anything higher is a waste of my notebook's limited resources. However, as a safety margin, I don't simply limit the pagefile to 128MB, I use 512MB and save almost 7.5GB of reclaimed HD space.

This is not only significant space savings, but it is also significant time savings too when I'm performing routine maintenance and the much smaller pagefile is optimized (by an offline defrag) many times quicker than an 8GB version is.

Performance to me is the total sum of the parts; not isolated (benchmark's) and unrealistic (theoretical) potential gains that not only have no hope of materializing on a working system, but actually hinder that goal of 'real' performance, overall.

 

tissot, maybe unbelievably, (after my last couple of posts ) I would not suggest for you to change your pagefile settings at all.

Why? Because even though this is how you are currently using your computer, you may in the near future use it in a completely different role and you will then need to reconsider your pagefile settings again - but before you can ask for and/or receive guidance, your computer may be unusable for the new tasks you might require of it.

What you may be interested in though is this following post that talks about partitioning for performance - it may be too in depth for your current needs, but if you have a big cup of coffee and a snack or two, you may find it worth your while to read through.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5617217#post5617217


Please don't be put off by my response, if you want to provide more information, I'll try to help as much as possible!

 

Just get 25% more memory than you will need.

Problem solved!

Seriously, I haven't fretted over a pagefile like this since Windows 2000.

 

sleey0,

Sorry, but that is simply not a viable solution.

How do you determine what '25% more than what you need' is?

There is no reason to 'fret' just a simple matter of knowing what it does and putting its dynamics to work for us, rather than against us.

 

People still mess with page files? I used to do that back in the late 90s when memory was limited.

 

Funny, this argument has been around since Win95, and probably before, I just cannot remember. Almost as much fun as the "to defrag or not to defrag" argument. I have the Intel G2 and have it set to 512MB. I have 4GB of RAM. Is that OK? I do dreamweaver, lite photoshop, surf, email. Thanks.

 

How do you know how much RAM you use?

Simple. Look at your system resources while using your favorite apps. Ctrl+Shift+Esc (taskmanager) will show you realtime usage of system resources.

So, when in doubt, buy more memory.

Maybe I'm different, but I have yet to tax 4GB of RAM, but I don't do any rendering, ps, etc. If I did, I would most likely just get 8GB and call it a day. If that isn't sufficient, then get a Precision M64/6500 and get 16GB.

If that isn't enough, build a datacenter or something

 

That's not perfect... and I don't think its actively includes the pagefile, that's shown separately.

 

If you aren't using all the RAM, then your pagefile is just chilling.

I really don't get this entire argument, but maybe I am just stupid (I doubt) and my IT degree was for nothing.

 

That 512MB size is sufficient for me with 8GB RAM, but you obviously don't push your computer as hard as I do, otherwise, Windows would have told you that 512MB is not enough, so you're good!

 

I dont think is enough , I have 4G memory. When I didnt use pagefile, and I did Adobe LightRoom for a long time, I got a warning saying there was not enough memory for me to do more process. So I think Dreamweaver will take more memory than LightRoom.

 

Tiller - please PM me your guide later tonight when I'm not so drunk and unready to read your thorough writing...I'm seriously interested in seeing what you conjured up.

As for the pagefile you guys are bringing up again...it's a waste. We've hashed it out a billion times already. Someone who actively (more than once by accident) exceeds his/her RAM would know how to set the pagefile altogether. For most workstation use, the 1.5X the total available memory is usually normal, and the 'one size fits all' happens to fit most people. How bad could it be to set aside 8GB of memory on your HDD? Set it near the center of the disk after a fresh install - closer to the middle near the spindle so the seek time is less. People have freaking 500GB HDD's today - I don't understand this making < 1 GB pagefiles. The pagefile is to keeping things as seamless as possible - not win a benchmark race. It's to save your butt.

What bothers me about this discussion in particular is I've actually gotten the error code for not having enough virtual memory before, and I think most people writing definitive tell-all articles about RAM probably have no idea what the error code even begins to look like.

*Edit: most of the time now, pagefile parameters are based on legacy software. Some programs are simply hardcoded to stick data on the pagefile rather than RAM. That's the main issue I have with people talking about small pagefiles - you can't tell a program from 2003 how to stay optimized - it'll do what it wants.

 

And there ya go.

Step it up to 8GB and you should see some very nice performance increases. I would rather spend money doing that than using a pagefile, IMO.

 

Yeah, Dreamweaver is a pig. Maybe I will try 2GB. I freed up a bunch of space on my SSD by deleting junk all last week. AMAZING what you can find by rooting around in folders/etc.

 

The issue is 'leave pagefile alone' vs. 'optimize it for your working conditions' has nothing to do about how much RAM we have. Actually, the more RAM, the more important it is to adjust and specify the pagefile settings; for an optimally configured system. Here, optimally is used to as putting the computers (always) limited resources to ' best' use.

sleey0,

Again, adding more RAM doesn't solve the problem of optimizing the pagefile to the system its used on, nor does turning the pagefile off solve anything in all situations.

When in doubt, I do more reading (not spend money).

 

You make ZERO sense, tiller.

The pagefile is related to system memory. I don't know how that doesn't sit with you, but the pagefile has become somewhat more obsolete with todays systems. Now, people who don't have a clue will probably still need it, hence why M$ has it set dynamically from the get go.

 

No, I don't think for a second that you are, but what is obvious to me, is that with obviously no experience in this matter, you are not even trying to understand what I'm saying either.

 

Ok.

I will just leave you at it, then. From your posts, it seems you have no idea what you are talking about,

 

I make sense to me.


By default, the pagefile is related to system memory in the sense of how much is allocated automatically. For most people. For the average user. For someone that doesn't push/stress the computer to its limits - ever, in any sense.

