SSD Caching on Z68

[Dethman]

I have read some articles on SSD caching and havn't found the answer to my question.

I have noticed on most tests in real world benchmarks (game level loading), that it speeds up after the first or second time loading the level.

My questions is.. What happens when I load the map 3 times, and reboot the computer. Does that learning process start over? I assume not, because its an HDD, and not RAM. Hence the data will live on there until its over written.

Anyone know how it works when the drive gets full? It moves oldest data from the SDD to the HDD with the windows installation?

I'm thinking about buying a cheap used 40gig ssd to load games and things faster.

 

[K1tty]

You are correct. It will not lose its cache after shutting down/restart or whatever. However, it's not smart in what it boots from the cache. I believe it's all age based, so even if you run something very often and it was the first program cached, it'll get booted out. Everyone has recommended just running OS and select games off the ssd directly and forget srt.

 

[P-UNIT]

K1tty has the right idea. If you are getting an SSD just get one that is big enough in the first place, and put the stuff that is load critical on it.

 

[GotNoRice]

I believe it's all age based, so even if you run something very often and it was the first program cached, it'll get booted out.

No that is not the case. The only stuff that is going to be pushed out of cache is stuff that you haven't accessed in a long time, to the point that you accessed enough other stuff during the meantime to fill up the cache and push the previous stuff out.

But anything that you actually use on a regular basis will definitely remain in cache. It organizes based on when you last accessed the data, not when you first accessed it.

Everyone has recommended just running OS and select games off the ssd directly and forget srt.

"Everyone" = Just you?

It's really an amazing tech. You might decide that the OS is worth it to put on your SSD but that still includes tons of random windows files that don't really need to be there. You might decide that you want one of your favorite games on your SSD, but that doesn't necessarily mean you really want every single map on the SSD or the entire single-player campaign loaded on the SSD, etc. Not to mention the hassle of having to use symbolic links or other ghetto hacks to move individual steam games away from the main steam folder. With Intel's block-level caching only what you use gets cached, so even within individual apps, games, etc it's only caching what you use and not the entire app/game. With your OS it's only caching the parts that you use and not touching other crap like help files or Spider Solitaire, etc.

It's even more granular than that, since it caches at the block level, not the file level, it can even cache part of a file. So if you have a 2GB texture file that you regularly use only a few hundred megs of, only a few hundred megs will be cached.

SRT has bios integration so it works even during boot and will speed up your OS loading, etc.

And let's be realistic here. Big SSDs are expensive, yet still "small" compared to normal hard drives. Even using the biggest SSD I would still feel practically claustrophobic about trying to fit everything I use on there. With SRT I can buy a small SSD, get almost all of the performance, and not have to deal with anything.

Lastly, SRT allows you to use cache values of between 20-64gigs. It doesn't have to be an either/or in terms of using an SSD directly. You can use 20-64gigs of your SSD as cache and use the rest of your SSD directly and get the best of both worlds.

 

[Dethman]

Thanks gotnorice, that was all the information that I was looking for, and I like all the answers. I think I'm actually going to use this feature. When I do, I will test boot up times, SC2 map loads, and BF3 load times and post them up here.

 

[nxcess]

SRT comes in handy when you mate it with Raid0 configuration. I was able to extend my intel matrix raid0 array from 300 to 600gb (2 x 640gb aals) and using a 40 gig ssd, it does definitely feel faster than the original 300gb array. I don't feel the space constraint of an ssd either.

 

[aviat72]

If you are smart enough to know what you are doing and want control then do not use SRT.

For 95% of everyday users, SRT is a great technology since the user experience is transparent and fast.

It is highly unlike that the caching scheme will not use some version of LRU (Least Recently Used).

BTW, does it work on non Windows system also? Have people tried it on Linux, MacOS etc?

 

[nxcess]

If you are smart enough to know what you are doing and want control then do not use SRT.

Mind elaborating on this.

