think my rig is ready lol
- Thread starter Michael_G
- Start date
I've been thinking about replacing my two 250 GB SATAs with two equally large SSDs for some time now, but I'll guess I'll pass, since I'm planning to get a new Notebook next year anyways... but SSDs sure are great, I use them at work... totally worth the extra money.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
I have OS and paging file on my SSD and use a 500 GB drive for my low I/O storage. So far no issues with the SSD, although I haven't tested it. I do have plenty of room on it for OS and a few of my go-to games. I think it's a 128 gig...
I have one of my OS, on an SSD and I have 2 GB of RAM. Personally it's been years that I have disabled the swap file. No swap file on the SSD or on the HDD. Swapfile = 0 bytes. And no problem
They may be more expensive than spinning tin but there is just no comparison speed wise. I have two Intel 520 240GB disks and they were worth every penny. Raw transfer and IOPS wise SSD disks are easily worth the reduction in capacity over a HDD. The only thing I would consider an HDD for now would be some near line storage such as a Drobo over Gigabit or similar.
yes.... put in a 500gb samsung 840 (cost about £200 from the phone company that used to belong to the post office). the installation was easy and the migration software made the whole process painless. marked improvement in all areas....from boot up to shut down... and everything in between.
the ssd is now c drive. the hard disk now acts as a data drive.
@Patrick_68000 Well running with no page file on windows. You must have trimmed down the OS pretty well, although not looked under the hood for a long time, certainly used to be the case that there was a lot of bloat using up memory.
No one worried these days about the lifespan of a SSD? Am I right in that the degradation due to writes is no longer an issue?
This is my iMac cfg, it ain't gonna change for a number of years, although I might add some memory. Perfectly happy with it.
Processor 2.93 GHz Intel Core i7 (Quad Core)
Memory 4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 (2x2GB : 2 free slots)
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5750 1024 MB
Screen 27-inch (2560 x 1440)
HDD Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive
No one worried these days about the lifespan of a SSD? Am I right in that the degradation due to writes is no longer an issue?
This is my iMac cfg, it ain't gonna change for a number of years, although I might add some memory. Perfectly happy with it.
Processor 2.93 GHz Intel Core i7 (Quad Core)
Memory 4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 (2x2GB : 2 free slots)
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5750 1024 MB
Screen 27-inch (2560 x 1440)
HDD Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive
for the samsung 840 reliability is given as 1.5 million hours mean time between failures..... i've had hds that haven lasted 1.5 years...
It was more write endurance I was referring to that obviously depends upon your usage and paging would play a big part of that, especially if you have insufficient RAM.
I tried reading up on it quickly as I am no expert, understand the difference between SLC/MLC/TLC NAND and it's impact. As far as I can make out, the quality of the controller code is of vital importance as it is vital in spreading the writes around to avoid using up cells, a lesson in you get what you pay for.
Can't go far wrong with Samsung though.
There are many instructions in the windows registry to optimize the OS. So I do not have a swap file but also I put the windows kernel constantly in the RAM. I think SSDs are more reliable these days and are expected to last long in write mode. But for my part I will not put a swap file on an SSD. And for example for Google Chrome on my SSD, I put the temporary files folder on a hard drive beside--- Majere, you have a good machine ...
Last edited:
Personally i'm running Win7 64bit without a swap file with 8GB of ram. I can play current games (BF3, Crysis for example) and run every program without issues for at least two years now. There are programs that need more ram, where i'd hit obstacles without a page file, but ordinarily this is no issue at all. I'm not using an SSD yet, but if i would and in case i'd need a page file i'd very probably put it on a separate hard drive.
Does not Windows keep it's kernel in RAM by default? Although without any paging space you don't have any other option anyway, everything has to stay in RAM. You must either have a shedload of RAM, don't run memory intensive programs or are very disciplined about closing applications. Sounds like you know what you are doing, keeping the browser cache on HDD probably a good idea too.
Thanks, hopefully will be sufficient for E : D when it arrives on the Mac. I have faint hope that it would work in an XP VM but very very faint.
I'd advise against disabling the page file in any flavour of Windows.
You may not notice any drawbacks, and your machine may fly, but there is a risk things can get tangled up and BSOD with you having absolutely no clue what caused it. The default value of 1.5x physical RAM is wasteful, but this has been addressed in versions since 8. My Windows 8.1 machine, for example, with 8Gb RAM defaults to only 1.2Gb virtual memory as default.
I have 32Gb RAM and only a 256Gb SSD. I'm running Windows 7 on my gaming rig and it uses the old 1.5x formula. I really don't want to waste 48Gb's of that space! I also don't want it to be on some slow HDD. I have it manually set to the minimum of 16Mb, max at 4Gb. That will be enough space to cover any emergencies and get useful BSOD recovery data.
SSD's are great. If you don't want to put temp files on it to save on write cycles, them put them on a ramdisk and save it at logoff to a HDD. Putting them directly on a HDD kind of defeats the entire point
My gaming system specs just in case anyone cares:
You may not notice any drawbacks, and your machine may fly, but there is a risk things can get tangled up and BSOD with you having absolutely no clue what caused it. The default value of 1.5x physical RAM is wasteful, but this has been addressed in versions since 8. My Windows 8.1 machine, for example, with 8Gb RAM defaults to only 1.2Gb virtual memory as default.
I have 32Gb RAM and only a 256Gb SSD. I'm running Windows 7 on my gaming rig and it uses the old 1.5x formula. I really don't want to waste 48Gb's of that space! I also don't want it to be on some slow HDD. I have it manually set to the minimum of 16Mb, max at 4Gb. That will be enough space to cover any emergencies and get useful BSOD recovery data.
SSD's are great. If you don't want to put temp files on it to save on write cycles, them put them on a ramdisk and save it at logoff to a HDD. Putting them directly on a HDD kind of defeats the entire point
My gaming system specs just in case anyone cares:
Last edited:
Apparently from what I read, a portion of the kernel is accessed on the disk (dll certainly). But it was for NT and XP. For Win 7, I can not remember if I did. I have several hard drive and one SSD. (with XP32, Win7-32 and 64). For the Google cache, it is better put on the hard drive. This represents to hundreds of megabytes of temporary files
Last edited: