Optane just for a game HDD?

[AntDeek]

So I currently have a nice fast SSD for my boot drive, and a 7200.12 500GB with a couple games with super long load times. Could I set an optane module to cache ONLY my mechanical drive?

 

[RejZoR]

Just use SSD for caching instead and don't bother buying Optane lol. People really have no clue how to setup or what to do with hybrid storage systems... I mean, you literally have everything you need ALREADY in your system.

 

[AntDeek]

I am using this SSD as a boot drive and I would like to not have it filled with cached files, unless I can put on a 16gb limit?

 

[Frick]

I am using this SSD as a boot drive and I would like to not have it filled with cached files, unless I can put on a 16gb limit?

That's not what he meant. You use your SSD as you would use Optane.

Personally I don't see the point in caching, but I have a tendency to if not swap hardware often then reformatting/reinstalling often, so I like my files at different places in any case.

 

[AntDeek]

I see. So install windows on my HDD and cache with my SSD. I would not want to boot from a mechanical drive in 2017!

I was just looking for a way to make my HDD faster in games, delaying the inevitable by buying a large SSD

 

[Papahyooie]

I don't believe you can specify exactly what you want cached, if that's what you're asking (though I could be wrong.)

I think what people above are saying, is that it makes a lot more sense to put your money into a SSD that is large enough to install your games on. The high price per GB of optane, and of course the small available size, makes it kind of senseless for gaming. ESPECIALLY if you can't define exactly which files you want optane to cache. If you can, then it could indeed make your experience better, but at way too high a cost. Makes more sense to buy a SSD that is big enough for your games.

 

[RejZoR]

I see. So install windows on my HDD and cache with my SSD. I would not want to boot from a mechanical drive in 2017!

I was just looking for a way to make my HDD faster in games, delaying the inevitable by buying a large SSD

You won't be actually "booting" from mechanical drive. That's the point of caching. It'll also cache all Windows files that are frequently accessed for booting of Windows. That's the charm of SSD caching. Whatever you access frequently gets cached and boosted to near SSD speeds. Across ENTIRE HDD capacity. Windows, programs, games, whatever you use. It's automatic.

All you need is this:
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/index.html

 

[ERazer]

just save up, what you planning to do sound complicated and i dont think optane made for that, someone correct if i wrong. why not just get cheap SSHD.

 

[Papahyooie]

You won't be actually "booting" from mechanical drive. That's the point of caching. It'll also cache all Windows files that are frequently accessed for booting of Windows. That's the charm of SSD caching. Whatever you access frequently gets cached and boosted to near SSD speeds. Across ENTIRE HDD capacity. Windows, programs, games, whatever you use. It's automatic.

All you need is this:
https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/index.html

PrimoCache is a software... it runs after windows boot, so yes, he would be booting from the mechanical drive.

That being said, OP primoCache can indeed use a partition. So you could set a partition size on your SSD (16gb as you said, or whatever size you need) and primoCache would be able to cache your HDD files. (and keep your windows booting on the SSD.

 

[Papahyooie]

just save up, what you planning to do sound complicated and i dont think optane made for that, someone correct if i wrong. why not just get cheap SSHD.

Actually, caching is exactly what the new consumer Optane is made for.

It simply doesn't make sense for gaming, as it's likely to cache OS files instead of the game files the OP wants cached.

 

[RejZoR]

It runs as a service which gets loaded very soon in the booting process, meaning cache reading kicks in even for Windows boot. I've been using it for quite a while, I know what I'm talking about.

@Papahyooie
It'll cache both. It's just that their crappy capacity is not doing them any favor. But if you have a 120GB SSD and use it for caching, it'll cache Windows, apps and even massive game files easily. Been there, seen that, used that.

 

[AntDeek]

Thanks. Final answer is that I'm gonna have to save for a huge SSD

 

[biffzinker]

Thanks. Final answer is that I'm gonna have to save for a huge SSD

That's what I did. Picked up the SanDisk Ultra II 480 GB on sale for $140 last month. No hard disk drives here except for two different drives tasked with backup duties.

 

[RejZoR]

Huge SSD will make you lighter for around 650€ (Samsung 850 Evo 2TB). Crucial MX300 2TB is tiny bit cheaper, but still... Good luck

I mean, if anything, just try PrimoCache trial. Resize your boot drive and create a caching partition from it (64GB should do, if not possible, use 32GB as minimum). Install PrimoCache and only set to cache HDD. This way you'll still have your boot drive, but part of SSD will now be dedicated to speeding up games. The thing is rather flexible so you can do such things that aren't even possible with Optane (mostly because it's just too small).

 

[AntDeek]

Thanks for all the tips guys

 

[Papahyooie]

Thanks. Final answer is that I'm gonna have to save for a huge SSD

Check RejZor's solution above. Looks like that software can use a partition of your SSD. So you can still boot from the SSD while keeping a partition of it for cacheing, if that's what you want to accomplish. Then you could get your storage limit.