Windows O/S depends on the pagefile as insurance against crashing (hard).

Just because you have lots of RAM, this does not make the O/S's need of the pagefile obsolete - it just means you've wasted your money by underutilizing your computer.

So people who 'have a clue' will use it to its full potential, instead of second guessing what MS has hard coded into the O/S since Windows 1.0.

 

And... If anyone wants to continue the pagefile discussion, please do so here.

I was really diggin' the SSD thread before this

 

200MB, never got any errors, 4GB...heavy gaming, and crazy x264 video encoding.

meh,i guess im using cpu dependant apps anyways.

 

Once again, please do so in the linked thread above.

Thanks!

 

i don't need test. i'm a programmer. i learn how things work. then i see what makes sence, and what not. you don't, in this case. size of the page file ONLY affects how much virtual memory you have in case all your ram is full. if it's not dynamic, it could lead to crashes. but the amount of it will NOT affect performance EVER AT ALL except once you filled all your ram. and at this point, again, it won't matter how BIG it is. only if it's big enough to not produce crashes.

this is just common sence. use your brain.

and yes, this only started to be true with vista. xp was so bad at page files, disabling it helped gaining performance. with vista/win7, it really is only a fall back system.

and even on xp, it wasn't important how BIG it was. only enabling or disabling it changed something. and even this is not true anymore. except, having it on, and at dynamic size allows to never have crashes due to too less memory.

this is basic logic.

 

You may not need tests to convince yourself, but having done those tests on a live work system, I know what works vs. what you think should be happening.

Basic logic states that theoretical "should's" and "must be's" never surpass experience, which your response proves you don't have any of in this issue - programmer or not.

I'm not defending a position I dreamt up. I am quoting MS themselves on this matter, so you say you know more than MS's 34+ years of proprietary intellectual property?

If you can prove where I'm wrong (& MS too) with a test that I can run and analyze on my own systems, my hat is off to you.

 

i've done tests. but the rest is just basic logic.

yes i know more than microsoft. because i KNOW from microsoft, how it works. performance issues where only in xp detectable. you can read much detail about it from mark russinowich. the rest, you would learn, if you would learn how memory management with view from an app works. then you would learn that it's all very stupid and simple, and thus, not really something that has any form of magic in it.

similar to how ssds work. and all the rest. it's quite simple.

 

Interesting perspective (to view from how an app works), but no bearing to my experiments or my requirements.

I agree its not magic - just another parameter that can be tweaked by me, for worthwhile benefits. Not something that should be; 'don't touch', 'disabled' or any other excuse to avoid how to learn to use it to my advantage, where I can.

 

question is, how should it be possible to change performance. assuming same amount of ram, and enough pagefile to not crash an app, the app will just access that ram it got from the os, which happens to be on disk. it writes to it (pages in and out). the behaviour will be identical. the app doesn't know, and the os doesn't care about the size.

the only difference might be in apps that use, themselves, the pagefile, too (adobe photoshop f.e.). they might balance out how much they put in there on some other measurements. but then it's THEIRS fault. the os never cares.

if there is enough ram, give ram to the app. if not, page out least used region to disk, give the new-freed section to app.

that logic has NOWHERE any "care about file size" in it. and it can't. because it would not make sense. app needs ram, give it ram. if no ram there, crash.

that's all the logic there is.

 

Has anyone heard back from Corsair yet? I'm still waiting on a reply for that beta firmware.

 

no, but i love your avatar

 

Photoshop has a setting how much RAM it can use - even at 100% (in the setting) it leaves the same amount of RAM that the OS uses when idling.
Then Photoshop uses its own temp file anyway - so PS would not require a pagefile per se.

 

yeah, i don't know how photoshop does it exactly. i don't use that app myself. i just heard tons of random statements. and i know apps can request page-file-memory themselfes directly. i think it's when you call VirtualAlloc with MEM_RESERVE, that it gets in the pagefile first. and it's actually that (or another func) which results in a pagefile making a system possibly faster. but that's another topic (if there is no pagefile, system has to reserve the memory in real ram, so apps can eat up much more ram, bringing the system more quickly to it's limit.. so a pagefile can actually prevent a system from using much ram at all)

 

Not yet. Hope they have an improved flash utility because after trying for an hour last night on my desktop, still no go with the one from Mushkin.de - still getting the same damn errors as on the notebook. All my desktop PCs here have nVidia chipset motherboards so I'm probably SOL.

Latest manufactured Samsung drives apparently have firmware VBM241DQ. It would be nice if the new flash utility could backup the existing FW, in the hopes that someone with a new drive could make the VBM241DQ available since it is likely much further along than the VBM19* series. Anyone know what the difference between VBM19C1Q and VBM1901Q is ?

I've basically given up on Samsung ever releasing an adequate flash utility and current firmware to end users.... too many promises and deadlines come and gone and they seem to be in absolutely no hurry despite a lot of heat from drive owners and OEMs.

 

Jeez! Is this '1.5x memory' stuff still being spread about? Surely it makes no sense at all. Are you really saying that somebody with 512MB of RAM should set a pagefile of just 1.5GB, while somebody with 32GB of RAM needs a 48GB pagefile??????? Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

 

why setting it at all? it's a growing thing by default. if not needed, it never grows. if needed, it will, as .. uhm.. needed

 

Hey guys,

Thinking of buying this SSD for my laptop: http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=449781

Is it worth the price?

And are these the top quality SSD's? Or anything better than that?

Thanks.

 

The price looks OK if you dont use Bing cashback.
I got mine from CircuitCity, the original price is $470, and I used Bing 13.1% cashback, so the final price was $410

 

You got the same SSD for $470?

 

I mean 160G. sorry .hha

 

Is there anything better and faster than that, or is that good enough?