SSD issues with Installs-HELP

clok1966

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
81
I recently built a new system Gigabyte p67UD, 2600K, 8g ram intel X25M SSD and a few 1TB hd's. FRESH install if win7 Ultimate.

First, no SataII ports are in use, I have a SATA III card and my SSD and one HD are on the onboard SATA III ports. This is a fresh install, all win7 updates. I have moved my Program Files, and my documents folders to the D drive to save space on my SSD. I also manulay set my page file to 1 to 4 megs. I used this Zdavis story
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windows-7-and-ssds-cutting-your-system-drive-down-to-size/2941?pg=3

I have since changed the pagefile back to windows managed.

ths issue is when I install stuff. Say game off STEAM, the game install fine, but when it comes to setting up direct X or C runtime libraries, or even say LIVE games for windows (no chuckles!). the install runs and just stalls out, stops. My machine becomes unresponsive for 1-3 minutes then if you did hit task manger it will pop up, you do a kill command and wiat 2-3 minutes and let it kill the install, wait 2-3 minutes and you ahve control again. If you then run the install it will finish no sweat.

Reboots dont change this. As far as I can tell install size does. winrar installed fine, winzip. but anything with some size will do this. hang, you kill it, (no reboot) needed)and reinstall and it works the second time every time.

As I have a fresh machine I moved my steam games drive over, whenver I run a game again it runs the C runtimes.. and this issue happens. And as I say, its not just STEAM, but any install

its not poping windows behind windows (i have checked), its almost like the Win7 "will you allow dalog" isnt poping up and its hanging at that? but when i reinstll the second time no windows pop up... so?

this one has me 100% stumped.. Everything works fine.. DVDfab, games, browsers, compiling, encodeing, ripping... its just installs.
 

ghost6303

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
2,291
we need a sticky about what to do and what not to do with your page file, because daily i see people doing dumb things with it. seems like you put it back though, so moving on...

have you tried downloading and reinstalling directX or .NET?
what does task manager say the computer is doing during this time? does it hang too (and not update)? or is a process pegged at 100% cpu usage when nothing is happening? are you installing to SSD or to the hard drive? are you overclocked at all? are you watching CPU temperatures?

i would run some stability programs like prime95 blend, or orthos or similar, to make sure this isnt your problem first. check the drives' SMART data and maybe run a benchmark just to make sure that none of the drives are doing something strange.
 

clok1966

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
81
Page file thing, yes I have no idea how it works, and assumed that the guy writing that knew his stuff.. but everybody tells me dont mess with it... so its back to where it was originaly, but problem presists.

I have run the Intel SSD diagnostic and it all is ok. I have run intel burn for a few hours (and I ran prime95 overnight ).

task manager: when this happens the whole computer freezes, you do anything ctrl/alt/del for task manager it will come up, but only after a minute or two. The computer is fine for about 5 seconds.. you can click around in task manager and looka t stuff, but then it feezes for 2-3 more minutes. And no, when this is going on nthing is pegged in Task Manger, in fact nothing is more that 2-3% (normal).

I will try the direct X and .net good spot to start.

I am not installing anything ot the SSD I have the c: drive with the OS, but the d: Drive has a PROGRAM FILES whre I install all programs and I have a G: drive with just my STEAM folder and games. SO no, not installing to my SSD if giving the choice,

I wouldnt be so frustrated but everything works fine EXCEPT installs.
 

InvisiBill

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
2,608
How exactly did you move the Program Files folder from C: to D:? It used to be an option in the answer file during install, but MS removed that from newer versions of Windows because they said it caused too many problems. Depending on how you did that, it might be causing issues for Windows.

An SSD is a standard SATA device. The OS doesn't really treat it any differently as far as simply storing files goes.

Regarding the pagefile, it only needs to be big enough that combined with your physical RAM, it can hold enough for you to do whatever it is you want to do on your PC. The more RAM you have, the less pagefile you need, but Windows has a pretty generic sizing algorithm that makes your pagefile a multiple of your RAM size by default. If you want to have 6GB of stuff in memory and you have 2GB of RAM, you'd need a 4GB pagefile. If you upgrade to 4GB of RAM, you'd only need a 2GB pagefile.
 

