SSD Caching on Z68

[NoOther]

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.

That is the problem you don't understand how an OS works. Drivers are not all loaded as the OS loads. There are drivers that are loaded as other devices are called upon rather than at boot time. Drivers are also sometimes unloaded when devices are no longer being used. There are drivers for programs as well that are only called when that program is run and then unloaded when the program is exited. So many things load and unload outside of the boot time. Again, this is all why people load the OS on the SSD, it is the most I/O intensive part of your system, since everything interacts with the OS. I cannot fathom how you do not understand this most basic of all computing principles.

The benefit of the caching is to assist when you have large volumes of data, especially across multiple devices like a RAID setup. The caching helps assist faster transfers of information or calls to information. This is beneficial in a setup where you are running a file share, application share or media server. It is there to assist. If on the other hand the person is running a gaming machine, then they will most likely see more benefit to getting an SSD to run their OS off of rather than using the caching. Since the caching is only used at certain times, where having the OS on the SSD will make use of the benefits of an SSD all the time.

Anyway, just to close out this conversation, read the review over at anandtech who already did the testing of this technology:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4

 

[GotNoRice]

If on the other hand the person is running a gaming machine, then they will most likely see more benefit to getting an SSD to run their OS off of rather than using the caching. Since the caching is only used at certain times, where having the OS on the SSD will make use of the benefits of an SSD all the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "caching is only used at certain times". It does attempt to identify when you are making large sequential transfers and it tries to not cache those actions, but beyond that the way it caches is pretty simple. Any blocks that are accessed are cached. When those blocks are accessed again, they are accessed from cache. It benefits in terms of boot time, game loading times are almost always within one second of running from the SSD directly. The files that are accessed when you boot your computer don't change much boot to boot, making them an ideal candidate for SSD caching.

 

[XpediencY]

I want to try out caching too since $85 for a 40GB drive isn't really that expensive, but I have a question.

How does the cache drive work when my hard drives are encrypted via truecrypt? Does it keep it as encrypted in the cache or will my data be exposed?

 

[nxcess]

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.

It's ass backward to use the SRT to cache an SSD with another SSD. You are basically wasting the space on the SSD for caching.

Better off doing a raid0 with the 2x SSD and moving your documents to a separate HDD.

 

[XpediencY]

It's ass backward to use the SRT to cache an SSD with another SSD. You are basically wasting the space on the SSD for caching.

Better off doing a raid0 with the 2x SSD and moving your documents to a separate HDD.

It also says on intel site that it is impossible to cache for another SSD.

 

[SonDa5]

Ok... I have been doing some reading and I have an idea to implement my existing storage drives with the SRT features of the Z68 chipset.

This is what I'm thinking.

1xVertex 2 60GB for Windows 7 OS and UT3 game.
2xWD Caviar Black 500GB short stroked with RAID 0 partition of 300GB with a Vertex 2 SSD cached to the short stroked RAID 0 partition. This short stroked and SSD cached 300GB partition will be used mainly for games and applications. The left over 700GB from the WD Caviar blacks will be used for data storage and data back ups.


Will it work? Effective approach for my SSDs, hdds, and implementation of SRT caching?

 

[nxcess]

This is what I'm thinking.

1xVertex 2 60GB for Windows 7 OS and UT3 game.
2xWD Caviar Black 500GB short stroked with RAID 0 partition of 300GB with a Vertex 2 SSD cached to the short stroked RAID 0 partition. This short stroked and SSD cached 300GB partition will be used mainly for games and applications. The left over 700GB from the WD Caviar blacks will be used for data storage and data back ups.


Will it work? Effective approach for my SSDs, hdds, and implementation of SRT caching?

Yes and No. I short stroked my WD 640GB AALS to 600gb with the SRT caching. It's a very noticeable boost but using the rest of the space as storage can work against you if you're accessing both partition at once. Mine is the OS so using the rest as storage is out of the question for me. If you can keep it to a minimal, then I don't see an issue with it.

 

[SonDa5]

Yes and No. I short stroked my WD 640GB AALS to 600gb with the SRT caching. It's a very noticeable boost but using the rest of the space as storage can work against you if you're accessing both partition at once. Mine is the OS so using the rest as storage is out of the question for me. If you can keep it to a minimal, then I don't see an issue with it.

Since I plan on using a separate SSD for the OS it seems like my arrangement would work much better. Not sure.

 

[NoOther]

I'm not sure what you mean by "caching is only used at certain times". It does attempt to identify when you are making large sequential transfers and it tries to not cache those actions, but beyond that the way it caches is pretty simple. Any blocks that are accessed are cached. When those blocks are accessed again, they are accessed from cache. It benefits in terms of boot time, game loading times are almost always within one second of running from the SSD directly. The files that are accessed when you boot your computer don't change much boot to boot, making them an ideal candidate for SSD caching.

Read the freaking link I put up. My gosh people, just doing a little research would explain it all.

 

[GotNoRice]

Read the freaking link I put up. My gosh people, just doing a little research would explain it all.

I've read the Anandtech article several times, have you?

These are pretty big improvements! Boot time and multitasking immediately after boot also benefit tremendously

Performance keeps going up. The maximized SRT system is now virtually indistinguishable from the standalone SSD system.

I was curious how high of a hit rate I'd see within a game loading multiple levels rather than just the same level over and over again. I worried that Intel's SRT would only cache the most frequently used level and not improve performance across the board. I was wrong.

 

[NoOther]

I've read the Anandtech article several times, have you?

Nice job not reading the whole article even though you did "several times". You seem to miss the very parts I have been talking about:

Initially it's very easy to get excited about Intel's SRT. If you only run a handful of applications, you'll likely get performance similar to that of a standalone SSD without all of the cost and size limitations. Unfortunately, at least when paired with Intel's SSD 311, it doesn't take much to kick some of that data out of the cache.

Although Intel felt that 20GB was the ideal size to balance price/performance and while SRT is supposed to filter out some IO operations from being cached, it's clear that if you frequently use ~10 applications that you will evict useful data from your cache on a 20GB SSD 311. For lighter usage models with only a few frequently used applications, a 20GB cache should be just fine.

A pure SSD setup is going to give you predictable performance across the board regardless of what you do, whereas Intel's SRT is more useful in improving performance in more limited, repetitive usage models. Admittedly most users probably fall into the latter category.

In my use I've only noticed two reliability issues with Intel's SRT. The first issue was with an early BIOS/driver combination where I rebooted my system (SSD cache was set to maximized) and my bootloader had disappeared. The other issue was a corrupt portion of my Portal 2 install, which only appeared after I disabled by SSD cache. I haven't been able to replicate either issue and I can't say for sure that they are even caused by SRT, but I felt compelled to report them nevertheless. As with any new technology, I'd approach SRT with caution—and lots of backups.

And then there is the final words:

Intel's Smart Response Technology (SRT) is an interesting addition to the mix. For starters, it's not going to make your high end SSD obsolete. You'll still get better overall performance by grabbing a large (80-160GB+) SSD, putting your OS + applications on it, and manually moving all of your large media files to a separate hard drive. What SRT does offer however is a stepping stone to a full blown SSD + HDD setup and a solution that doesn't require end user management. You don't get the same performance as a large dedicated SSD, but you can turn any hard drive into a much higher performing storage device. Paired with a 20GB SLC SSD cache, I could turn a 4-year-old 1TB hard drive into something that was 41% faster than a VelociRaptor.

But I mean you read the article several times...so OBVIOUSLY you are just trying to bump up your post count. *smh*

Anand's conclusions were exactly the same as my own. SRT can give you some performance increase using a caching system like those used in enterprise architecture RAID systems, but it is not a replacement for an SSD. Its a cheap solution to try and get similar performance for less cost. There still is no substitute for actually buying a 60-120GB SSD to use as your primary OS drive.

 

[GotNoRice]

Nice job not reading the whole article even though you did "several times". You seem to miss the very parts I have been talking about:

No more so than you glossing over information that doesn't fit well with your pre-formed conclusion. The results on that page were done using only 20GB as cache whereas a more typical SRT config would be to use the maximum amount of 64GB cache. At that point over 3 times more information would be able to fit into cache before anything got booted out compared to the test they performed.

Also, the method they chose to go about artifically forcing the data out of cache, I don't feel is a very realistic scenario:

To put eviction to the test, I ran through three games—Portal 2, Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft—then I installed the entire Adobe CS5.5 Master Collection, ran five of its applications and tried running Starcraft 2 again.

I'm curious how many people re-install the entire Adobe suite in between gaming sessions? I'm guessing not many but who knows? Even then it's doubtful anything would have been pushed out of the cache if 64GB had been used.

