SSD Caching?

It appears that the QM67 chipset in the X220 should support Intel's SSD Caching. The requirements I think would be a mSATA SSD along with another drive (assuming a non-SSD). Then install Intel's RST 10.5. If anyone wants to try this you can see some details in Z68 chipset reviews like Anandtech's.

I am curious to know the results. There is supposed to be a 20 GB mSATA drive being released for this soon as well. The SATA model is out already.

 

Maybe my english is not excellent but I still believe that "for Desktop boards" means an opposite to "for notebooks", isn't it? I heard that many people already installed 10.5 but should it really work properly?

 

The Anandtech article says that the SATA controller has to be in RAID mode. Does the X220 support that? I'm disappointed because my soon-to-be-shipping W520 won't, since I didn't order it with two hard drives.

 

From the article "All of the work is done entirely in Intel's RST 10.5 software, which will be made available for all 6-series chipsets but Smart Response Technology is artificially bound to Z68 alone (and some mobile chipsets—HM67, QM67)."

The X220 uses the QM67 chipset as best as I can find on spec sheets.

 

Intel's official RST documentation states only the Z68 is allowed. However, all the reviews this past week stated the QM67 would also make the cut. I tried to enable SSD caching in my RAID-enabled W520 laptop which also has an Intel 310 80GB mSATA SSD. I couldn't do it. The reason is that BIOS version 1.22 is still using the old Intel Option ROM version 10.1.0.1008. This would need to be updated via a BIOS update to Option ROM version 10.5.0.1027 before we could do test SSD caching. I've opened a support ticket with Lenovo asking them when this update will be released. Once it is then I'll try again. Other W520 owners should try opening support tickets as well.

 

Yes.
Do you have a link for where to open a Lenovo support ticket?

 

Do note that so far, testing has shown that this is a great pre-configured solution for non-technical users --but that having a drive like the 80GB mSATA SSD as a boot drive (and then having a hard drive for data) is still considered faster. In that way, the technology is kind of like the Momentus XT hard drives --it's helpful for repetitive patterns, but not so much for random access.

It is also possible to really shorten the life of an MLC-flash based SSD with this technology, at least in Intel's Maximized (write-back) configuration. It's one of the reasons Intel's 20GB SATA drive designed for this uses SLC flash, which is more durable.

 

This link is for " Submit a Request." You'll need to make a free account with IBM and fill in your details. Some more details about this...

I figured this method would get around the Level 1 tech support people and get it into the hands of the people that actually make the decisions.

If you do open a ticket, then make sure to include the Intel Option ROM version numbers from my post above. They only allow a very small number of characters in the request box but that helps keep things short and to the point.

I'm hoping Lenovo gets this update out soon for the W520, T520, and all their Sandy Bridge laptops with mSATA slots. I'm pretty excited about Intel Smart Response Technology (SSD caching) since it opens the door for people buying the sub-$100 40GB Intel 310 mSATA drive as a cache in this set up to augment larger and cheaper spinning drives.

I agree with you completely. Ideally we'd run SSDs for everything but Intel has offered SSD caching as a nice intermediate step. I figured I'd test it out and report back just in case anyone else was interested.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out in the real-world. I say this because Intel's official reasoning for using SLC is the faster write times and they completely denied the reliability issue but I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle as you correctly noted.

 

I was considering the intel 310 series. Is the only advantage that the 80gb has over the 40gb that it has more room for storing programs? The os should easily fit on the 40gb..

Edit: I apologize for hijacking this thread. I mistakenly thought I was posting in the w520 owner's thread.

 

It's okay. FYI, the 80GB drive is faster than the 40GB, especially in write speeds. Also, you'll find the OS can take a lot of the 40GB.

I'm very glad I went with the 80GB drive. If I'd put a 40GB in, I'd need an 80GB in a couple of months in my case.

 

Okay, I just skimmed the articles by Anand and Tom. I'm still unclear about a few things. There's a 64GB limit to cache. Is this a software limit or a hardware limit?

In other words, can I use my X25-M 160GB drive and just set 64GB of it to be the cache?

Because if this is true, then this is going to be supremely awesome for notebooks. I think people already understand the 2nd level RAM or Momentus XT analogy. However, I think some people are unclear as to why this is a BFD versus just using an SSD boot drive.

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong. The cache will load up data from your HDD and leave it there until more important data comes along. So, if you use Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas, all those fat files from your HDD will end up in the 64GB cache without you having to do anything. They will pretty much stay there as long as you work on them day to day. Once a new project comes along, the computer will recognize that those files aren't being used and kick them out in favor of your newer project.

