New to SSDs? Read this first before asking questions! (UPDATED 07/17/2011)

[taltamir]

Hello! I'm looking into purchasing an SSD for the first time but I know very little about what SSD caching really means. Is it just keeping extra storage aside to speed up programs? All I know is that I need a Z68 board to support it. Do I just install the SSD like any regular HDD and later on I'll get prompted about this? Is the storage for SSD caching outside of the space for the OS? When I do end up getting an SSD, I will most likely also get a separate HDD with relatively big space, is it recommended to install all my games, programs, etc. on this HDD? Thanks guys!

SSD caching is a fairly worthless gimmick that is worse then using the SSD as a drive.

Which SSD you should buy? read the first post in this thread and it links to the answer.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=29731854

 

[timoseewho]

Hehe alright thanks!

 

[doylecc]

Something else I noticed is in CrystalDiskInfo, under the function menu, there is an option called "wait time at startup." It is currently set to 30 seconds. What is this and what should it be set to?

Perhaps this is the delay to allow the HDDs to spin up to speed?
If you are just using an SSD, set this to 1 sec. If you are using HDDs also, and you have problems booting properly, trying increasing the value to 5 sec, then 10 sec, 15 sec, etc. until you can boot without problems. This value should be as low as can be without problems because it is a preset wait that delays in your boot sequence.

 

[doylecc]

"Why doesn't SSD's speed up boot time? They are faster than HDD's so why shouldn't they speed up boot time? I don't understand that one."

Boot time consists of two parts--POST and OS Loading.
Part 1: POST (Power-On, Self-Test) is where the computer powers up and tests its parts to make sure everything is working properly. POST runs from non-volatile memory on the motherboard and does not need to access the HDDs (except to see what is connected) so drive speed does not affect POST speed.
Part 2: Load the operating system (Windows, for most of us). After POSTing, the computer loads the core of the OS (operating system) from the boot drive (selected in the BIOS) into memory, then runs it. If additional parts of the OS are needed (e.g. drivers, utility programs, DLLs, etc.), then they are loaded from the drive when needed. A faster boot drive, whether SSD or fast HDD, will speed up the OS loading. This is where your boot time is shortened. You should see some speed up in Windows loading when using an SSD as the boot drive.

To further speed up your boot time, check which programs start running automatically when you boot. Disable "Run at Startup" for all programs you don't need to run immediately and you can considerably shorten your boot time.

 

[Diogenes2]

SSD caching is a fairly worthless gimmick that is worse then using the SSD as a drive.

Which SSD you should buy? read the first post in this thread and it links to the answer.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=29731854

While I agree caching an SSD would be self defeating, where are you getting that it is a worthless gimmick when used with a spindle drive ?

I just set up SSD caching with SATA 3 drive, and the performance is considerably better than a stand alone SATA 2 SSD I was using..

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2193447

The read performance, where it really counts the most, was virtually the same in the cached array as it was with the stand alone drive..

There is a lot to be saved and performance to be gained by getting a small SSD and using it for caching with Z68 ..

 

[taltamir]

While I agree caching an SSD would be self defeating, where are you getting that it is a worthless gimmick when used with a spindle drive ?

Nobody ever talked about caching an SSD. Using an SSD to cache a spindle HDD is a worthless gimmick.

I just set up SSD caching with SATA 3 drive, and the performance is considerably better than a stand alone SATA 2 SSD I was using..

And if you used your new SATA 3 SSD by itself then it would perform even better then it is now as a cache device for a spindle HDD.

SSD by itself and HDD by itself = Good
SSD used a cache for an HDD = Bad

 

[Diogenes2]

And if you used your new SATA 3 SSD by itself then it would perform even better then it is now as a cache device for a spindle HDD.

Not much better, and I would only have 64gb of storage vs 1.5tb..

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obviously not substantiated by any factual evidence.

Have you actually done any testing yourself?

 

[taltamir]

Not much better,

So you admit it degrades performance!

and I would only have 64gb of storage vs 1.5tb..

This is false. You would have a 64GB +1.5tb of space split across two logical drives. Neither the HDD nor the SSD magically poofs away if you don't use an SSD to cache it.
My argument is that it is better to have the SSD and HDD as seperate entities rather then to set the SSD as a cache device to the HDD.

