|
Post by Lynnrose on Jan 26, 2013 11:50:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 26, 2013 13:58:53 GMT
I have a 500 GB SSD in my 17" laptop and a 250 GB SSD in my 10" mini netbook. They do work very fast, but I'm not convinced that they go 4 times as fast. Its not a cheap option, a 500 GB SSD is almost 3 times the price of a 2 TB 2.5" HDD and a 250 GB SSD is almost twice the price. The beauty of them in laptops, they don't produce much heat and just get a little bit warm. My laptop is running an i7 quad with 16 GB RAM and it can get quite hot with a high speed HDD. Putting the SSD in, has cut the heat right down. That has done more good than the difference in performance. It made quite a bit of difference in the performance of the dual core 2 GB RAM mini, so it also depends on what your running. The more you got on the top end; needs less help from the bottom and a low end top, needs all the help it can get. As a heat solution its a 100% winner and can go a long way in preserving the rest of the hardware.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 27, 2013 15:17:20 GMT
I just read an article about drives and it made a valid point about using an SSD instead of a HDD. Many laptop users travel and use their laptops on the train, or on their knee while driving their sports car at 90 mph down country lanes. The point being the laptop isn't stationary on a level surface. Due to the gyroscopic motion of the spinning disk and the closeness of the pickup to it, even small movements can cause damage over a period of time. A solid state drive has no moving parts and movement wont damage it. You can use in on your knee while stunting your airplane and it wont do it any harm, unless you run out of air space. Frequent travelers who use their laptops en route, could save money in the long run by fitting a SSD.
|
|
|
Post by Lynnrose on Jan 27, 2013 16:53:09 GMT
Thanks for info KC
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 27, 2013 20:28:03 GMT
Your welcome Lynnrose.
I think people look for a bargain, without considering the long term. Not surprising really as 80% of them don't understand the mechanics of what they are buying anyway. We still live in the dark ages when it comes to computers, even if most people have got one. It might only be their mobile that gets kicked from one end of the house to the other, but there isn't any mechanical parts in a mobile phone. They probably realise there's a motor driving the optical drive in a computer, but the rest is just a bunch of electronics in a box. The day will come sooner rather than later, when a computer becomes totally electronic. Then people will learn about mechanical hard drives, when they are explained on the History Channel. I sometimes feel like an archaeologist, who is digging up bodies before they are dead.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybee on Jan 27, 2013 21:14:31 GMT
I know how you feel, Ken; it was a long time before I got round to taking an IDE hard drive apart to find out how it worked, and the various bits inside the case. The wonder to me is that they're as light as they are, with all that gubbins crammed inside; there needs to be a solid base to mount the motor and platter spindle, so from that angle you can't get them any lighter. SSD's don't need that sort of support as there's no moving bits hence there's no intertia loadings, very little heat and much less metal is needed to enable a secure mounting. One good thing about IDE drives - the rare earth magnets they use for the swingarm mounts make great maggy paper/screw retainers!
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 27, 2013 21:35:10 GMT
I find it incredible they can move as fast as they can John, a SSD make more sense to me. Electricty is the fastest thing we have on earth except for diarrhea and in comparison a mechanical device is nothing. Yet a HDD can put up a very good show against a SSD.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybee on Jan 29, 2013 2:00:35 GMT
Likewise, Ken - how something that functions in a similar way to a '60's Dansette record player can access and write such vast quantities of data so quickly is a wonder in itself. I think it's because of its success that the later USB system took so long to catch on, even though USB (being essentially how the file allocation system works on SATA) was around well before the W95 days. Suddenly SATA drives were available with the vast improvement in read/write latency, and later still - only a few short years - we got SATA2 which effectively doubled the data transfer rate of the old gyroscope. In the meantime of course, USB had also made big strides forward; suddenly peripherals manufacturers had cottoned onto the fact that a "universal" termination could overcome the drawbacks of all sorts of odd-looking (and sometimes very troublesome) connectors that sometimes worked, but most times didn't. USB transfer speeds doubled, and with the fairly recent advent of USB3 has redoubled it; however the main beauty of such a system is that the termination hasn't changed - it's essentially the same as USB1, which means that most USB peripherals are backwards-compatible. This is how SSD's first came about, Ken; you may remember that I had the idea of using banks of USB-based memory sticks as a form of hard drive, and that's going back to 2002 when I first signed up to CIT. SSD's are basically anextension of that idea, but as is the norm these days, much miniaturised by laying chip-over-chip, commoning off the + and - inputs and serialising the data connections in banks of 512Mb. By cascading the buses from the banks down to four, any part of the memory can be accessed from either of the two sets of termini, very quickly indeed. So far so good, 'owevva, looking at the current setup it seems to me that unless they can increase the 'unit memory' per chip significantly OR increase the size of the drive by a good 30%, the max capacity is gonna be limited. Frankly I'm surprised that you have a 500Gb unit, Ken - the theoretical limit is 410Gb for a 2.5" enclosure; again, we all said that we'd never see terabyte hard drives, but we're using 'em now, ain't we? Bottom line here is that I can see a way to use a parallel/serial hybrid data management system - using a similar terminal arrangement - that would use unallocated space on the drive as a sort of swapfile, and move data around WITHIN THE DRIVE to clear the path for entire blocks of data to be accessed or written a lot quicker than it can be done now. A bit like the prefetch idea, but a lot more basic in operation. This might well come in the next few years, but I have a funny feeling that someone, somewhere is going to come up with a novel idea that will change the way we do things - when, I don't know , but it will come.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 29, 2013 4:44:32 GMT
After deducting the 100 Mb that Windows 7 uses for reasons known only unto itself John and formatting, my C:/ is 476 GB. Even with Windows 7 Pro, MS Office and all the rest of my programs, I still have 421 GB free. A wee bit more than the theoretical limit of 410Gb for a 2.5".
