NTFS Junctions on Window 8.1 to reduce demand on SSD Boot Drive. How to do it please?

[Frank E]

Hi I haven;t posted in a long time but I was hoping someone could help please. I finally upgraded my hardware to an x64 with 120GB SSD boot drive, and a 1TB drive which I've partitioned (/intended to partition) to E: Exes, D: Docs and an unallocated bit for dual boot OSes. I'm installing Windows 8.1 (yes I like it and prefer it to Windows 7, MS Office, Project, something to run VM for different OSes Servers and XP32 so I can migrate my e-mail eg Oracle VB or something off Dreamspark, AutoCAD, Revit and some electronics software modeling, PCB creation, reliability software
I can't get the junctions to work correctly.

Before I set the user a/c details

Robocopied [Robocopy] the Program Files, Program Files (x86), ProgramData to the mechanical drive E: Exes partition. Robocopied Users to the docs partition all using /E /COPYALL /XJ switch

Deleted [RD] the original Program Files, Program Files (x86), ProgramData and Users directories /S /Q switch

Created NTFS Junctions [mklink] Program Files, Program Files (x86), Users directories on C: to respective partitions and directories
Booted

RD the ProgramData

Created NTFS Junction [mklink] the ProgramData to the appropriate partition and directory

Modified the parsed entries in the Registry HK\LM\SW\MS\WN\CV\

Modified the %SystemDrive% entries in the RegistryHK\LM\SW\MS\WN NT\CV\Profile List

What's going wrong is the installer is assigning drive letters and I have no control over that so can't be sure what drive the junctions actually point to. I've tried this a couple of times and the installer is not consistent.
Quite a few applications I have installed didn;t give an option to change the installation drive and directory. I was going to create Program Files SSD (x64) and Program Files SSD (x86) to install applications I wanted on the SSD if given the choice of installation directory.

Is there a way to do make junctions work correctly for 8.1?
Do junctions work across volumes? partitions?
Am I wasting my time?

Thanks in adavance

[Millennium]

This worked for me, you can use it for things other than steam

NB this is an advanced link / topic pleaseproceed at your own pace!

http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover

edit: that may not actually help you, but it's on topic!

To those that have asked, I have tried using mklink to create hardlinks, but they do not work to link to another drive - they only provide a shortcut to a file on the same drive.

[directhex]

FWIW, the Windows installer now totally blocks you from installing major upgrades if you do this, e.g. 8.0->8.1

[GoNz0]

this any good ? http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinks...extension.html

[DBarber]

seems to be an over complicated way to go about things, its quite possible to have two program files folders one for ssd and another on the d:/e:/whatever partition, just re-/install those programs where you want them.
As for the documents/pictures etc folders simply right click select properties and move them that way.
The more important things to worry about when it comes to wear and tear on an ssd are
1. page file
2. hibernate file
3. temp folders
4. indexing
take the appropriate steps to relocate/disable these features.
Be warned as stated MS have stated categorically they will not support win8/8.1 in configs where user/system folders have been re-located.

[kalniel]

The more important things to worry about when it comes to wear and tear on an ssd are
1. page file

Not really - page is write few, read many, and it's best to put this on the SSD. But a lot of people configure a page file much larger than they need to. With modern RAM quantities you only need a tiny page file really.

[DBarber]

Not really - page is write few, read many, and it's best to put this on the SSD. But a lot of people configure a page file much larger than they need to. With modern RAM quantities you only need a tiny page file really.

windows page file is in constant use for both reading and writing, windows itself sets page file at avg 1.5x ram installed don't understand where you get that idea from?
as for "best located" best for what? certainly not wear and tear on ssd, many modern systems with high volumes of ram simply do not need a page file unless its for fault finding or user laziness ie not closing programs they aren't using.

[kalniel]

Windows itself doesn't set the page file very well, but it hasn't done 1.5x ram since XP (first link). You should still manually set it though. Best located for performance reasons. The amount of writes is not going to have an impact on SSD life, it's mostly reads (40:1, see second link below). Modern systems do still expect page files sadly, even if RAM is high. But it does mean you don't need very much.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussi...7/3155406.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...rives-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.

[DBarber]

Windows itself doesn't set the page file very well, but it hasn't done 1.5x ram since XP (first link). You should still manually set it though. Best located for performance reasons. The amount of writes is not going to have an impact on SSD life, it's mostly reads (40:1, see second link below). Modern systems do still expect page files sadly, even if RAM is high. But it does mean you don't need very much.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussi...7/3155406.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2...rives-and.aspx

no data is given on the actual amount of data written or read, given the actual purpose of a cache file you would always expect the reads to be more than the writes due to cache misses, this in no way debunks the fact that windows cachefile usage also writes a hell of a lot of data to the drive and IMHO should be disabled.
Don't forget that with the prioritising algorithms being so aggressive, the smaller the swapfile the likelyhood is the writing to those sectors will increase
Having jumped on the SSD bandwagon nearly seven years ago with a couple of OCZ Core 30GBs that are still going strong in my HTPCs and seeing many ssds used in systems that i haven't optimised fai, my preference is to go with disabling full stop

[kalniel]

no data is given on the actual amount of data written or read, given the actual purpose of a cache file you would always expect the reads to be more than the writes due to cache misses, this in no way debunks the fact that windows cachefile usage also writes a hell of a lot of data to the drive and IMHO should be disabled.

Numerous articles and even Hexus forum threads have investigated *total* data written and it's tiny. Typical Hexus user write is about 2.5 TB/year.

Don't forget that with the prioritising algorithms being so aggressive, the smaller the swapfile the likelyhood is the writing to those sectors will increase

Don't get pagefile confused with superfetch, which is the thing really targeted by prioritising algorithms. Write levelling means size doesn't really matter - it won't be writing to the same cells in any case.

Having jumped on the SSD bandwagon nearly seven years ago with a couple of OCZ Core 30GBs that are still going strong in my HTPCs and seeing many ssds used in systems that i haven't optimised fai, my preference is to go with disabling full stop

And likewise I've done the opposite and left page files on the SSDs I've managed, (and dumped other caches on them too) and they haven't failed.

[DBarber]

think the general discussion was about wear and tear and you don't mention the longest surviving ssd you have experienced..
yet you still argue that for "performance" reasons its best to leave the pagefile on the ssd rather than replace it with real RAM which is far faster than even the quickest SSD? not a great argument there

[kalniel]

think the general discussion was about wear and tear and you don't mention the longest surviving ssd you have experienced..

Well much the same as you - original generation of Sandforce drives.

yet you still argue that for "performance" reasons its best to leave the pagefile on the ssd rather than replace it with real RAM which is far faster than even the quickest SSD?

Where did I say that?

[aidanjt]

SSD wear is way overstated. Just treat it like any other drive. As long as it has enough space for your OS, applications, and relevant system files, there's no problem at all, just keep chunky media and applications like games on the spinner.

[DBarber]

Well much the same as you - original generation of Sandforce drives.
Where did I say that?

post 8 " Best located for performance reasons"

[DBarber]

whilst ssd wear may be overstated these days As you are more likely to replace for tumbling cost per GB and increased performance when i started with them at £4 per GB you couldn't afford to take the chance.
As for putting my games etc on spinning disks are you joking? spend all that money per GB and not use it to load your fav apps? in some cases its the loading of OS from SSD that is more of a joke lets face it most people only load the OS once a day your fav apps will get loaded several times a day

[Kumagoro]

A HDD also wears from use... The xtremesystems thread where they tried to wear out ssds proves how irrelevant these old recommendations for ssds are now and have been for the last few years already.