Now that you set it up as a cache you have only 1.5tb, losing out on 64gb that the SSD would have provided. You also have lower performance (which you admit to) than the SSD would have given you alone. And the cached HDD only has improved performance on cached data, that is, a max of 40GB (due to software limitation) it decrees as most accessed.
The HDD is NOT faster across the board due to SSD caching, it is only faster on reading cached data.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obviously not substantiated by any factual evidence.

Except my claims are correct and based on the scientific understanding of how the technology works, the independent performance testings by myriad reviewers, and flawless logic. While you just stated your opinion

And "you are entitled to your own opinion"? This isn't a religious debate its a discussion about technology.

Have you actually done any testing yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also very irrelevant. One does not need to personally collect data in order to analyze said data.

I have read all the reviews and have analyzed their data.
I have the technical knowledge on exactly how it works.
I made the logical conclusions based on said knowledge.
The test data done by professional reviewers proves my conclusions to be correct.

Finally, you only pointed out at one factual (data claim) that I made and then admitted it to be true. You admit to performance on an SSD caching an HDD to be lower than an HDD by itself.
So the real argument (rather then one you are trying to divert us into) is whether or not this is a worthwhile configuration or a gimmick you shouldn't use. As we do not have disagreement on any actual DATA (read: facts) our only disagreement has been on the logic. Thus far my logic was flawless, as the only counter arguments you had for it were ad hominem attack and the claim that if you didn't set up caching your HDD will poof into thin air

 

[Diogenes2]

Wow! You could have saved Intel and Marvell millions if not billions of $$, if they would have just come to you first ...


I guess you missed this professional review..

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storag...hing-Z68-Tested/Conclusion-Pricing-and-Final-

So there we have it. Take a Z68, a HDD, and a small / cheap SSD. Roll them all together with some switches flipped in the RST GUI, and you have a system with the OS installed on a large HDD that can dish out performance surprisingly close to that of a system installed directly to Solid State.

I'm sure there are others..

 

[taltamir]

So there we have it. Take a Z68, a HDD, and a small / cheap SSD. Roll them all together with some switches flipped in the RST GUI, and you have a system with the OS installed on a large HDD that can dish out performance surprisingly close to that of a system installed directly to Solid State.

I saw their review

They explicitly state that the cached system has lower performance.

The only benefit to SSD caching is for people who are so computer ignorant that they will be unable to cope with a system which shows both a C and a D drive. and that HAS been stated in several reviews. And even then I would argue its quite a niche due to the fact that it is much more difficult to set up such a configuration. And as such something that a user that ignorant will not even bother with in the first place.

My airtight logic is still supported by the data from that pcper review and you have still to actually make any counter arguments. Your arguments thus far were (in order, #4 from your latest post):
1. SSD caching is indeed slower than SSD and HDD separate, but not by much. (thanks for admitting it)
2. not using SSD caching causes your HDD to poof away magically. (blatantly wrong)
3. Ad hominem questioning my ability to draw conclusions from data I did not collect
4. Quoting out of context a line from a review where the reviewer states that SSD caching is "Suprisingly Close" to a system installed on an SSD (which supports my argument of why you shouldn't use it).

 

[Diogenes2]

...And your argument so far:

1.Using an SSD to cache a spindle HDD is a worthless gimmick.

Just an opinion, with no facts to back it up..

...
1. SSD caching is indeed slower than SSD and HDD separate, but not by much. (thanks for admitting it)

I have never claimed that it is not slower.

Do you know what a " Straw Man " argument is ?

2. not using SSD caching causes your HDD to poof away magically. (blatantly wrong)

See the reply to number one ..

3. Ad hominem questioning my ability to draw conclusions from data I did not collect

You haven't provided any evidence that your conclusions are correct.

4. Quoting out of context a line from a review where the reviewer states that SSD caching is "Suprisingly Close" to a system installed on an SSD (which supports my argument of why you shouldn't use it).

I quoted the relevant conclusion..

The definition of "Suprisingly Close " is not " worthless gimmick "..

Other people are free to read the review for themselves and decide if they want to save some money while still enjoying performance that is Surprisingly Close " to a stand alone SSD ..

They might want to read this review also..

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


Relevant quote:

"If you're building a system for someone who isn't going to want to manage multiple drive letters, SRT may be a good alternative. Similarly, if you're building a budget box that won't allow for a large expensive SSD, the $110 adder for an Intel SSD 311 can easily double the performance of even the fastest hard drive you could put in there."

Of course, there are bigger drives that are cheaper and offer even better ( caching ) performance than the 311..

