Intel 34nm SSD released
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Windows 7 disables the scheduled automatic defrag for SSDs itself (along with SuperFetch among other things), so that's not really a problem. Obviously for Vista you would, but most people will have Windows 7 by the time SSDs become mainstream to make this point moot. Also, Windows 7 is clever enough to leave it enabled for standard HDDs where you would want this feature enabled.
A lot of the reasons why these tweaks are a bad idea have already mentioned in the thread I linked to. However, the following stand out as particularly bad advice.
Turning off Windows Update - The only reason you would do this is you pirated Windows. Seriously, why recommend this? Do you want people to get viruses due to not having the latest updates/hotfixes?
UAC - Similar to the above, keeping this on increases security and is MUCH less annoying in Windows 7. It also forces developers to write programs that work correctly under limited user accounts (which is a good thing).
Page File - This is required by Windows even when you have a SSD and/or lots of RAM. See here, here or here for good explanations on why you shouldn't do this. The third link is one of Microsoft's blogs.
Hibernation - No harm in leaving this enabled. Can be useful for laptops (which I imagine is where most SSDs end up).
System Restore - Useful if something does go wrong with Windows. Although disabling it would save some space if you're a cheapskate and bought a 30GB (or smaller) SSD.
A lot of the reasons why these tweaks are a bad idea have already mentioned in the thread I linked to. However, the following stand out as particularly bad advice.
Turning off Windows Update - The only reason you would do this is you pirated Windows. Seriously, why recommend this? Do you want people to get viruses due to not having the latest updates/hotfixes?
UAC - Similar to the above, keeping this on increases security and is MUCH less annoying in Windows 7. It also forces developers to write programs that work correctly under limited user accounts (which is a good thing).
Page File - This is required by Windows even when you have a SSD and/or lots of RAM. See here, here or here for good explanations on why you shouldn't do this. The third link is one of Microsoft's blogs.
Hibernation - No harm in leaving this enabled. Can be useful for laptops (which I imagine is where most SSDs end up).
System Restore - Useful if something does go wrong with Windows. Although disabling it would save some space if you're a cheapskate and bought a 30GB (or smaller) SSD.
According to Intel you should disable defragmentation on an SSD.josephclemente wrote:Why are the tweaks a bad idea? Should we be defragmenting our SSD drives?
If you look at my previous post you will see that Windows 7 does this automatically plus includes some other tweaks for SSDs.Do I need to defragment my Intel® Mainstream Solid-State Drives (using Windows* Disk Defragmenter* or similar program)?
No. SSD devices, unlike traditional HDDs, see no performance benefit from traditional HDD defragmentation tools. Using these tools simply adds unnecessary wear to the SSD. It is recommended that you disable any automatic or scheduled defragmentation utilities for your Intel SSD.
-
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
- Location: USA (Phoenix, AZ)
I am running a Samsung 64GB SLC SSD drive. I also have 8GB RAM.
My RAM size makes my pagefile and hibernation files consume 25% of my SSD. I turned off hibernation and don't miss it at all (desktop system). I moved my pagefile (system managed size) to my WD GP hard drive, as an alternative to just disabling it. This gives me more space for applications on the SSD while allowing pagefile usage if Windows really needs it.
If the drive was in my laptop, I would leave both features at their defaults. My laptop is maxed out at 3GB RAM and can only have one drive installed. I like hibernation on a laptop, and memory is lower so it may see more pagefile usage.
My RAM size makes my pagefile and hibernation files consume 25% of my SSD. I turned off hibernation and don't miss it at all (desktop system). I moved my pagefile (system managed size) to my WD GP hard drive, as an alternative to just disabling it. This gives me more space for applications on the SSD while allowing pagefile usage if Windows really needs it.
If the drive was in my laptop, I would leave both features at their defaults. My laptop is maxed out at 3GB RAM and can only have one drive installed. I like hibernation on a laptop, and memory is lower so it may see more pagefile usage.
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
Letting Windows pick its own pagefile size on a large partition of a magnetic HDD is a bad idea. Nothing fragments a disk faster than letting windows grow and shrink the pagefile at fancy.josephclemente wrote:I am running a Samsung 64GB SLC SSD drive. I also have 8GB RAM.
My RAM size makes my pagefile and hibernation files consume 25% of my SSD. I turned off hibernation and don't miss it at all (desktop system). I moved my pagefile (system managed size) to my WD GP hard drive, as an alternative to just disabling it. This gives me more space for applications on the SSD while allowing pagefile usage if Windows really needs it.
