SSD Caching (Intel SRT) on the OS drive?

[makken]

Hi everyone. I plan to pick up a new SSD over Thanksgiving, but I'm having trouble sizing it, and the availability of SSD caching is complicating matters.

Here's my current setup:
128gb SSD boot drive (Samsung 830)
1TB programs and games drive (Samsung F1)
1TB user data and media drive (WD blue)
750GB file history drive (some old Seagate)

I plan to replace the boot drive with a new SSD and move the 128gb to a laptop.
My original plan was to get a 512GB drive that would hold my commonly used programs and games along with the OS; however, my commonly used games changes every few months and I'm not too keen to continually managing that.

So, since I have a Z77 board, my other option is to get a 256gb drive, and keep all programs and games on the 1tb, and partition off 64GB of that drive to act as cache for it. This seems like the more elegant solution to me: I won't have to manage what I use most, and it'll be a cheaper option (allowing me to dedicate more money to upgrading something else).

So has anyone tried this setup before? If so, what was your experience with the caching? My main concern would be whether there would be any issues with having both the OS and the cache on the same drive?

Thanks

 

[Elixer]

IMO, not really worth it.
Caching only helps in specific circumstances, and in your case, it wouldn't really be of much help.

Would be better to just get the biggest SSD you can afford, and use that for some games that need fast loading or is constantly streaming data.
To manage the games, it is pretty simple tell steam/origin to install it to where you want it. You can also move that folder to one of the HDs if you want, then just point steam/origin to the new location, and it will work.

 

[Dasa2]

im using a 64g cache on a 3tb toshiba its my boot drive and games drive
when the cache is disabled i take twice as long as my friends to load coh2 but when its enabled i load at about the same time often beating the friend with the sandisk 480g and equalling the samsung evo 500g

boot times and app loads are also much quicker

i am using primocache software though which may perform better than srt
down side is if the system crashes for any reason like being unstable the cache is wiped blank and your back to first load being slow for everything
the old ocz synapse drives came with dataplex software that was able to keep the data but it doesn't support gpt for drives over 2tb and only windows 7

 

[makken]

IMO, not really worth it.
Caching only helps in specific circumstances, and in your case, it wouldn't really be of much help.

Would be better to just get the biggest SSD you can afford, and use that for some games that need fast loading or is constantly streaming data.
To manage the games, it is pretty simple tell steam/origin to install it to where you want it. You can also move that folder to one of the HDs if you want, then just point steam/origin to the new location, and it will work.

hmm I'm interested to know why you think it wouldn't be really be of much help in my case. Based on Anandtech's review of SRT (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4), I thought my case would be the perfect use of SSD Caching; could you explain why it wouldn't be?

Thanks

 

[JimmiG]

For several years, I used a 64 GB OCZ Cache drive together with a 640 GB WD mechanical drive as my main OS+applications drive. It actually worked great and "felt" like a 640 GB SSD most of the time. Boot time and application launch times were incredible. I recently upgraded to a dedicated 500GB Evo 850, and while the drive is noticably faster, it's not a night and day difference compared to HDD+SSD cache.

I'm not sure how the Intel caching compares, but SSD caching is definitely viable as long as the algorithms are smart enough. I'm surprised it didn't catch on more, especially in the past when SSD's were very expensive per GB. However now I feel that a 500 GB SSD is big enough to fit all your frequently used apps+games without too much manual maintenance and shuffling of data.

 

[Elixer]

hmm I'm interested to know why you think it wouldn't be really be of much help in my case. Based on Anandtech's review of SRT (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4), I thought my case would be the perfect use of SSD Caching; could you explain why it wouldn't be?

Thanks

Thought I did?

Caching only helps in specific circumstances.

This means that in order for the cache to be effective is when you re-read *repeated* stuff.
So, on initial run, you will see 0 gain. On the 2nd run (and...), you may see some gain (it depends on the game and how the data is stored).
You said you swap out games, so, each new install would see 0 gain...if another game uses all the cache, then your other stuff will see 0 gain again, as the cache needs to fill up yet again... rinse & repeat.
That is why I said it can only help in specific circumstances.
This specific implementation might also do read-aheads, and that would be better, but, I don't recall.

 

[makken]

Thought I did?

This means that in order for the cache to be effective is when you re-read *repeated* stuff.
So, on initial run, you will see 0 gain. On the 2nd run (and...), you may see some gain (it depends on the game and how the data is stored).
You said you swap out games, so, each new install would see 0 gain...if another game uses all the cache, then your other stuff will see 0 gain again, as the cache needs to fill up yet again... rinse & repeat.
That is why I said it can only help in specific circumstances.
This specific implementation might also do read-aheads, and that would be better, but, I don't recall.

Right, i swap out games every few months, but i'm not immediately swapping it after one play through. Based on Anand's test, by the third run, the load times are pretty much in line with the SSD (i would be playing that game a lot more than 3 times during those few months). and after those few months, I want that game evicted from the cache anyways when I stop playing it.

I guess the question is whether i play enough variety to evict the cache over normal use. My gut tells me no (currently my 3 games that i'm playing are GW2, BF3, and SC2) atm.

 

[Elixer]

Guess, it boils down to, just how many games we talking about, and how big those games are?
If you have ~6 games, and they each need 20GB of space, that would mean you need 120GB of storage.
If you buy a 512GB SSD, have a dedicated OS partition of 256GB, leave the rest for games, or, use 200GB for games, and the rest for a cache it would be better than just buying a 256GB SSD, use 200GB for OS, and rest for cache.

 

[Dasa2]

in my experience the cache software is only putting a few gig onto the ssd cache from a large game install its fairly efficient in its file selection and operates a bit like raid0 with the hdd which loads large continuous files fairly well its the smaller files that really bog down a hdd