 

[Zap]

Hey guys, feel free to create a separate thread discussing the merits (or not) of SSD caching.

 

[videopho]

I do know one fact...prior to SSD caching, my FSx game used to take 2-3min for loading texture data .
It now takes from between 20-30sec.
Any other games it now is either a blink of an eye or just a matter of few seconds.
So do not kid yourself this is a gimmick.

 

[taltamir]

Hey guys, feel free to create a separate thread discussing the merits (or not) of SSD caching.

I honestly think this belongs here, but at your request I am forking this to its own thread.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Which SSD do I buy? It seems to me there are only 3 realistic options at the moment: Samsung 830, Crucial M4 and Intel 510. Intel seems to be the fastest for the most part but costs $200 more. Is it a completely safe buy now that they fixed the 8mb bug? The M4 seems like it is overall a *slightly* better performer than the 830? Do you think the 830 might improve in performance with firmware revisions? Did Samsung release any significant revisions for the 470? Do the m4 and 510 employ real time or delayed garbage collection?

 

[Zap]

I'm not aware of any Samsung 470 revisions.

The Samsung 830 is not yet available AFAIK.

The Intel 510 and Crucial m4 use the same Marvell controller (with slight firmware variations). They both have somewhat delayed GC, as well as similar performance characteristics.

The "8MB bug" was on the Intel 320 drives.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

Which SSD do I buy? It seems to me there are only 3 realistic options at the moment: Samsung 830, Crucial M4 and Intel 510. Intel seems to be the fastest for the most part but costs $200 more. Is it a completely safe buy now that they fixed the 8mb bug? The M4 seems like it is overall a *slightly* better performer than the 830? Do you think the 830 might improve in performance with firmware revisions? Did Samsung release any significant revisions for the 470? Do the m4 and 510 employ real time or delayed garbage collection?

garbage collection on M4 at least seems fantastic see this thread. They spent 8 hours hammering the drive trying to slow it down, but after just waiting a little while, it recovered nearly all its speed without TRIM. Pretty decent since normal usage patterns will likely put a few hours of use and some off time in between along with the added benefit of TRIM.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Shit, revisions wasn't the right word. Significant firmware updates for the 470.

So the 510 is faster than the m4, except in random writes, where it completely shits the bed. Is that alone enough reason to skip it and get the m4 for gaming and average desktop use? Where does the 320 fit into all this. I looked at the storage bench and it seemed like it was much slower than these three drives. I realize the 830 isn't out yet, but I'm just assuming it will cost the same as the m4 and will wait the few weeks if it makes the most sense to buy that drive.

 

[taltamir]

They both have somewhat delayed GC

Correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC:
1. GC only matters if you don't use TRIM.
2. Anand stance is that delayed GC is worse overall (taking into account that both have drawbacks and benefits) than immediate GC.

 

[Zap]

AFAIK you are not wrong.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

So is a 15% boost across the board worth taking a 80% drop in random write performance? How good are these drives about keeping themselves "tidy" so they focus on sequential writing?

And again the SS 470, did your statement also mean the drive had no significant firmware updates (that perhaps boosted performance)?

 

[Zap]

Under normal desktop usage conditions (whatever that is) none of the current drives should have any performance drop serious enough that you will notice by the "seat of your pants."

AFAIK Samsung drives seem pretty firmware-mature when they ship, so there are few/no firmware updates, whether for performance or bug fixes. IMO this is how all hardware and software SHOULD be released. Stuff shouldn't be released with bugs, right? Well, regarding performance gains, shouldn't stuff be released already at the highest performance it can do?

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I agree, but considering that has been the exception, rather than the rule, for SSDs I have to ask anyway.

 

[boozie]

I have a few questions:

What exactly is the reason to turn off hibernation for desktops? Is it wear and tear or does it actually create a file that takes up a lot of storage?

Can the system restore data be moved to your HDD at all?

I have the Intel 320, is there something I should be doing or should have done to fix the firmware? Now that I already have everything installed, is it even possible to update without formatting?

 

[taltamir]

What exactly is the reason to turn off hibernation for desktops? Is it wear and tear or does it actually create a file that takes up a lot of storage?

It makes a file of a size identical to the amount of RAM you have. It uses that file to store the current contents of your RAM when you go into hibernation, then turn off the computer. Next time you turn it on it will load that back into RAM instead of booting windows.