But I mean you read the article several times...so OBVIOUSLY you are just trying to bump up your post count. *smh*

Yeah my ~1.4 posts per day i'm sure puts me up there with the hardcore spammers

 

[NoOther]

No more so than you glossing over information that doesn't fit well with your pre-formed conclusion. The results on that page were done using only 20GB as cache whereas a more typical SRT config would be to use the maximum amount of 64GB cache. At that point over 3 times more information would be able to fit into cache before anything got booted out compared to the test they performed.
[/quote[

Excuse me, but I didn't gloss over any information at all. What is a 'typical' setup? He used 20GB because of the price target. Intel's target with the SRT was a 20GB cache (you know Intel, the ones that actually developed the SRT technology here?), they only expanded it to 64GB to give users more options. But with a 64GB SSD, now it becomes more worth it to use that SSD as an OS drive. Which is EXACTLY my point and Anand's point. So what exactly am I glossing over here?

Also, the method they chose to go about artifically forcing the data out of cache, I don't feel is a very realistic scenario:



I'm curious how many people re-install the entire Adobe suite in between gaming sessions? I'm guessing not many but who knows? Even then it's doubtful anything would have been pushed out of the cache if 64GB had been used.

Seriously? That is the most assinine comment I have heard yet from you. No one plays games and then installs software? He didn't "re-install" he "installed". The point was to see how using an application, then installing a new application, running it, then going back to the first application affected the cache. This is an extremely realistic test. This concept is similar to testing how Microsoft handles superfetching with applications. Over time your windows system learns what programs you use most and then caches then so they will run faster and have priority over other applications. However, sometimes when you install new software and run it in certain scenarios it confuses the superfetching system. Basically SRT is a type of superfetching system. It is trying to cache your most used programs, however, it may not always recognize them properly. That is what this very test is showing. Learn to read the freaking review and understand how the technology works before trying to debate. You don't even know what point I am arguing in all this, much less how this technology works. All you are doing is arguing for argument sake.

 

[GotNoRice]

Excuse me, but I didn't gloss over any information at all. What is a 'typical' setup? He used 20GB because of the price target.

Since there are plenty of 60-64GB drives that are a good $30-$40 cheaper than the Intel 311 drive that was used, I would say trying to achieve a "price target" has nothing to do with it. He used a 20GB drive because that is what Intel provided. The drive carries a price premium because it uses SLC flash but MLC drives work just fine.

Intel's target with the SRT was a 20GB cache (you know Intel, the ones that actually developed the SRT technology here?), they only expanded it to 64GB to give users more options.

The only relevance 20GB has is that is the size of their cheap larsen creek drive.

But with a 64GB SSD, now it becomes more worth it to use that SSD as an OS drive. Which is EXACTLY my point and Anand's point. So what exactly am I glossing over here?

So you use it as your OS drive, then where are you putting your games? 64GB would be barely enough space for an OS plus World of Warcraft, never-mind a typical steam folder.

Seriously? That is the most assinine comment I have heard yet from you.

Glad to know you are keeping track?

No one plays games and then installs software? He didn't "re-install" he "installed". The point was to see how using an application, then installing a new application, running it, then going back to the first application affected the cache. This is an extremely realistic test.

I'm pretty sure even the people who use massive software suites such as the entire Adobe CS5.5 Master Collection just install it once and leave it installed. Software that is already installed isn't going to be constantly pushing other data out of cache the way it might during the installation process itself. Keep in mind this isn't just any software, but perhaps the largest software suite in existence. Note that you would only have to run the game once after that for it to be put back into cache - and unless you're going to uninstall and re-install the adobe suite again it would be likely to stay there.

The Adobe software suite requires 24.3GB of free space for installation. Pretty sure that is larger than a typical software install and also larger than the entire cache value they used.

This is an extremely realistic test.

Just felt the need to quote that again due to how silly that is, and you are accusing me of making "assinine" comments?

Ironically, you would probably not even bother installing a suite like that directly on a 60-64GB SSD unless you are content having half your SSD taken up by a single software suite. Installing it onto a drive cached by SRT allows for boosted performance when running Adobe applications without monopolizing half the space on your SSD... Which is the whole point.

Basically SRT is a type of superfetching system. It is trying to cache your most used programs, however, it may not always recognize them properly. That is what this very test is showing. Learn to read the freaking review and understand how the technology works before trying to debate. You don't even know what point I am arguing in all this, much less how this technology works. All you are doing is arguing for argument sake.