 

[alucasa]

Thanks. Final answer is that I'm gonna have to save for a huge SSD

Probably a better idea in long term. K.I.S.S.

 

[jboydgolfer]

for the cost of what ive seen optane selling for, you could skip optane, and buy a 500Gb Samsung Evo , or maybe a Tb Evo. theyre pretty cheap now. My entire PC is samsung SSD's, and it only cost me 500Gb 850 evo = $140 & 250 Gb 850 evo = $70.

 

[ERazer]

MX300 cheap option as well, if you can find the 750gb.

 

[Kursah]

The problem with caching that even @RejZoR should be able to admit and attest to is that if you have any kind of stability issues, caching will not work well and will be corrupted, you will have issues, shit won't work right...and you'll be frustrated beyond belief babysitting a service that should otherwise be left to run and hide in the background. This needs to be mentioned and brought out to the forefront. There is more risk involved with adding extra layers to data handling, but if setup correctly and properly maintained on a stable system, it can really reap some great rewards.

Risk vs. Reward. Spend a little more time checking out the different caching options out there, Intel has it's storage manager SSD caching option, the PrimoCache option is arguably a great one for better control and maintenance. There are other options out there as well. But as always, YMMV. Very much so here.

With SSD's getting more expensive right now...it is sad that 18 months after I bought my Evo850 250GB on sale, I have yet to see it that cheap again...using SSD's as a cache makes sense. 60-120GB, and then buy a decently sized hard drive from 1-4TB+.

I have a 1TB SSD, and I am VERY happy with it as my gaming drive...and I would prefer to just have solid state storage...but also as @RejZoR pointed out, that shit gets really expensive! Hopefully we can luck out with future fabs to make production cheaper and faster so we can have more drives available at lower costs. Until then we'll have these solutions that let us enjoy some benefits without as much costs, and for things you use a lot and the size of the cache you use, it could really make a nice difference. Again, until something goes wrong.

If I'm going to use an SSD cache, it's going to be an enterprise-grade RAID managed solution, I have found those to be far more stable than standard home-grade solutions, and they should be...but then we're talking $$$$... at that point, might as well just buy a large SSD and be done with it.

 

[biffzinker]

MX300 cheap option as well, if you can find the 750gb.

I tried going that route but wasn't able to find the MX300 750 GB drive when I looked at the time. Would of been a sweet deal on price plus capacity, and similar performance to any other brand.

 

[RejZoR]

@Kursah
Not really. PrimoCache has a safety feature where in case of system crash, it just repopulates the cache with fresh data. I've requested them to add an override, but by default, it refreshes the cache, so it's not possible to have corrupted data inside cache unless the source was already corrupted.

Remember, this is just READ cache. Data is written directly to disk like you'd only have HDD in a system. Unless you use deferred writing which i do not recommend for this very reason.

 

[Kursah]

@Kursah
Not really. PrimoCache has a safety feature where in case of system crash, it just repopulates the cache with fresh data. I've requested them to add an override, but by default, it refreshes the cache, so it's not possible to have corrupted data inside cache unless the source was already corrupted.

Remember, this is just READ cache. Data is written directly to disk like you'd only have HDD in a system. Unless you use deferred writing which i do not recommend for this very reason.

Well I recall about a year ago or so you had some MAJOR issues with your SSD caching solution. To the point you were trying different software and were extremely frustrated with the whole thing.... I think it came down to an unstable system corrupting your cache iirc correctly, and I believe you even ended up going with a large SSD in the end, the 2TB unit you have in your system specs I believe.

Definitely something that should be brought up as a con, not to single you out, but to air out the risk involved with deploying such solutions...especially if the user is inexperienced with different performance enhancing storage solutions. Maybe you were using deferred at the same time your issues were occurring or did it have to do with the refresh request?

I'd have to look back but it still is worth mentioning IMHO.

But it would make sense that unless the source is already corrupted, it shouldn't theoretically corrupt the cache. The PrimoCache safety feature does sound like it should mitigate a lot of "oops" situations. But I wouldn't trust it as a sure-fire more-so than I'd emphasize making sure a user's system is stable and backed up. Data loss can occur at any part of the chain. Doesn't mean it will, but does mean that it can.

 

[RejZoR]

The major problem I had was this safety feature! When you're overclocking and fiddling with system, every system crash meant re-population of SSD cache and making a lot of writes. Along with HDD noise which is annoying in my particular situation since I sleep in the same room as I have my PC. Normal users won't experience system crashes repeatedly several times a day, day after day so that's a non issue for them.

 

[jboydgolfer]

I think the point here is the OP wants to buy $100 , 60 gigabyte drive to cache writes with using his hard drive which is 500 GB. My point being a smarter move would be to buy a traditional solid-state drive for $100 - $140 and get 500 GB of solid-state drive storage. hell even less depending on brand bought . At least it's the smarter move in my opinion ,any moves get him away from the hard drive