 

[opfreak]

If you are smart enough to know what you are doing and want control then do not use SRT.

For 95% of everyday users, SRT is a great technology since the user experience is transparent and fast.

It is highly unlike that the caching scheme will not use some version of LRU (Least Recently Used).

BTW, does it work on non Windows system also? Have people tried it on Linux, MacOS etc?

I'm smart enough to know that my time is worth more enjoying my gaming pc, vs maintaining my ssd drive.

Is have the os + games faster on an ssd alone vs hard drive +ssd cache. Yup. But I get most of the benefit of an ssd drive with none of the work of worrying about space.

 

[K1tty]

Quote:
Everyone has recommended just running OS and select games off the ssd directly and forget srt.
"Everyone" = Just you?

No, I asked the same questions a couple months back because I wanted to try SRT (I may still try it). Everyone at the time directed me to use the ssd for OS and whatever programs I use that benefit from it. There were a couple articles with tests which also showed that while SRT is a big boost over conventional drives, it's not as good as plain ssd.

"Lastly, SRT allows you to use cache values of between 20-64gigs. It doesn't have to be an either/or in terms of using an SSD directly. You can use 20-64gigs of your SSD as cache and use the rest of your SSD directly and get the best of both worlds."

That's really interesting. Is it pretty easy to setup SRT once you have the OS and other items installed on the ssd? For instance I have about 30gigs left on the drive currently, so I could allocate that to SRT?

 

[nxcess]

That's really interesting. Is it pretty easy to setup SRT once you have the OS and other items installed on the ssd? For instance I have about 30gigs left on the drive currently, so I could allocate that to SRT?

There's no point in using SRT if you have an SSD as your boot drive. It's meant for conventional mechanical drive to give it a boost. Call it a "poor man's" hard drive hybrid system.

 

[tombew]

Lastly, SRT allows you to use cache values of between 20-64gigs. It doesn't have to be an either/or in terms of using an SSD directly. You can use 20-64gigs of your SSD as cache and use the rest of your SSD directly and get the best of both worlds.

I don't understand how this makes sense.
Could you elaborate?

 

[GotNoRice]

There's no point in using SRT if you have an SSD as your boot drive. It's meant for conventional mechanical drive to give it a boost. Call it a "poor man's" hard drive hybrid system.

Assuming you still have a mechanical drive in your system then it could still benefit from SRT.

I don't understand how this makes sense.
Could you elaborate?

Sure. Let's say you have a 128GB SSD. When you enable caching, you select a value between 20 and 64GB to use as cache. After SRT has created the cache partition, the remaining space on your SSD is still there as uninitialized space. You can go into Disk Management and create a partition, format it, and use the remaining space on your SSD directly.

So if you had a 128GB SSD and used 20GB as cache, you would have ~108GB left that you could format, assign a drive letter to, and use for anything you want to including installing some games on there directly. With my X25-M G2 80GB and a 64GB cache, I have about 10GB left over and I just use that for the pagefile.

 

[aviat72]

Mind elaborating on this.

I'm smart enough to know that my time is worth more enjoying my gaming pc, vs maintaining my ssd drive.

Is have the os + games faster on an ssd alone vs hard drive +ssd cache. Yup. But I get most of the benefit of an ssd drive with none of the work of worrying about space.

"smart enough" should have read "tech savvy enough" to use the SSD for very specific parts of the total disk usage.

If you enough about Windows page files, Google Chrome caches, Download folders etc. and are willing to make links to map those directories to hard drives then you can make the system use the SSD on tasks which give you the best return.

You also want to be conscious about the wearing down of the SSD. As the SSD gets full write-amplification will increase and cause inconsistency in performance. From what I heard it is best to keep the SSD less than 70-80% of total capacity; degradation supposedly starts at around the 50% level.