My camera has is using A 64 GB SDXC card; they could be made to hold up to 1 TB, but I think you would have to be a millionaire to be able to afford one if they did. The technology is already in place though and its only a matter of time. They are already making a desktop that will fit in the palm of your hand, for under 400 quid. I dont think I am quite ready for one of those just yet.
RAID arrays are very popular now in servers, to safeguard against data loss. RAID is prehistoric going right back to SCSI drives. SCSI was developed in 1978 and on the market in 1981. You could string 15 SCSI drives together, admitted 15 SCSI drives didn't amount to much by todays standards. Its only since SATA, that RAID arrays seem have become popular. My baby server is running has 2 x 1 TB as RAID1. At the moment my bigger server has odd drives in it. When I get round to buying a set of 4 x 3 TB drives, I will set it up as RAID10. Maybe it was the fact that some of the first boards to have SATA connection recognised the drives as SCSI and it put an old idea into peoples heads again. It seems to be true that nothing is new, they are just reinventing old ideas.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 19, 2014 12:44:09 GMT
I also have bought a couple of SSDs. I have found they are very fast, as most have and have to say, I am satisfied. But, in connection with a few other points, in the last couple of days, I've been coming across numerous articles that say the actual life of SSDs is limited, though by how much I can't yet discover. Also, all SSDs are not, it seems equal. I have one from Scandisk and the second from Crucial. The Scandisk drive came with some optimisation tools. Now one of the most important, apparently, is a tool called TRIM. From what I can gather, The only Windows support for TRIM is Windows 7 and higher. I cannot say with Linux. Apparently, it generally has to be built into the OS, not added later as a tool, which was a mistake I made with Scandisk. Now Intel does appear to offer a TRIM emulator of sorts, but I cannot find any reference to it working with non Intel drives. downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=18455This would seem to suggest that, if you don't have TRIM or not sure, then Intel is the option to go for. (Unlike my two SSD drives!! ) Next comes Formatting. It seems that SSDs are rather fussy with formatting. Sadly, the information I am finding, while it all point to the same conclusion, is clearly being written by people who know less than I do, as indicated by their use of Gibberish. The explanation in this place seems to be somewhat clearer, though I can't recommend following his suggestions, simply because I don't know how good his download is. I won't be, if that's worth anything. www.prime-expert.com/articles/a04/speeding-up-ssd-based-netbooks-and-adding-filesystem-integrity-with-ewftool.phpI have found a number of places suggesting using FAT. But equally, many simply suggest: Align your partitions so that they start and end at 4k disk blocks Pick a sector offset of 2048Then it gets a bit more tricky because how to actually do that, should be fairly straight forward. I know there are programs that can shift the formatting of drives, even after they have had the OS installed. But I lack the knowledge or confidence to try it yet, and don't trust the plethora of suggestions and offers of 'Free' programs to do it for me. I hope someone on here can comment on this, perhaps say how to do it, if it is necessary, with an explanation in English for those of us who's nerdyness went when we picked up our pensions!. Finally, (so far!), many routine services are advised to be switched off for SSDs. Some apparently are redundant anyway, some are redundant with SSDs and some are said to be not really necessary and to increase disc access so reducing SSD life. I have found this summary, applying to Windows: Enable Write Caching Disable indexing Disable Superfetch Disable Prefetch Firefox - Use memory cache instead of disk cache Disable the Page File Disable System Restore Disable HibernateI know some will disagree with the Prefetch for example. Other with the write Caching, even System Restore, (for SR addicts). In short, for Laptops, which are generally moved around and have limited battery power, SSDs are a boon. For the rest of us, not so much. My SSDs are fast. They seem to be working just fine. Many of the stories I have been hearing are predictions of what may happen. After a few weeks It's still early days for me and having loads of time to fill, (and you do need to fill it, if you don't want to loose it!) does mean I do have to develop a new cynicism for scare stories. But they certainly are faster and let's face it, sound so cool!
