SSD for the pagefile?

[hat]

I was thinking of getting a small SSD, primarialy to put the pagefile on it. Here's my dilemma:

1. I don't want my pagefile on my system drive, because it would slow down the performance of the OS because of stuff accessing the page file all the time.

2. I don't want my pagefile on my storage drive, because I really don't want to wear it down with stuff constantly using the page file, and it's not exactly fast enough for optimal use of a page file (5400RPM).

3. If I get a SSD and use it as my system drive, dedicate the velociraptor to games and keep my storage drive the way it is, I still don't want to use my storage drive for the pagefile for reasons explained in 2, and I wouldn't want to put it on my velociraptor, because I would prefer its resources to be dedicated to catering to my games... as I understand it, an SSD can have random reading and writing going on all over the place and still not be crippled due to it not having moving parts, so would it still be just as fast to put the pagefile on the SSD system drive as it were to offload the pagefile to say, a SSD dedicated to hosting the pagefile?

If I did get a SSD, it would be small (like a 32GB model or something) for cost effectiveness. I wouldn't put anything on it other than Windows and the pagefile. The velociraptor would be used for games and programs, and the storage drive to dump the bulk of my crap on.

[n-ster]

Get an SSD for the OS + main apps (32gb isn't THAT small) and keep the pagefile on the SSD, it won't slow it down.... it will, however, take some valuable space, so if you want, you could split the pagefile, rarely is more than 1gb of page file, so you could put 1,1.5gb on SSD and 2.5-3gb on another drive since it probably won't be used anyways, or just lmit it to 1.5gb or 2gb on the SSD

For cost effectiveness, you could get a old SSD used or something... like a 40gb intel Generation 1 (non-TRIM) would be dirt cheap, or gen 2 (TRIM) would be relatively cheap

[hat]

My Windows folder is around 13GB, so adding 10GB for non windows-folder related crap, which is very generous, I am at 23GB... I like an 8GB pagefile, so that about fills me up.

What is TRIM, exactly?

[RejZoR]

I'll never understand ppl buying SSD's for boot drive only. Nearly zero advantage (apart from faster boot).
Either you buy yourself 4x 256GB SSD or just stick with dual velociraptor setup or dual Caviar Black 2TB config. Dual Spinpoint F3 1TB should do it as well. SSD's make significant difference in netbooks and notebooks on several areas, but they hardly justify their existance in PC segment for now unless you go big and expensive on them.
Because they are too small and too expensive for what you can use them. For portable devices, there are several advantages worth considering (low power usage, no vibration, shock resistance, much cooler, increased performance vs slow 5400RPM drives etc). None of this makes any real use on always power grid connected super cooled systems. But you can't do that with a netbook or notebook. So for the time being, you're better off with a very fast "traditional" HDD really.
But when we'll be able to get 512GB SSD drive for under 200-250 EUR, then i wouldn't think much about it.

[n-ster]

Everything is Faster and snappier, thats why You SEEEE a difference


TRIM is a thing that slows down SSD degradation by ALOT... Flash memory degrades, but with TRIM there is practically no degradation

32gb is in reality 30gb IIRC Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit starts at 10.5gb and slowly grows over time quickly to 12-13gb, then after a few years I bet it will be 15-16gb

8gb pagefile is useless really... put 2gb on SSD and 6gb on your Velociraptor. Then put most if not all you non-game apps, and perhaps even 1 game if it isn't too big


With my 50gb, I have 1-3 games on my SSD and I switch them when I don't play them much or anymore

[mcloughj]

Originally Posted by RejZoR

I'll never understand ppl buying SSD's for boot drive only. Nearly zero advantage (apart from faster boot).

Couldn't disagree with you more. everything is faster whenyou have your OS on an SSD. And an raid0 array of two SSDs is even better...

[n-ster]

RAID 0 does take off TRIM though, unless you have the intel drives, they have a driver that enables TRIM even in RAID

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by mcloughj

Couldn't disagree with you more. everything is faster whenyou have your OS on an SSD. And an raid0 array of two SSDs is even better...

But for the cost of two SSDs you can buy 4-6 standard hard disk drives, set it up in raid and it will perform much better whilst having 5-6 times the storage.

[RejZoR]

What is faster? Loading of games? They are stored on larger classic HDD. Programs? Because of the space you probably have them on HDD as well. And even if you don't, todays systems cache data.
First launch is slightly slower, but once it gets prefetched and cached, it will load instantly. Even after system reboots. So what SSD really does is increases boot speed. But with Hibernation, i don't find that all too useful...

[Faith[ROG].Anarchy]

Man I can't even remember how much a 512Gb SSD cost now In my opinion you should get about 32-40Gb SSD to suite your needs

[AsRock]

I'm guessing you turned off the hibernation file huh ?. I turn that off and the pagefile although im running 8GB without issue.

Originally Posted by n-ster

RAID 0 does take off TRIM though, unless you have the intel drives, they have a driver that enables TRIM even in RAID

good to hear again as i was not 100% sure about that but although had thought that as my performance has not dropped and i'm in Vista not win 7.

Just shows how sad MS not putting trim in Vista.

[n-ster]

you have to do firmware update though, TRIM in RAID is quite new

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Dent1

But for the cost of two SSDs you can buy 4-6 standard hard disk drives, set it up in raid and it will perform much better whilst having 5-6 times the storage.

common misconception. RAID only boost throughput, not access times. no matter how many mechanical drives you add in RAID, you will never, ever come close to the access speed of a single SSD.