Don't you think it's kind of silly for you to demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the tech involved then say I'm the one who should read up? You're implying it's doing a lot more than it's actually doing. It's not a smart cache in any way nor is it "recognizing" anything. It is a simple block-level caching. It works at the block level and not the file level because what it does is so basic. It simply caches blocks that are accessed. When you access a game or app or boot your computer, the blocks that are accessed at that time are brought into cache. The next time you access those same blocks they are accessed from the SSD cache instead of the HDD. It really is not particularly complicated. Obviously only using 20GB as cache and installing a 25GB software suite is going to provide bad results, but if you think that proves anything about the technology or actually think that is a realistic example, you are just kidding yourself.

 

[NoOther]

...

That whole comment just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that 1) you did NOT read the whole article and 2) you certainly do NOT understand any of the technology.

 

[GotNoRice]

That whole comment just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that 1) you did NOT read the whole article and 2) you certainly do NOT understand any of the technology.

Do you have a single retort beyond "no, you're wrong"?

I've provided detailed replies explaining the technical aspects of every point i've made. When you are ready to sit at the adult table and have an actual debate about the tech involved using facts rather than erroneous assumption, I'll still be here.

 

[NoOther]

Do you have a single retort beyond "no, you're wrong"?

I've provided detailed replies explaining the technical aspects of every point i've made. When you are ready to sit at the adult table and have an actual debate about the tech involved using facts rather than erroneous assumption, I'll still be here.

Your replies are a joke. Especially when I corrected you and you got it wrong AGAIN.

He never 're-installed' the adobe suite. What he did was play some games, then 'installed' as in for the FIRST time the adobe suite, like a normal person might. He then ran the adobe applications, as a normal person might. He then went to load one of the games he had previous played and it went back to normal HDD type operation. In ADDITION to that, he did another test where he did normal browsing and game use, then opened up some adobe applications, then went back to using previous applications with mixed results. Both of thse show that the cache has limitations.

In addition the point of the SRT is not just simple caching, the point is to cache the applications you are currently using most. The caching itself is a simple process, but deciding what gets put into the cache is not as simple, as illustrated by Anand's experiment.

The use of the 20GB cache is that it was the exact drive Intel is marketing for this technology. Again this is Intel's target not Anand's or mine. So no, I don't think it is silly at all. Why wouldn't you use the drive the company designed for the function it designed? Could you use a different SSD? Yes. Would it work much better? Not exactly.


As for would I install the Adobe mastersuite on an SSD? Absolutely I would if I was using that application all the time. Hell yeah that would make a lot of sense to do that considering the amount of processing and I/O that goes into many of those applications. Might I also use the caching for a system that has a large RAID array and uses that program, yeah I might very well do that as well. But what you seem to be missing is I have never once argued against SRT. You have no idea what my point even is, your thoughts and comments are scattered and don't make any sense. You can't even get the information in the article right, or what other people are saying.

The point of SRT is to provide a way for those that have large data arrays a way to get a cheap form of caching for their systems and not have to pay the high prices for a more complicated RAID system or exchanging their drives for costly SSDs. However, for someone building a gaming system, I find far more value in a 60-120GB SSD drive coupled with larger drive or simple RAID. The overall performance of that system will almost ways exceed that of the SRT system. The only caveat being how many applications the user consistently uses. And even then the caching system would still lose out if you are using that many disparate applications.

As for erroneous information and acting like an adult, seriously? Take your own advice there. You can't even read a simple article properly.

 

[GotNoRice]

Your replies are a joke. Especially when I corrected you and you got it wrong AGAIN.

You certainly have no shortage of disparaging remarks to toss around, easier than facts I suppose?

He never 're-installed' the adobe suite. What he did was play some games, then 'installed' as in for the FIRST time the adobe suite, like a normal person might. He then ran the adobe applications, as a normal person might. He then went to load one of the games he had previous played and it went back to normal HDD type operation.

And if he had run that game again, it would have been back to SSD speeds. Installing 25GB worth of software when only using 20GB of cache does exactly what you would expect. I would argue that most people are not installing 25GB software suites on a regular basis (installing it once, is going to push your games out of cache once after which you run your games again they will be back in cache. What is a one-time software install and it's effects on cache supposed to prove about the tech over the long term?

In addition the point of the SRT is not just simple caching, the point is to cache the applications you are currently using most. The caching itself is a simple process, but deciding what gets put into the cache is not as simple, as illustrated by Anand's experiment.