I have a RAID-0 using 2xIntel 40GBs and a hard-disk based raid array with a RAID-0 and a RAID-10 volume

I have created a mirrored directory structure on the HD-RAID0 by creating the xx:\Users\ABC xx\ProgramFiles xx:\ProgramFiles (x86) directories as it would create on the OS disk. So I have a My Documents on SSD RAID0 and a HD RAID0 etc.

I keep the OS and the programs that matter to my work on the SSD-RAID0. I have mapped the Download and most other folders in C:\Users\ABC to the RAID-0 HD array but for MyDocuments and Desktop since these are the folders my programs also use. My other non-critical programs are installed on the RAID-0 HD volume.

I have a small page file on the SSD-RAID0 disk (1024MB) and a much larger one (system managed) on the HD-RAID0.

The SSD RAID0 has a single 64 GB partition (space left from the 80GB total) and us using about 40 GB, so the disks are about 50% full. After about 8 months of usage the Intel SSD tool-box is showing no measurable wear-level degradation and SiSoft is showing close to 2x the performance of single disks.

However 95% of the users out there would not want to mess with this and manage the disk usage the way I am doing it. The Intel technology comes in handy there. A lot of the wear-leveling issues are not particularly relevant since most of the data on the cache will be the OS/Program blocks which are read only.

 

[Zoomer]

Does SRT allow for excluding disks from being cached? Say I have certain disks that are used for temp scratch, or disk intensive, non real time tasks.

Also I wonder how it handles defrags. My system defrags itself in the background, so it is like a daily occurrence.

 

[GotNoRice]

You also want to be conscious about the wearing down of the SSD. As the SSD gets full write-amplification will increase and cause inconsistency in performance. From what I heard it is best to keep the SSD less than 70-80% of total capacity; degradation supposedly starts at around the 50% level.

I've had my X25-M G2 for 2 years now, media wearout indicator is at 98 (out of 100). It hasn't budged at all during the time I've used the drive as SRT cache. I'm not convinced that wearing out the SSD is a realistic problem in this case.

Does SRT allow for excluding disks from being cached? Say I have certain disks that are used for temp scratch, or disk intensive, non real time tasks.

The caching is setup per-disk/raid volume. So you setup your SSD as cache for a single disk (or a collection of disks in raid). It's not going to be caching anything on any drive not specifically setup for caching.

Also I wonder how it handles defrags. My system defrags itself in the background, so it is like a daily occurrence.

Your best bet would probably be to NOT defrag while you have SSD caching enabled. If you are really anal about defragging, it only takes about 30 seconds to disable SSD caching. Disable SSD caching, run a manual defrag, then re-enable caching.

 

[K1tty]

Alright, well I am going to clean off everything from my ssd except the OS and use a portion of what's left as a cache. I've found that even though it's fun loading in 10-15s faster into a game than everyone else, I still have to wait that time for everyone else to be ready haha.

 

[MorgothPl]

If I have 2 partitions - one for system, other for games and storage... can I cache both of those, if I get some 40gb cheap ssd?

 

[nxcess]

"smart enough" should have read "tech savvy enough" to use the SSD for very specific parts of the total disk usage.

If you enough about Windows page files, Google Chrome caches, Download folders etc. and are willing to make links to map those directories to hard drives then you can make the system use the SSD on tasks which give you the best return.

You also want to be conscious about the wearing down of the SSD. As the SSD gets full write-amplification will increase and cause inconsistency in performance. From what I heard it is best to keep the SSD less than 70-80% of total capacity; degradation supposedly starts at around the 50% level.

I have a RAID-0 using 2xIntel 40GBs and a hard-disk based raid array with a RAID-0 and a RAID-10 volume

I have created a mirrored directory structure on the HD-RAID0 by creating the xx:\Users\ABC xx\ProgramFiles xx:\ProgramFiles (x86) directories as it would create on the OS disk. So I have a My Documents on SSD RAID0 and a HD RAID0 etc.