You can set the pagefile size to something smaller than your physical RAM size. If I were you, I'd remove automatic page file sizing, and set both the minimum and maximum to something like 2 GB (on the SSD, with no page file elsewhere). That's not gobbling up huge chunks of your SSD, but it will keep windows happy, and if anything does get paged for some reason, it'll be much faster to retrieve than if it were on your storage disk.
-
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
- Location: USA (Phoenix, AZ)
When I created the pagefile, it was the only file on the hard drive. Windows immediately set the file to 8GB, which is where it is at today. If the file grows, shouldn't at least the first 8GB stay unfragmented?swivelguy2 wrote:Letting Windows pick its own pagefile size on a large partition of a magnetic HDD is a bad idea. Nothing fragments a disk faster than letting windows grow and shrink the pagefile at fancy.
Page file fragmentation is nothing to worry about. As Joseph said above, the first 8GB of the page file would still be in one piece.swivelguy2 wrote:Letting Windows pick its own pagefile size on a large partition of a magnetic HDD is a bad idea. Nothing fragments a disk faster than letting windows grow and shrink the pagefile at fancy.
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
I didn't realize an auto-allocated pagefile would have such a large minimum size. I suppose it won't get fragmented then. Still, I would keep a small pagefile on the SSD, because the entire point of the SSD is to have data that you might need soon (or frequently) available with a shorter access time. Setting a custom size is the workaround for the automatic size equal to physical RAM being too big. 1 or 2 GB of pagefile will be plenty, especially with 8 GB of RAM.
Well as I mentioned earlier, I like the tweaks and have been running with many of them for a while now. I found a lot of them on the OCZ forums. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this stuff and I disagree with yours.ace_uk wrote:Windows 7 disables the scheduled automatic defrag for SSDs itself (along with SuperFetch among other things), so that's not really a problem. Obviously for Vista you would, but most people will have Windows 7 by the time SSDs become mainstream to make this point moot. Also, Windows 7 is clever enough to leave it enabled for standard HDDs where you would want this feature enabled.
A lot of the reasons why these tweaks are a bad idea have already mentioned in the thread I linked to. However, the following stand out as particularly bad advice.
Turning off Windows Update - The only reason you would do this is you pirated Windows. Seriously, why recommend this? Do you want people to get viruses due to not having the latest updates/hotfixes?
UAC - Similar to the above, keeping this on increases security and is MUCH less annoying in Windows 7. It also forces developers to write programs that work correctly under limited user accounts (which is a good thing).
Page File - This is required by Windows even when you have a SSD and/or lots of RAM. See here, here or here for good explanations on why you shouldn't do this. The third link is one of Microsoft's blogs.
Hibernation - No harm in leaving this enabled. Can be useful for laptops (which I imagine is where most SSDs end up).
System Restore - Useful if something does go wrong with Windows. Although disabling it would save some space if you're a cheapskate and bought a 30GB (or smaller) SSD.
A lot of people do run unauthorised copies of Windows, so disabling Windows Update could be more important than worrying about viruses. Updates can be done manually if necessary. Big deal.
UAC is just an annoyance to me and it's one of the first things I disable. Although I see how this can be useful for inexperienced users.
I've read a lot of debates about this, but I haven't used a pagefile for many years, and have had zero problems, even when I was running 1GB RAM. I've now got 4GB so I'm even less concerned. I know there are plenty of others who've had the same experiences.
I'm glad to be a cheapskate because it has allowed me to experience early the benefits of an SSD without spending too much. Getting rid of hibernation (which I've never used on any system, however I agree it is useful for laptops) and system restore has freed up a lot of space on my 30GB SSD. It can easily fit the OS and all my apps with plenty of breathing space.
I have to say I find a lot of this geeky FUD irritating. It's lame. So what if I have to wipe the drive and reinstall the OS anyway? Hardware failures (mechanical disks, funnily enough) have been the only problems that I've experienced over many years of being connected to the internet 12+ hours a day, and I seem to have dealt with those without too much fuss. The only important thing to remember is to keep backups of important data at all times, which is good advice regardless of how "safe" and "secure" you think you are.
That says it all really. The reason they suggested a lot of the things you mentioned is due to the fact that their early SSDs performed so poorly, particularly the Core Series with its freezing and stuttering issues (due to shockingly bad random write performance).alleycat wrote:I found a lot of them on the OCZ forums.
There's absolutely no need to do anything of this when you have a decent SSD (like the Vertex or X25-M etc.) and Windows 7. Just install Windows on it and that's it.
