Printable View
Does anybody knows how are data written back to HD ? Let say you have data base cached in ssd. And you changed few date and this is than firs written on ssd cache. How log it takes that this updated database is written on HD ? This is important when you make backups from HD so that you don't have old date from hd and not the new one from cache.
ghosting is easy, but if you have a drive larger than your SSD that uses more space than your SSD then you can't easily ghost without deleting/uninstalling stuff. the point of this is you don't have to reinstall stuff, and that's what takes a lot of time and hassle for a lot of people. it's not so much the tech savvy than the time and hassle. i usually keep small boot partitions and data on separate partitions to make it easier to keep regular ghost images and avoid having to reinstall windows unless i'm forced to (and i don't really suffer from slowdown as i regularly keep an eye on start up processes so nothing runs that i don't want to). it's not just installing programs but getting the settings you want etc, bookmarks, your outlook data, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Sickorz
so the idea is good but i don't think seperate products like this will last long. i think shortly the software will be bundled or available so people just buy an SSD and have the option of how they want to use it
would like to see a `mega review` of a pure ssd vs caching on larger drives vs pcie SSD (eg the revo)
... My understanding is that the SSD is 'unknown' to Windows, therefore when you try to access a file (in this case your DB) it asks for the composite device of HDD+SSD and if the file is cached it'll pull it from SSD @ fast/MBs otherwise it will pull from HDD @ slow/MBs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomazk
The question of consistency is a different matter, I imagine everything should be written back to the HDD @ what, 120Mb/s or whatever the drive can handle. If there's 1Gb of data to write, this could be written to the SSD drive in ~2-3 seconds (and then written to the HDD in a further 10s).. for prolonged writes I imagine you leave yourself vulnerable in the instance where the power is pulled from a system that is writing from SSD to HDD. Guess you'd just run chkdsk and hope for the best :)
As far as I know all writes go directly to the HDD that the SSD is fronting - the SSD is only providing read caching and, for all intents and purposes, is invisible to the OS. I'm guessing that that cache software is smart enough to know when the block that it's got on SSD is out of date and supply the user with the up-to-date version from the HDD, and update the cached copy it's got on the SSD. Then, next time the user needs that particular block, it'll be up to date and will get supplied from SSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomazk
Still can't help thinking that being able to front a large HDD (2TB?) with a large SSD (say a 256MB unit) would be the best use of this technology. So your apps and program libraries would eventually end up on SSD, but lesser used stuff (like photo's etc) would remain on the HDD.
Soon as I can afford it though, I'm moving my apps to SSD. :)
so how does this differ from something like fancy cache??
Likewise!Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Nice question. Would be interesting to see a comparison of an SSD Cache drive vs current-SSD drive + FancyCache... Hexus?Quote:
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
Actually looks quite interesting and might be more a kick to a 1TB raid array.
I really can't be bothered with a re-install.
With that I may go SSD with windows 8 if I like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Nope - too expensive, and too big a cache drive. You may as well have all your apps on programs installed directly on a proper SSD and have photos and other media on the 2TB - even the most non-techie person can understand that they have a boot drive and a storage drive because they appear different in My Computer.Quote:
Still can't help thinking that being able to front a large HDD (2TB?) with a large SSD (say a 256MB unit) would be the best use of this technology. So your apps and program libraries would eventually end up on SSD, but lesser used stuff (like photo's etc) would remain on the HDD.
No point effectively losing 256GB of space from your storage drive.
I didn't explain myself properly - I'm not talking about the folks on Hexus, more Joe Public. I've seen a heck of a lot of systems that had a single drive and when I've quietly suggested that other layouts would have "better" have been told that this was "too much trouble". On the other hand if you had this software plus a large drive then you can guarantee that OS and programs would be migrated to SSD with little, if any, effort on the part of the user.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
Note that I said "the best use of the technology to me" not "I intend to use that technology to". If/when I can afford that large SSD (although I could really do with one for my laptop too) then I'll be doing a lift 'n' shift from my current "D" (/APPS) drive to the new SSD. Although first priority at the moment is to upgrade my current 64GB boot drive to something a little larger, because I've had a couple of large apps that have insisted (no choice given) in slapping a lot of data in there and I'm running out of free space as a result.
Thanks for the real world benchmarks - really put things in perspective!
I'd still tend to disagree, because I've yet to meet someone who is sufficiently IT literate to want a fast computer who is unwilling or unable to manage a storage drive in additional to their usual drive (be it a small or a large HDD). With smaller SSDs I totally see the point, but 256GB is so large you'd struggle to be limited by space meaning it is simply no hassle, for anyone, to put photos/other large media on a storage drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Anyway you've obviously had different experiences so we'll have to agree to disagree.
You've never had to deal with the trauma of supporting attention-span-limited teenagers then... ;) They don't want you "interfering with my stuff" but still want help to get into Farcebook (or like whatever) quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
Of course, next time we get into that argument about "keeping stuff organized = faster/easier" I'll be able to quote you, adding "so see, it's not just me saying that!!!!". So :thumbsup: for the support! :mrgreen:
Fair enough.. but with one proviso. This isn't about it being no hassle to micromanage a small SSD and a large HDD because Windows + programs + docs won't fit on the ssd - it's about being no hassle to keep media on a large HDD, and not worrying about windows/programs/docs (everything else) being on an SSD, because there's so much space it won't be filled except by putting media on it. Just to be clear for future reference :pQuote:
Originally Posted by crossy
I don't see how people here aren't being limited by space, I already have ~200GB of games just from Steam . . . in terms of all programs, I'm eating at 330GB + 20GB for Windows, so 350GB. >_>'
256GB enough for a SSD? Heh.
The caching drives plus a larger HDD makes more sense to me as a heavy gamer at this point in time. Managing Steam and petty stuff takes more time than I'd ever save on a straight SSD solution, so there are those outside "Joe Public" that benefit from it (caching) too . . . fewer? Yep, but still exist.
I am with shike on this, not all my programs/games will fit on a large ssd, so the fact this will give me ssd like performance on the programs I am using a lot currently is great.