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Jan 20, 2014 2:24:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 23, 2014 23:49:15 GMT
I've been compiling a report of sorts on my experiences with SSDs.
It's taking a bit of time, because so many things do need to be tried. Even the most recommended sources can be, shall we say, a little obtuse, perhaps giving ill advised suggestions.
Also, it will be aimed at XP, since that is what I'm using.
Anyway, one seems to be, turning off Virtual memory. This was recommended to reduce the load on the SSD and improve its life.
I've had to turn mine back on. I couldn't load some pages and that isn't a lot of use.
There are some ports on my MB for extra USB ports. I have enough and never needed these, but thinking of buying an internal USB port lead and using it to attach a 5Gb pen drive. These are cheap as chips now and I might be able to use that for virtual memory.
Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 23, 2014 23:58:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 24, 2014 14:50:39 GMT
These are the specs of my laptop running without a paging file. It runs smoothly. all the time; Coral PSP X 2 Photo Pro is a little bit slow loading, but works normally with 16 GB RAM. I have run it with a paging file and apart from PSP loading a bit faster there isn't any difference. Photo editing suites are about the heaviest memory users and will hang at any excuse. My laptop worked well enough with a HDD, it was to cut the heat down that I installed the Crucial M500 SSD and now it runs very cool. The hard drive compartment in my laptop isn't very well ventilated and although I didn't get any trouble, I did find the heat a bit worrying.
I have got a hybrid drive, as far as I'm concerned it was a complete waste of money. On my main computer I have a 64 GB Crucial Andrenaline SSD and software, it more or less converts any HHD into a hybrid. It acually works, where a hybrid doesn't. I was disappointed that it wouldn't work with a RAID0 and it was supposed to. However it knocks out the same speed with a single drive and boots faster than the RAID0. Crucial might have updated their software, there were lots of complaints about it not working with RAID0. I haven't bothered to check the software for updates, I haven't worried about changing back to a RAID array.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 24, 2014 20:56:55 GMT
Thanks Ken, that is really informative. I was returned a Paging error while playing a high graphical online game and trying to load a YouTube page at the same time. I was advised that 4Gb, which is the max I can have with 32 bit, would be OK, seemingly it isn't. I have found a souce for an internal USB port, www.maplin.co.uk/p/dual-usb-a-socket-to-10-pin-motherboard-header-backplate-015m-a83cxI think I'll try that route. I know I could upgrade to 64 bit but truth is, I probably won't. Thanks again Ken
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 25, 2014 14:36:53 GMT
Your welcome Jojo.
I'm not quite sure of what you plan to do with the flash drive. I think you will find that although a USB drive shows with a letter in Computer, it wont show in Performance Settings and so you cant use one to run a Paging File. If you want to use it as Ready Boost, it will only work with a HDD. You cant run Ready Boost with a SSD, as its fast enough already. I hope I'm in time to stop you wasting your money on an internal USB port, unless you plan on using it as Ready Boost with a HDD.
I picked up a 16 GB Adata USB3 cheap, a couple of weeks ago. MemoryC.com are flogging them off at much the same price as USB2. I'm not that keen on USB flash drives, but I bought one out of curiosity. I have put a Paragon image of my laptop C:/ drive on it, for a quick reinstallation in the event of an emergency.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 25, 2014 19:03:00 GMT
Understand what you mean Ken. I wasn't sure and connected the drive to an existing USB port on the case. It seems to function fine as Paging File. Not sure if the speed is quite up to things yet, but time will tell. When the internal USB port arrives, I intend to assign the drive letter B to it.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 25, 2014 21:45:25 GMT
I dont know what the score is Jojo; I plugged in USB2 and USB3 drives, neither show in Advanced System Settings and both show in Computer. I even forematted the USB3 as NTFS, it was FAT32 and the change made no difference. It has got a big SSD and 16 GB RAM, but why the drives wont show I've not got the faintest idea. With HDDs I normally run the Paging File in its own partition and not on the C:/ drive. I have used USB drives as Ready Boost, but never for the Paging File. I haven't had a computer that will run Ready Boost for well over a year now, even my mini netbook has got a SSD in it. My main computer has got that Andrenalin SSD setup.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybee on Jan 26, 2014 2:43:59 GMT