[AsRock]

Originally Posted by n-ster

you have to do firmware update though, TRIM in RAID is quite new

I do yes . Worked like a charm since day 1. Thats if i get another it's going be a intel one but waiting for them to release a newer one.

[mcloughj]

Originally Posted by RejZoR

What is faster? Loading of games? They are stored on larger classic HDD. Programs? Because of the space you probably have them on HDD as well. And even if you don't, todays systems cache data.
First launch is slightly slower, but once it gets prefetched and cached, it will load instantly. Even after system reboots. So what SSD really does is increases boot speed. But with Hibernation, i don't find that all too useful...

I have 2 120gb SSDs in raid 0. Win 7 and all progs and games are stored on that array. my docs, desktop and pagefile are on a 750gb samsung f1 drive. all in all a great little setup that loads nearly everything instantly (except games, which I'm reliably informed rely more on processor speed than drive throughput). beats the pants off my work computer which uses HDDs

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Mussels

common misconception. RAID only boost throughput, not access times. no matter how many mechanical drives you add in RAID, you will never, ever come close to the access speed of a single SSD.

Yes, the latencies will be lower with SSDs, but does lower latencies justify a more expensive product with less throughput and less storage space, I’m not sure.

It's low latencies is all SSDs have going for it ATM, we can not even factor in noise as most disk drives are almost silent these days.

SSDs have its benefits for small niche reasons, like doing graphic design and video editing on a professional level as part of a job, but value for money it isn’t there yet. RAID will never be mainstream until they can compete with disk drives for storage at similar prices.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Yes, the latencies will be lower with SSDs, but does lower latencies justify a more expensive product with less throughput and less storage space, I’m not sure.

SSDs have its benefits for small niche reasons, like doing graphic design and video editing on a professional level as part of a job, but value for money it isn’t there yet. RAID will never be mainstream until they can compete with disk drives for storage at similar prices.

for any use which deals with large amounts of small files, where access time is most important? yes.

just because its not worth it for you, based on personal opinion doesnt mean its not worth it for others.


Hell, windows XP had like 200ms delays on opening all windows and slide out tabs, which to some people meant nothing, while to others it was a night and day difference...

Have your opinion on the matter. Share it. But dont cram it down peoples throats like its the only possibility, just because its the path you chose.

[DRDNA]

My path forward on this until SSD prices fall even more is My current Harddrive config of 320GBx4 Perpendicular raid 0 and then probably a small SSD drive just for the page file. That way I have my fast fast read writes and fast access times on page file which will be on the SSD drive

[Dent1]

Mussels,

I'm not saying that SSD is useless if access time alone will help get the job done faster than SSD is the right path. But apart from latencies there is more disadvantages to SSD than mechanical hard drives in RAID at the same price-point and I think its important that the OP understands the disadvantages instead of painting SSD as a superhero. knowing the disadvantages and the advantages gives the threads more balance.

Its the same argument for Velociraptor's which are mechanical drives, they cost way more than standard hard dives, yet with multiple Spin Points or equivalent in RAID you get better value for money price/throughput/storage. Like SSD Velociraptor's only shine in the latencies and are only worth buying IMO for that reason only.

[scaminatrix]

This subject always causes some arguments.
IMO the answer would be:
If price is the biggest factor, stick with HDD's for the time being.
If you've got the money and want to go for the futureproof/overkill etc., get one of the Intel drives n-ster mentioned with TRIM in RAID and maybe another later...
My opinion anyway

[Octopuss]

Originally Posted by hat

I don't want my pagefile on my system drive, because it would slow down the performance of the OS because of stuff accessing the page file all the time.

If that is happening, there is much simplier solution: get more RAM! You do not need SSD for that. IF by chance you do not run Windows 7, buy it.

[scaminatrix]

Originally Posted by Octopuss

If that is happening, there is much simplier solution: get more RAM! You do not need SSD for that. IF by chance you do not run Windows 7, buy it.

This was covered recently, many apps crash without a pagefile as they are coded to use one, as far as I understand.

[Octopuss]

Originally Posted by scaminatrix

This was covered recently, many apps crash without a pagefile as they are coded to use one, as far as I understand.

Well, I assume he does have one, and that he will too Just commenting on the idea of lower performance if pagefile is on system drive - unless you have very little memory, pagefile is not used so much you would notice any degradation of performance... (unless you do say intense Photoshop work or something)

[scaminatrix]

Originally Posted by Octopuss

Just commenting on the idea of lower performance if pagefile is on system drive - unless you have very little memory, pagefile is not used so much you would notice any degradation of performance... (unless you do say intense Photoshop work or something)

My apologies, I thought you meant getting more RAM to disable the pagefile.

hat, I also use a separate HDD just for a pagefile on my gaming PC (and on my AV rig!), there's a difference when loading games, not massive but I notice it. Also helps with defragging - don't have to do it round a pagefile.
Saying that, maybe you could put your pf on the same drive as you install the games on, and use the other drive for the OS, whichever way round you have them.

[n-ster]

I just thought about it but... how about a small RAMdrive for pagefile? xD especially for tripple channel users that rarely use more than 3-4gb

you could always put a 128mb pagefile on a RAMdrive, since that would not affect performance for RAM or almost not and accelerate pagefile alot