I keep the OS and the programs that matter to my work on the SSD-RAID0. I have mapped the Download and most other folders in C:\Users\ABC to the RAID-0 HD array but for MyDocuments and Desktop since these are the folders my programs also use. My other non-critical programs are installed on the RAID-0 HD volume.

I have a small page file on the SSD-RAID0 disk (1024MB) and a much larger one (system managed) on the HD-RAID0.

The SSD RAID0 has a single 64 GB partition (space left from the 80GB total) and us using about 40 GB, so the disks are about 50% full. After about 8 months of usage the Intel SSD tool-box is showing no measurable wear-level degradation and SiSoft is showing close to 2x the performance of single disks.

However 95% of the users out there would not want to mess with this and manage the disk usage the way I am doing it. The Intel technology comes in handy there. A lot of the wear-leveling issues are not particularly relevant since most of the data on the cache will be the OS/Program blocks which are read only.

Oh. I thought it would have been some mind blowing hdd configuration that I was missing. You're over-complicating something that has negligible speed boost. To each his own.

As for page file, temps, and blah blah blah.. Easier to create a 2-4gb ram disk considering ddr3 is so freaking cheap. That would give you an even greater speed boost for your cache files if that's what you're trying to do.

 

[Eltocliousus]

Isn't it just better to put the OS on the SSD and not using caching unless you really have the room?

 

[Procyon12]

Isn't it just better to put the OS on the SSD and not using caching unless you really have the room?

i dont understand this obsession of just having the OS on an SSD and not caring about anything else.

i might load a game 20 times a week. i might load windows once a month...

 

[5tharrow]

Just so I have this straight in my head; will this set-up work and will it be beneficial?

• Get a 120GB SSD and install the OS on that.
• Take two 1TB mechanical drives and set them up in RAID 0.
• Then set aside 32 or 64GB of the SSD to be used for SSD caching on the RAID array.

I just want to install Steam on the RAID array and not have to worry about space after installing 30 games. Call me stupid if you want.

I already have the TB drives; I don't have the SSD as of yet. This is for a new system. My original plan was to get a 64GB SSD and install the OS on that and just put Steam and everything else on the mechanical drives. I'm thinking the above idea will give me a faster overall system and experience.

Thanks.

 

[tangoseal]

Im testing SSD Cache right now on my 2500K box.

It is faster for sure. However I would still recommend putting your OS on a standalone 64/120GB SSD and put your games on a 120/256GB SSD or Hard Drive. They will certainly load faster from the SSD however games are optimized to load from a hard drive as well. SSD will load games faster for sure especially games like BF3 and probably MW3 when it comes out. But a 64GB SSD is big enough to hold win7 and atleast BF3 before you are out of space.

 

[K1tty]

I have the Intel Rapid Storage Technology program installed (that came with my mobo). But it doesn't give me the option anywhere to setup a cache. I have about 30gb free on my ssd and thought i'd give caching a try. Not sure what I'm missing here

Ok, well I found this:

For a system to support Intel Smart Response Technology it must have the following:
 Intel® Z68 Express Chipset-based desktop board
 Intel® Core™ Processor in the LGA 1155 package
 System BIOS with SATA mode set to RAID
 Intel Rapid Storage Technology software 10.5 version release or later
 Single Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or multiple HDD’s in a single RAID volume
 Solid State Drive (SSD) with a minimum capacity of 18.6GB
 Operating system: Microsoft Windows* Vista 32-bit Edition and 64-bit Edition, Microsoft Windows*
7 32-bit Edition and 64-bit

Now, I have ACHI setup and have a total of 4 disks (1 ssd os disc, 1 app hdd, 2 backup hdds). I'm thinking changing those two items at this point will mess things up!

 

[GotNoRice]

I have the Intel Rapid Storage Technology program installed (that came with my mobo). But it doesn't give me the option anywhere to setup a cache. I have about 30gb free on my ssd and thought i'd give caching a try. Not sure what I'm missing here

Is your SATA controller set to RAID in the bios? It needs to be for caching to function.