I know how you feel, Jojo, but if you want to make the best of your system then 64-bit is the way to go. Even the older clunkers - like the ones I resurrect from time to time - tend to work better on the 64 bit version of W7 than they ever did on XP, and they are BASIC machines, believe me! The only problem I've found - not so much with W7, more with XP - is finding hardware drivers for the older boards and expansion cards; there's any God's amount of 32-bit software available, but 64-bit stuff is a lot harder to find. The overall limitations as to whether it's worth doing are (a) the system FSB frequency and (b) how much memory the board will take; obviously if it maxes out at 4Gb then you aren't gonna gain much over and above a 32-bit setup - 32-bit can only address 3.6Gb - whereas if the board will accept 6 or 8Gb then the gains will be increased. If you're going down the SSD road therefore, it's almost a no-brainer NOT to use 64-bit; sticking with 32-bit is a bit like sticking a four-barrel Holley carb onto a one-litre engine and expecting it to give more power - like that engine, a system can only work as fast as the slowest part of it. Tek care, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by johnnybee on Jan 26, 2014 2:54:54 GMT
Just in passing, I used the idea of an internal flash drive as a system backup quite some years back, but it could just as easily be used as a readyboost volume now that it's a regular feature on W7. I just used a standard PCI 4-port USB2 expansion card to do the business; most of them have either one or two internal sockets fitted to the card, so plugging a flash stick into one of 'em is simplicity itself. This PC doesn't use RB tho - with 16Gb of RAM it doesn't really need it, so it's gone back to the original purpose of providing a backup facility for emails, pics, drivers and documents.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 26, 2014 4:40:45 GMT
I hear you loud and clear johnnybee. And agree completely.
Every advantage is with upgrading.
But, my system is rather old, I bought it in 2007. It is still a good system. At 2.4GHz, quad core, it's not exactly slow.
W7 64bit is about 75bucks. Plus I'll need a new set of RAM modules. And if this machine gives up in the near future, I'll need to buy another.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 26, 2014 5:23:39 GMT
As I said earlier, I bought these two SSDs to replace a clapped out HDD.
In retrospect, it was a mistake. Tonight, an update from M$ of Netframework, I think 4, stopped during installation and refused to budge. I checked on the web, using my wife's computer, entering in the number KB2858302 and KB2604121, there seems to be known problems with these installing into XP
I'm sure the Many stories of turning off so many things with SSDs are exaggerated. But I did it.
So, I've scrubbed the XP SSD using Ccleaner's Disk scrub utility.
SSDs have a place, especially on Notebooks. But my personal experience is to tread carefully.
I'm back on Vista. I plan to get an HDD as soon as I can, just seen a 1Tb for £50 from Novatech. I use them all the time and they are pretty local. Might be a while, sadly.
Incidentally, does anyone else have as bad an impression of Crutial.com as I do?
They used to be pretty good, but frankly, I wish I'd stuck with Novatech now. At least they answer queries and provide accurate information.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 26, 2014 10:16:14 GMT
My laptop has a Crucial M500 drive, my mini netbook a Crucial M4 drive and my desktop a Crucial Andrenalin super charger. I like Crucial products, but its cheaper to buy them from Amazon than direct from Crucial. On an M500 960 GB there was a 30 odd quid difference.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 26, 2014 12:50:21 GMT
Think I'm just in the middle of one of those bad luck periods right now ken. By the Bye. Anyway, Vista is still trying to download an SP1 file, KB9366330 and not succeeding at all. XP seems to be having general end of life problems. Other around the net seem to be having similar issues as I, updates not working. I've kinda hogged this thread on matters not entirely connected to SSDs, sorry. For any future researchers, SSDs are fast, expensive and seem to work best with a modern OS. Long term life, no-one seems really sure. That, I think, is a fair summary of the consensus so far.I have a spare, SSD, formatted and plugged in. Thinking of giving mikkh's long standing suggestion of Lunux. a try. Thanks loads to everyone who offered advice, especially ken.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 26, 2014 16:00:40 GMT
Although my flash drives wouldn't show up to use as a Paging File, an old 120 GB SSD shows up when plugged into USB3. I can plug it in anytime I need a little bit of help when using graphics programs.
I only used Vista for a couple of weeks after buying a laptop in a sale while on holiday at my daughters. What I found when trying to install XP when I got home, you have to fully format using the XP disk. Although both operating systems are NTFS, XP wont run on a disk formatted by Vista. I have never had an uncontrolable urge to install Vista, but maybe the same thing applies the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jan 26, 2014 23:39:38 GMT
Well, with M$ refusing to allow me to use what I've paid for, I won't be either.
I have to say, XP is so much faster. W7 on my wife's computer, seems OK. Though since she has everything loaded on startup, it's difficult to say for sure.
She uses hers mainly for SKYPE, email and reading French newspapers.
Though she alwasy says I am welcome to use it, it's never wise because she is very protective. She certainly never runs new stuff or surfs around like I think, most of us do.
|
|