DisrupTer911

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
1,193
Are you running the latest SATA controller drivers on that auxiliary card your running?

To me that sounds like the issue. That controller isn't responding correctly to windows commands.
Did you verify compatibility between your SSD & SATA controller?
 

DisrupTer911

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
1,193
An SSD is a standard SATA device. The OS doesn't really treat it any differently as far as simply storing files goes.

Regarding the pagefile, it only needs to be big enough that combined with your physical RAM, it can hold enough for you to do whatever it is you want to do on your PC. The more RAM you have, the less pagefile you need, but Windows has a pretty generic sizing algorithm that makes your pagefile a multiple of your RAM size by default. If you want to have 6GB of stuff in memory and you have 2GB of RAM, you'd need a 4GB pagefile. If you upgrade to 4GB of RAM, you'd only need a 2GB pagefile.


That's absolutely incorrect. Windows 7 recognizes SSDs and configures trim & disables defrag automatically. It doesn't do that to a HDD.

Also the pagefile should be a min of 1.5x your ram ammount. you should never set pagefile at less then ram value. You can relocate to a separate drive but not a different partition on the same drive with no issues whatsoever. It's highly recommended to speed up pagefile use and minimize drive wear.

Again this all sounds like a controller issue.
 

clok1966

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
81
Are you running the latest SATA controller drivers on that auxiliary card your running?

To me that sounds like the issue. That controller isn't responding correctly to windows commands.
Did you verify compatibility between your SSD & SATA controller?

Well the SSD is hooked to the onboard Sata III controler.But the drives that I am installing to are on the SATA II addin card. I do have the software that came with the card installed, but I never looked for any updated stuff. Next step tonight will be to look for an update of the software (firmware?)


Invisbill: I used the win7 options for it (location tab)... again I followed this guys setup
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windo...size/2941?pg=2

I no longer have the page file manual its done by windows, at frist I thought this fixed it but no.. same thing.

I did verify win7 is seeing my SSD as a SSD as it seems sometimes it doesnt.

I did reinstall directX and .net but didnt get a chance to test last night.

Im just stumped why installs would cuase issues but moveing files, opening installed programs, etc dont cause any issues.
 

InvisiBill

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
2,608
That's absolutely incorrect. Windows 7 recognizes SSDs and configures trim & disables defrag automatically. It doesn't do that to a HDD.

Note that I didn't say the OS doesn't do anything at all any differently. I said it doesn't really treat an SSD differently when it comes to simply storing files on a SATA device.

It makes the changes you mentioned based on the RPM reported by the drive (which is why it didn't always work correctly with early SSDs) and some speed tests and neither of your examples is directly related to simply storing a file on a SATA device. TRIM is closer than defrag in this regard, but it has to do with deleting a file as opposed to storing it. Even then, there's no reason you couldn't use TRIM on a standard platter HDD. Instead of simply marking a sector as available for writing, it could actually zero out that location, eliminating the need to wipe a disk before getting rid of it.

You may have less than optimal results, but anything that supports a SATA HDD should be able to store data on a SATA SSD exactly the same way, because they both adhere to the SATA standards. Windows doesn't have to completely change the way it handles storing files when you swap in your SSD. My point was that you're not going to run into weird issues writing files simply because you swapped a standard SATA SSD in place of a standard SATA HDD. Some people who don't fully understand SSDs don't realize that they're designed to act just like any other SATA drive, so they shouldn't cause or require any craziness with a simple swap. A few tweaks for optimal performance or longevity, yes; major craziness, no.


Also the pagefile should be a min of 1.5x your ram ammount. you should never set pagefile at less then ram value. You can relocate to a separate drive but not a different partition on the same drive with no issues whatsoever. It's highly recommended to speed up pagefile use and minimize drive wear.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx
Mark Russinovich of Sysinternals said:
How Big Should I Make the Paging File?

Perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions related to virtual memory is, how big should I make the paging file? There’s no end of ridiculous advice out on the web and in the newsstand magazines that cover Windows, and even Microsoft has published misleading recommendations. Almost all the suggestions are based on multiplying RAM size by some factor, with common values being 1.2, 1.5 and 2. Now that you understand the role that the paging file plays in defining a system’s commit limit and how processes contribute to the commit charge, you’re well positioned to see how useless such formulas truly are.
...
To optimally size your paging file you should start all the applications you run at the same time, load typical data sets, and then note the commit charge peak (or look at this value after a period of time where you know maximum load was attained). Set the paging file minimum to be that value minus the amount of RAM in your system (if the value is negative, pick a minimum size to permit the kind of crash dump you are configured for). If you want to have some breathing room for potentially large commit demands, set the maximum to double that number.

I've been using a 1GB pagefile (or none at all) for years, with no issues whatsoever (Win7 Pro x64 and XP x64). I can do this because I have enough RAM to cover my memory needs. The only reason you need to have a pagefile at least as large as your RAM is for full memory dumps (not remotely relevant to most people) or if you actually need that much memory for whatever apps you're running (the sort of apps that aren't applicable to average users, or when you simply have too little RAM for what you want to do).

As for moving the pagefile to another drive, you should keep it on the SSD if possible:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

* Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
* Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
* Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.



I used the win7 options for it (location tab)... again I followed this guys setup
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windows-7-and-ssds-cutting-your-system-drive-down-to-size/2941?pg=2

That doesn't actually have anything about moving Program Files though, just profile stuff. If you did just manually move the folders and change some registry entries, that could very well be the sort of problems MS was referring to when they removed that feature. Note that you can still put the Users directory in a different location during Setup though.

I think you either have a major driver/incompatibility issue as DisrupTer911 said, failing hardware, and/or a corrupted Windows install (could be due to something you did or just coincidence).
 

clok1966

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
81
Had to work last two nights so no testing, but many thanks for all th info. I only moved my profile stuff with the location tab. I did not move my program files folders that win7 makes when you install. But everything since that want to defualt to Prorgam files is now installed to the d drive instead of C... sorry I didnt makt that clear.

I am a noob at Page files stuff, no doubt about it.. but win7 installs and such I consider myslef good enough, I actually am a IT guy, less software more hardware.. Im sure a few are laughing, and I will be the first to admit I dont know 'it all" but enouhg to fix and maintain a large companies computers.

I guess thats why im so stumped, the SSD is pretty new to me and as i have done 50-70 win7 installs on different hardware in the last year and never run into anything like this im just baffled. The SSD is really the only wild card in this for me so was looking there. And blindly taking my advice from a ZDnet story may have been my downfall. it probebly (and actually from reading doesnt) doesnt have anything to do with the SSD.

The driver idea does sound like the right path, but benchmarks and testing show I am getting great read/write speed (at least from other benchmarks) and i cant get any programs to show issues. Quite simply it works flawless except on installs. And installs do eventally work, but just take 2 tries (this really stumps me).

I guess I will just try a reinstall and make sure I have the latest drivers for the SATA card (well, I will try update them before an re install).

once again many thanks for all the advice and info. I will keep you updated on results.. nothing worse than a thread for help and never comming back to post if you fix it.
 

kleox64

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,467
1) Dont move the program files.
2) Dont mess about with the page file, windows 7 will handle this by itself. With 8GB of RAM I would set it to a fixed size of 2-4GB if your using an SSD.
 

clok1966

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
81
Well a update of the Sata Card has made some changes. After updating installs now work but are very slow. I put .net 1.1 on my Win7 machine (if you copy LOTRonline or AD&DOnline over without an instll they wont run without .net1.1 and win 7 has no install, not a fun process to make a .net install for win7) before it would hang and 30 minutes later stil be hung. last night after update it ran in about 10 minutes. Also any steam games installs that reinstall direct X and c++ runtimes (why does every game do it over and over?) now install..

progress. More testing to see.. the .net thing may just becuase its a cobbled togther"cheat" I'm thinking hte driver disc that came with sata card must have been really old or somthing.
 

Snittako

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
132
I have this exact same problem with games installed on my ssd, intel x-25m, Also when I installed win 7 on the ssd it would freeze randomly. I installed the newest firmware and left everything at default. In the end, I switched to a hitachi deskstar as my primary.drive. Possible just a bad ssd drive
 
Top