So, the limitation of an SSD boot drive is that it only makes OS files fast, but not large data files that reside on an HDD. In the caching scenario, every file in your system gets moved to higher status as long as it's getting used. So, even OS files that are rarely used would get kicked off the cache and get replaced with iTunes album art files. Ultimately, your SSD becomes more useful as an SSD.

Have I understood this?

 

If you have a 160GB SSD, caching is going to be useless for you. Caching is still slower than having a separate SSD and HDD with program files on the SSD and large data files on the HDD. This solution is aimed at users who have a 64GB or smaller SSD as SSDs above that don't gain any benefits from caching as they are large enough to accommodate a full OS and a large amount of programs.

Large data files have no need to be put on an SSD because they are rarely processed in parallel. For example, music and movies are read sequentially, as opposed to OS files, which are loaded rapidly in parallel. This is why OS loading is where HDDs are bottlenecks and where SSDs are king.

 

I know who the solution is aimed at. I don't believe you have answered my question. The question is whether I can get the benefits of caching while still retaining the benefits of having all the OS files on the SSD.

I use about 60GB for my OS data now. I could use 64GB for cache. That's 124GB total. I could use leave a little free space and use the rest for over provisioning.

 

Excuse me you want to create cache database on the same SSD OS you use at? Is this your joke or my misunderstanding?

 

Would this ever have a chance of being faster than just a full size SSD? Lenovo is promising less than 10 second startup with a T420s soon, and that uses a SSD (and maybe, another mSATA SSD set up for a RAID / SSD caching?)

"Mid May" is when I'm waiting to pull the trigger, I just want to see what this newfangled RapidBoot Extreme is.

 

You have understood correctly and no, I'm not joking. While I was away, I read something about Z68 making the SSD + HDD into one drive letter seen by Windows, so what I suggested is probably not possible.

This is unfortunate because what I want to do has some big potential advantages. People who work with large video files can get a cache advantage while leaving all OS files on the SSD.

 

Yeah, most of the boot time seems actually to be the posting time for the bios. Once I see the Windows Starting logo, I get to the desktop really fast. And even if things aren't completely done loading, I can still click on stuff and it'll run contemporaneously. We need a really fast posting option.

 

Anandtech's article suggested you could use separate partitions on the SSD, eg. one for cache, one for boot disk.

 

With caching, the OS is installed to the HDD and then OS files and data files cached to the SSD over time as usage pattern appear. You can't cache the HDD onto an SSD cache partition without system files on it. I don't think that this technology works the way that you believe it does. Only two partitions/drives are involved with the operation: the SSD cache partition and the HDD. I don't know how your idea would work.

 

I just had to read the article more carefully.

"With Intel's RST 10.5 drivers and a spare SSD installed (from any manufacturer) you can choose to use up to 64GB of the SSD as a cache for all accesses to the hard drive. Any space above 64GB is left untouched for you to use as a separate drive letter."

This system is stupid and unfortunate and serves nobody with a drive higher than 64GB.

I want to install the OS just straight onto my SSD in a 60GB partition. Once inside the OS, I want to create a 64GB partition to be the cache for my 3TB HDD. Therefore, the 64GB cache partition wouldn't have any OS files in it at all. It would just be caching my "non-OS" data files. This is helpful for browsing iTunes in album thumbnail art mode on a 1920x1200 screen, or calling up any Adobe programs like Photoshop and Premiere.

But it looks like this isn't possible and really serves no purpose aside from this year and maybe half of next year while SSDs are still pricey. After that, SSDs will be cheap enough for this to not even matter. Snooze.

 

So... You want to do exactly what it does and you're calling it stupid?

 

No. Looks like you need to read it carefully, too. Try the actual article instead of my quote.

 

I did. As far as I can tell the only difference between what you say you want and what it does is what order you set things up in.

 

Okay, to get caching to work, you have to set it in RAID. You choose how much of your SSD to allocate as cache. As you're installing Win 7, it'll lump your designated cache and your HDD as ONE DRIVE. Your OS will be installed on that drive (SSD cache + HDD).

I don't want my OS installed on that. I want my OS installed OUTSIDE of the cache partition. I want to use the cache partition for strictly caching my 3TB data drive.

I can't explain it better than that.