Here is another "experiment" from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4337/z68-ssd-caching-with-corsairs-f40-sandforce-ssd/5

Notice how he used a 40GB drive instead of a 20GB drive and all of a sudden stuff isn't being evicted from cache? This is not rocket science, and going to the full amount of 64GB would provide even better results in this regard.

The use of the 20GB cache is that it was the exact drive Intel is marketing for this technology. Again this is Intel's target not Anand's or mine. So no, I don't think it is silly at all. Why wouldn't you use the drive the company designed for the function it designed? Could you use a different SSD? Yes. Would it work much better? Not exactly.

As my link above shows, it certainly does work better. The 20GB drive is limited to that capacity because SLC flash is more expensive but outside of a work environment where potential data loss 5+ years from now might be an issue, normal users will have no reason not to use an MLC drive. My MLC drive is 2 years old and MWI is still at 98%.

 

[NoOther]

You certainly have no shortage of disparaging remarks to toss around, easier than facts I suppose?

I have provided you with facts, you are the only one going without facts. You just deny, argue, deny and provide nothing factual whatsoever.

And if he had run that game again, it would have been back to SSD speeds. Installing 25GB worth of software when only using 20GB of cache does exactly what you would expect. I would argue that most people are not installing 25GB software suites on a regular basis (installing it once, is going to push your games out of cache once after which you run your games again they will be back in cache. What is a one-time software install and it's effects on cache supposed to prove about the tech over the long term?

Incorrect, he ran the game again and it was NOT at SSD speeds. Again, read the freaking article. What kind of reading comprehension do you have? I make disparaging remarks because you keep getting everything wrong when it is plainly stated here and in the review. You still don't understand how the cache works. When he installed Adobe, it doesn't automatically use the cache. If he ran the game 2 more times perhaps. But the problem is the sequence of most use applications was interrupted by a long install, confusing the system into which LBA blocks were being accessed the most frequently.

That is also clearly stated in the review a few times:

An Intelligent, Persistent Cache
Intel's SRT functions like an actual cache. Rather than caching individual files, Intel focuses on frequently accessed LBAs (logical block addresses). Read a block enough times or write to it enough times and those accesses will get pulled into the SSD cache until it's full. When full, the least recently used data gets evicted making room for new data.

and

Note that the first launch of anything with SSD caching enabled doesn't run any faster; it's the second, third, etc... times that you launch an application that the SSD cache will come into effect. I ran every application once, rebooted the system, then timed how long it took to launch both in the HDD and caching configurations:

Remember that SRT works by caching frequently accessed LBAs, many of which may be reused even across different levels. In the case of StarCraft 2, only the first multiplayer level load took a long time as its assets and other game files were cached. All subsequent level loads completed much quicker. Note that this isn't exclusive to SSD caching as you can benefit from some of this data being resident in memory as well.

So installing the Adobe suite and running those applications shouldn't affect the cache, but they did. That is the point there.

Here is another "experiment" from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4337/z68-ssd-caching-with-corsairs-f40-sandforce-ssd/5

Notice how he used a 40GB drive instead of a 20GB drive and all of a sudden stuff isn't being evicted from cache? This is not rocket science, and going to the full amount of 64GB would provide even better results in this regard.

No it didn't and yet you again gloss over the entire article in which Anand talks about how the 311 is a better designed caching SSD. And again explains that the caching is not going to benefit you in every situation.

Corsair's F40 does pretty well as a cache and if you've got one around the house by all means go for it. Unless you've got a huge collection of applications and games that you'd like to cache however, I'd stick with the 311 at the same price point. If you can snag a F40 for a reduced price however, that does make it a lot more attractive. Here's to hoping that Corsair can push prices down below $85 on that drive for the Z68 users out there that want to experiment with SSD caching.

As my link above shows, it certainly does work better. The 20GB drive is limited to that capacity because SLC flash is more expensive but outside of a work environment where potential data loss 5+ years from now might be an issue, normal users will have no reason not to use an MLC drive. My MLC drive is 2 years old and MWI is still at 98%.

Umm no, that link does NOT show that. Yet again you do not fully read the article and do not fully understand the technology. Yet again you give erroneous information. Yet again you do not offer facts, but baseless arguments.

This last post where you even linked an article and got the article you linked completely wrong shows what I am talking about. There is no more point in talking to you about this, you just will never get it. Have fun.