One of the most annoying things with updates is, that once it automatically downloads and installs them, it might also automatically boot your system (and it always does it with "critical" updates), which is a total pain in the ass, when you have some important things running on your computer, and when you come back to your computer you find it waiting for you in the log on screen. I still let my computer inform me of updates, but that's all I allow it to do.ace_uk wrote:Turning off Windows Update - The only reason you would do this is you pirated Windows. Seriously, why recommend this? Do you want people to get viruses due to not having the latest updates/hotfixes?
Anyone with any basic computer skills can download and install the updates manually when it suits them best. That makes Cov's advice excellent, except for retards who should have no place messing with Windows settings in the first place.
Also a pain in the ass for a user, who wants as smooth experiece as possible. I find clicking random confirmation buttons all the time very annoying. Again, anyone with any computer skills can ignore this. UAC helps increase security, but it's mostly there to protect average users (idiots) from themselves.UAC - Similar to the above, keeping this on increases security and is MUCH less annoying in Windows 7. It also forces developers to write programs that work correctly under limited user accounts (which is a good thing).
No use either, if you are on a desktop.Hibernation - No harm in leaving this enabled. Can be useful for laptops (which I imagine is where most SSDs end up).
Again not really that useful, if you know what you are doing. Personally, I have never used it since I moved to Windows XP. Plus system restore won't help you in case of drive failure, so I think it's better to just have a backup image.System Restore - Useful if something does go wrong with Windows. Although disabling it would save some space if you're a cheapskate and bought a 30GB (or smaller) SSD.
I already am. No need to. And to refer to someone as "dude", especially one who is a mature aged adult is shallow minded and un-Australian. Even though I am on the internet, I will refer to a user by their nickname, true name, Sir or mate.alleycat wrote:Dude, you really need to chill out.
Good Doctor, thank you for the diagnosis. I may well have an inferiority complex. I am probably inferior to you and 80% of the people here. It does not bother me. Humble, simple, unpretentious people are the true victors of life.alleycat wrote:Seems like you've got a bit of an inferiority complex or something.
I consider calling someone's HDD that they bought with their hard earned money as "mechanical junk" as looking down on them. I wonder what else could be classified as "junk"? Maybe everything else in a PC that is slow, heavy, noisy, clunky? Digital SLRs with all their moving parts "junk"? If I am not mistaken, the vast majority of people on SPCR still own and use HDDs. I wonder how they feel about the hundred of dollars they just spent on their "junk".alleycat wrote:I don't think anyone here is looking down on others for not owning an SSD.
I would not look down upon my worst enemy or the beggar in the street. But if you want to look down on a poor old chap, that is your choice and you are free to do it.alleycat wrote:I do, however, look down on those who don't know what they're talking about.
SPCR has become a broad community for people who seek quiet computing solutions. If you do not believe that, you should take it up with its owner. Have a look at the hardware that has been reviewed here recently. Some of it is far from being silent if we are to view it in purists' terms. If SPCR was only for the dead silent purists, half or more of the users who come to this site would have no place here.alleycat wrote:And in case anyone has forgotten, this is SilentPCReview, so is it surprising that a silent solution to one of the most problematic sources of noise has been met with such enthusiasm by forum members?
To alleycat, Even though I have had to valiantly defend here some of my statements in the face of adversity, I do not wish to continue arguing in this manner. If you are willing to accept a truce, I am even more willing to do so.
To All concerned, For what it is worth, I am not against SSDs nor the people that adopt them early and use them with such enthusiasm. I am against mine and others' hardware labelled mechanical junk. In time, I think SSDs will provide benefits to everyday computing, and as they become more affordable for average folk, they will become more popular and possibly ubiquitous.
I will gladly depart this thread henceforth. I will leave it for those who own the SSDs in question so they can help one another in their uses. Thank you for the time to speak my peace.
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:37 am
Intel has released its firmware fix for 34-nm SSDs
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_ ... ldID=17485
- The Intel SATA SSD Firmware Update tool now supports X25-M 34nm products (silver case) as well as the X25-M 50nm products (black case).
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_ ... ldID=17485
- The Intel SATA SSD Firmware Update tool now supports X25-M 34nm products (silver case) as well as the X25-M 50nm products (black case).
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
OK, so there is a fix for the G2 drives but when I do a price search all I'm seeing are G1 drives (G1 = 50nm, G2 = 34nm).Dirge wrote:Intel has released its firmware fix for 34-nm SSDs
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_ ... ldID=17485
- The Intel SATA SSD Firmware Update tool now supports X25-M 34nm products (silver case) as well as the X25-M 50nm products (black case).