 

[5tharrow]

Is your SATA controller set to RAID in the bios? It needs to be for caching to function.

I think K1tty knows that it needs to be set to RAID but is wondering the consequences of changing from AHCI to RAID with the current set-up. I don't know.

 

[teletran8]

Someone/website definitely needs to do a Steam 1 TB 7,200 Hard Drive install with 10+ games VS a SSD Caching with same 7,200 RPM Hard Drive and give us the times on map loading benefits etc. of this setup.

 

[5tharrow]

Originally Posted by K1tty
I have the Intel Rapid Storage Technology program installed (that came with my mobo). But it doesn't give me the option anywhere to setup a cache. I have about 30gb free on my ssd and thought i'd give caching a try. Not sure what I'm missing here.

From what I've read, setting SATA mode to RAID will function the same as AHCI for single drives; however, you don't want to just change it in BIOS after the O/S is installed; you'll most likely get a blue screen when you reboot. To change it, I believe it's a registry change first, then a reboot and BIOS change.

I did this to change from IDE to AHCI, but you'll want to Google search the exact steps.

 

[5tharrow]

If you want to use only part of an SSD for caching, do you have to partition this space before using the SRT utility or will it allocate it for you using empty space on the drive?

 

[SonDa5]

To use SRT caching or not?

That is the question. hhhhmmmmm......????

 

[nxcess]

Try and find out.

 

[NoOther]

i dont understand this obsession of just having the OS on an SSD and not caring about anything else.

i might load a game 20 times a week. i might load windows once a month...

Umm, you use your OS constantly. It isn't about loading its about 'running' the applications on that drive. The OS is constantly running its own programs, loading and unloading them. And it has nothing to do about 'not' caring about anything else, it has to do with what you use more often. You clearly always use the OS more than any of the other programs, since the OS is responsible FOR running the other programs.

 

[SonDa5]

Try and find out.

I'm working on it.

I'm thinking about putting OS on 1x60GB SSD and caching it with another 1x60GB SSD and have a separate HDD for storage.


Will that be more effective than going RAID 0 with the 2 SSDs and single HDD for storage?

I find this confusing.

 

[NoOther]

Someone/website definitely needs to do a Steam 1 TB 7,200 Hard Drive install with 10+ games VS a SSD Caching with same 7,200 RPM Hard Drive and give us the times on map loading benefits etc. of this setup.

You dont need 1TB drives and 10+ games to test that out. I had 2 Raptor Xs in RAID 0 and then I switched to an OCZ Vertex Pro 240GB. Same size drive (1 150GB is about 240GB), the SSD loaded about 50% faster. My SSD drive is almost completely full whereas when i had the Raptor Xs I was only using about 100GB max. Same OS, same installed software/games. And for what its worth my Windows Exp Index jumped up .6 when I switched from the Raptors to the SSD.

Here are some other reviews for you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?248560-Ssd-vs-hdd-raid-0-vs-single-hdd-comparison

And here is another one with velociraptors with a nice RAID configuration against a cheaper SSD:

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptors_raid_ssd_alternative

SSDs are just plain faster hands down. Now, cost and reliability is still the major issue. You can get a large well performing RAID system with mechanical drives for far cheaper than an SSD. This is why I suggest a small SSD for your OS which does most of your operations, and then a cheaper large RAID setup for the rest of your programs and data. Generally i partition the RAID so that the first 30% is used for programs and the remaining 70% is used for data. That way the faster portions of the HDDS contain the programs I will be running.

 

[Procyon12]

Umm, you use your OS constantly.

It isn't about loading its about 'running' the applications on that drive.

exactly. and youll barley fit any applications with any kin dof IO intensity on a small SSD.