Now, if you already understood that, then you might be thinking that I could just put the Win 7 OS on the SSD + HDD combo and then put all my other apps on the separate partition. That would leave a huge portion of the cache open to all sorts of data. Great. Except I don't want my OS and apps on different drive letters. Ultimately, not the same as what I want even if it might be the same "performance" wise as what I want.

 

I will try to be short.
If you set RAID on SSD + HDD it will decrease performance, not increase.
What you want (to use cache partition for caching HDD) may be impossible if OS will not be on HDD. But I am not sure.

What I can say is that SSD caching is good function for cheap 8 or max 16GB SSDs. But unfortunately there is no cheap one. I was thinking to buy Little size Expresscard SSD for caching my HDD but comparing it's price I better just buy best 2.5" 60GB SSD and 2nd HDD caddy. Until stupid producers/manufacturers will understand that it is better to sell little caching 16GB SSDs for 30-35 backs they will never sell enough them because price 80$ is too high for little performance+size

 

Note: After doing a little reading, it appears Intel is making the 311 SSD (the 20GB SLC model designed for SRT caching technology) available in mSATA format.

This probably doesn't give an enthusiast much of a leg up compared to an 80GB mSATA SSD for boot, but for Dell and Lenovo, it means they could potentially ship a configuration with the Intel 311 already built in and configured in tandem with a standard hard drive, for people who want more speed, but only want to see one drive letter in their system, and who want more capacity than SSDs currently offer.

 

You are correct. It already does exactly what he wants.

 

Is this function possible for Lenovo laptops that didn't come configured with RAID? I need to buy an SSD and could hold off if the Intel 311 mSata might work in my non-RAID W520.

 

It's not specific to Lenovo. It's for z68 Intel mobos and their laptop relatives.

 

No. From the article:

"With the Z68 SATA controllers set to RAID (SRT won't work in AHCI or IDE modes) just install Windows 7 on your hard drive like you normally would. With Intel's RST 10.5 drivers and a spare SSD installed (from any manufacturer) you can choose to use up to 64GB of the SSD as a cache for all accesses to the hard drive. Any space above 64GB is left untouched for you to use as a separate drive letter."

In a real life example, say you're using a 120GB Vertex drive and a 1TB Seagate HDD. You set 64GB (max) for cache. That 64GB partition becomes the cache for the 1TB Seagate. They become one drive letter (C:\). All of your Win 7 files go on C:\ and your 64GB cache will manage/contain your Win 7 and your other program files. Your unused SSD data is 56GB. That can become a new drive letter (D:\).

It does not do what I want it to do. Unless you are saying that I can install Win7 onto the 56GB partition first and then set the 64GB + 1 TB HDD separately?

If this is possible, Anand didn't mention it. If someone else has mentioned it, please link.

 

You forgot to add:...and lifetime of ssd start reduce. Because of refilling that cache very oftenly you should not think that you can you seanother 65/56 GB as separate drive. Why? Because you will need it to be empty for prolonging SSD's lifetime at least somehow. As for me it is stupid (no offense) to use 128 GB SSD for cache. You are afraid that little files from HDD will slow access to them? What do you think? That people all time before SSD released used hard drives which are as slow as floppy drive? No. They, including me, used 1 Hard drive and for a system and for a music while your HDD will be used only for reading as data storage because OS is on another drive. If you are so afraid you better buy 7200rpm HDD for quicker response but do not spoil SSD.
And I unsubscribe. I guess all I could learn from here I already did.

 

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. W520 machines ordered without RAID support cannot have RAID enabled by the user. Is SRT caching reliant on this RAID configuration being chosen, or is it independant of that, and therefore feasible on any machine with the correct intel chipset?

 

SRT caching, according to current documentation, requires RAID to be chosen; legacy or AHCI(non-RAID) will not work.

As this is a fairly new development it is likely that BIOS options will be updated to allow it in the future, though I cannot predict when. In the meantime, if you wanted to implement this, you'd probably need to order your W520 with RAID enabled.

P.S. From your questions, I'd guess you're a more technical user. Savvy users are better off buying an 80GB Intel mSATA SSD, installing it themselves, and using it as a boot drive, which is faster than SSD caching. Then you can use a standard mechanical hard drive as a D: drive for storage. It's probably the most performance-enhancing choice I made when setting up my T420, and RAID isn't required.

The only time I'd use Intel SRT myself is if I got a desktop Z68 board; I already have a WD Velociraptor 600GB for a boot drive, so Intel's 20GB SLC drive for SRT would compliment it well. I can't justify it though; my older Q9650 (with Gigabyte P45 chipset board) does everything I need.