 

[GotNoRice]

Umm no, that link does NOT show that. Yet again you do not fully read the article and do not fully understand the technology. Yet again you give erroneous information. Yet again you do not offer facts, but baseless arguments.

On the second run however, many of the applications load slower on the SSD 311 as some data has apparently been evicted from the cache. The 40GB Corsair F40 doesn't suffer the same fate as it has much more data for storage and as a result the second run through shows continued performance improvement.

You should write to Anandtech and tell them they got their article wrong since according to you it doesn't show the results they themselves claim that it does.

 

[NoOther]

You should write to Anandtech and tell them they got their article wrong since according to you it doesn't show the results they themselves claim that it does.

Maybe you should write to Anand and tell him how every conclusion he makes you disagree with based on the '1' singular item you quote out of the entire articles he posts. Anand said the overall performance and capability of the 311 with the SRT makes it a better choice than the F40, but please, continue to get everything wrong as you have done thus far this entire thread. I shouldn't have to since apparently you 'read' the article but here is his FULL conclusion:

Despite what it may look like, Intel appears to have picked the best balance of capacity and performance with its 20GB SLC SSD 311. While I agree that $110 is a bit steep, the SSD 311 does offer surprisingly well rounded performance as a cache. Intel mentioned to me that it did some tweaks to the 311's firmware to improve its performance as a cache, which could help explain just how well it does in our tests. Where the 311 does fall short however is in its capacity and pricing. I'd like to see a 40GB drive priced below $80, however even with a move to 25nm NAND I'm not sure we'd see that from Intel.



Corsair's F40 does pretty well as a cache and if you've got one around the house by all means go for it. Unless you've got a huge collection of applications and games that you'd like to cache however, I'd stick with the 311 at the same price point. If you can snag a F40 for a reduced price however, that does make it a lot more attractive. Here's to hoping that Corsair can push prices down below $85 on that drive for the Z68 users out there that want to experiment with SSD caching.

So despite the fact that the 311 is only 20GB, he still recommends it. He likes the F40 "if" you can get it for a reduced price. And as far as performance, can you not even read the charts he color coded? Remember that eviction doesn't always happen but is a risk. Even with the 40GB you could run the risk of eviction, although the chances are slim, you would have to have a really large write to the drive and loading large programs to cause that to happen. In any case even without eviction, it still does not compare to a system with an SSD OS/APP drive, as he also mentioned. And as both Anand 'and' Intel admit, any kind of cache over 64GB becomes moot when its better to buy a full SSD drive at that point. But what does it matter, even with all this information you still won't get it and will still argue pointless things and quote 1 liners instead of reading the entire article.

 

[SonDa5]

Does somebody know if Z68 RST can be used to use more than one SSD or even a RAM DISK and a SSD for caching?

I'm thinking about making a RAM DISK and using it to cache my single OS SSD.

 

[twelveparsex]

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?

It'd be pretty pointless if it had to relearn everything after a soft reset

the drive gets full very quickly, i just built a z68 system with a 2TB main drive and a 40GB cache; after installing windows, all the drivers and transferring my music library over the cache drive was over 90% full

 

[NoOther]

Does somebody know if Z68 RST can be used to use more than one SSD or even a RAM DISK and a SSD for caching?

I'm thinking about making a RAM DISK and using it to cache my single OS SSD.

I am confused about what you are trying to do here? A RAM disk is comprised of RAM, not flash and should be much faster than your SSD. Are you saying you want a similar setup to the SSD caching by replacing the HDD with SSD and the SSD with a RAM disk? You can't do that with the SRT technology, but there may be a way to achieve that. I personally am not sure how you would do it though. Really if you know how to setup a RAM disk, then you are already 'caching'. The point of a RAM disk is to fully load the programs onto the RAM disk and run them off that. They never touch the hard drive then. Rotating a cache in and out of it would probably affect some sort of performance hit on the RAM disk.

 

[SonDa5]

I was thinking about caching a partition of short stroked RAID 0 hdds with a SSD for programs and setting up my main OS on another SSD and using a small RAM disk as a cache for the OS on the SSD. The idea is to help take some of the load off of the OS SSD with the ram disk cache.

 

[nxcess]

I was thinking about caching a partition of short stroked RAID 0 hdds with a SSD for programs and setting up my main OS on another SSD and using a small RAM disk as a cache for the OS on the SSD. The idea is to help take some of the load off of the OS SSD with the ram disk cache.

I don't know if you can use the RAM disk as cache for an SSD. You can, however, use it for temp files.