The OS is constantly running its own programs, loading and unloading them. And it has nothing to do about 'not' caring about anything else, it has to do with what you use more often.

dont think that constantly using an OS = OS constantly reading and writing to disk. most of the time it runs off RAM. i am NOT constantly accessing OS files that havent already been loaded to RAM. nope.

You clearly always use the OS more than any of the other programs, since the OS is responsible FOR running the other programs.

right...i am NOT suggesting putting a slow disk for the OS and a fast disk for everything else, i am suggesting in the aggregate your system will be faster if your IO intensive programs have an SSD cache.

 

[Procyon12]

You dont need 1TB drives and 10+ games to test that out. I had 2 Raptor Xs in RAID 0 and then I switched to an OCZ Vertex Pro 240GB. Same size drive (1 150GB is about 240GB), the SSD loaded about 50% faster. My SSD drive is almost completely full whereas when i had the Raptor Xs I was only using about 100GB max. Same OS, same installed software/games. And for what its worth my Windows Exp Index jumped up .6 when I switched from the Raptors to the SSD.

Here are some other reviews for you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?248560-Ssd-vs-hdd-raid-0-vs-single-hdd-comparison

And here is another one with velociraptors with a nice RAID configuration against a cheaper SSD:

http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptors_raid_ssd_alternative

SSDs are just plain faster hands down. Now, cost and reliability is still the major issue. You can get a large well performing RAID system with mechanical drives for far cheaper than an SSD. This is why I suggest a small SSD for your OS which does most of your operations, and then a cheaper large RAID setup for the rest of your programs and data. Generally i partition the RAID so that the first 30% is used for programs and the remaining 70% is used for data. That way the faster portions of the HDDS contain the programs I will be running.

thanks for not even reading the type of test the guy asked for.

 

[NoOther]

exactly. and youll barley fit any applications with any kin dof IO intensity on a small SSD.

dont think that constantly using an OS = OS constantly reading and writing to disk. most of the time it runs off RAM. i am NOT constantly accessing OS files that havent already been loaded to RAM. nope.

right...i am NOT suggesting putting a slow disk for the OS and a fast disk for everything else, i am suggesting in the aggregate your system will be faster if your IO intensive programs have an SSD cache.

1) An OS easily fits on a 60GB drive with all its patches including all your common office and productivity software.

2) Constantly using an OS absolutely does constant reads and writes. What do you think Virtual RAM is used for? Do you even know how a computer system works? From your statements I seriously doubt you do. Not everything in your OS is loaded into RAM or stays in RAM. Things get loaded and unloaded constantly depending on what you are doing.

3) And the most I/O intensive portion of your system is the OS, since everything interacts with it, not to mention all your drivers are installed on the OS, which do get loaded and unloaded frequently.

 

[Procyon12]

do you know how an OS boot works?

 

[NoOther]

do you know how an OS boot works?

This is getting ridiculous, it no longer has anything to do with the original post. The point is that generally speaking an SSD is best used with the OS loaded on it and then using larger drives to hold the Data and lesser used programs. The caching for Z68 boards is best used with a large data volume or RAID structure to help improve certain I/O functions much like the cache you would typically get on a higher end RAID card.

 

[Procyon12]

This is getting ridiculous, it no longer has anything to do with the original post. The point is that generally speaking an SSD is best used with the OS loaded on it and then using larger drives to hold the Data and lesser used programs. The caching for Z68 boards is best used with a large data volume or RAID structure to help improve certain I/O functions much like the cache you would typically get on a higher end RAID card.

of course it does. this is the basic question.
example scenario:

you have a 64Gb SSD and a spindle disk. would it benefit you to use SSD caching or leave the boot OS on the SSD only.

i cannot fathom a scenario where leaving most of all aplication on the spindle disk instead of letting them make use of SSD caching is preffereable to booting off an SSD. but im sitting here reading "oh your drivers will load faster" that why you want it no matter what.

and Drivers are loaded as the OS loads reboot once a month and youve saved how many seconds per day?....thats what im saying.