It's nice to see the 80GB G1 down to the $225 to $250 range but when will fixed G2 drives show back up and how much will they cost with all the pent up demand pushing the price?
Looks like OCZ is about to release new firmware for the Vertex drives. The interesting thing is that it includes idle time garbage collection so TRIM implementation and performance degradation will no longer be an issue.
Google "page file page faults" and you will see why.alleycat wrote:I've read a lot of debates about this, but I haven't used a pagefile for many years, and have had zero problems, even when I was running 1GB RAM. I've now got 4GB so I'm even less concerned. I know there are plenty of others who've had the same experiences.
SourceA page is a fixed size block of memory that can be moved between memory and the page file on the hard disk. x86 Windows uses 4KB pages. When the OS needs to make space in physical memory, pages that are not likely to be required in the near future are moved to disk.
A page fault occurs when the page an application is requesting is not available in memory.
There are two types of page fault;
Hard Page Fault - the requested page isn't available in main memory and must be loaded from disk. These are the most costly performance wise - could be anywhere between 10,000 to 100,000 times slower than if the page had been available.
Soft Page Fault - the requested page isn't currently available to the application, but the page exists in memory. Soft faults are much faster than hard faults as no disk access is required, all the viriutal memory manager has to do is update page tables to allow the program access to the requested page. This usually occurs when pages are shared between programs.
Pages faults are never really good, but are a common and necessary event. When looking at 'Page Fault' figures in windows you need to be aware if the figure includes both soft and hard faults or just one or the other. It's also important to look at how the page faults are impacting the system, rather than just worrying about the number.
Take the vmware-hostd service. That always seems to have high numbers of page faults listed in task manager. Now, the task manager page faults is the sum of both hard and soft faults, however digging deeper, most of the faults are soft. Presumably the service is sharing some memory with the running VMs in order to manage them. In this case high page faults isn't something to worry about.
If on the other hand you are getting lots of hard page faults and this is causing high disk utilisation then you have a problem - thrashing is the term used to describe the situation where a computer spends all its time swapping pages in and out of memory instead of running the applications.
You do realise it would be quicker to disable the automatic reboot, rather than spend the time installing the updates manually? If you download the .reg file located on this website, it takes literally a few seconds.Erssa wrote:One of the most annoying things with updates is, that once it automatically downloads and installs them, it might also automatically boot your system (and it always does it with "critical" updates), which is a total pain in the ass, when you have some important things running on your computer, and when you come back to your computer you find it waiting for you in the log on screen. I still let my computer inform me of updates, but that's all I allow it to do.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows- ... -computer/
I'm using XP, it doesn't work on XP or Vista Home according to the link.ace_uk wrote:You do realise it would be quicker to disable the automatic reboot, rather than spend the time installing the updates manually? If you download the .reg file located on this website, it takes literally a few seconds.Erssa wrote:One of the most annoying things with updates is, that once it automatically downloads and installs them, it might also automatically boot your system (and it always does it with "critical" updates), which is a total pain in the ass, when you have some important things running on your computer, and when you come back to your computer you find it waiting for you in the log on screen. I still let my computer inform me of updates, but that's all I allow it to do.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows- ... -computer/
I still prefer to install tem manually. That way I know what I am installing on my computer.
Yes, they do.Dirge wrote:Do they really make things that more responsive on your systems?
Size: The SSD is almost as small as a credit card
Weight: HDD = 630 Gr. / SSD = 80 Gr. That's a huge difference.
Temperature: HDDs can be between 30 and 50 degrees or higher, SSDs are constantly cool.
Noise: HDDs make hissing, clicking, humming, etc ... noises while the SSD is absolutely inaudible
Performance: well, just looks at these results and compare to your HDD ...
Matija, the off topic section is here.
They even don't mind if you post retared jokes.
They even don't mind if you post retared jokes.
Dirge asked a simple question, whether SSDs make the computer more responsive.
You responded with comments about size, weight, temperature and noise, inserted a screenshot from a meaningless synthetic benchmark, and then spammed the thread with 363 KB of images.
For the "retared" (sic) comment: fuck off.
You responded with comments about size, weight, temperature and noise, inserted a screenshot from a meaningless synthetic benchmark, and then spammed the thread with 363 KB of images.
For the "retared" (sic) comment: fuck off.
You have just been reported to SPCR admin.Matija wrote:Dirge asked a simple question, whether SSDs make the computer more responsive.
You responded with comments about size, weight, temperature and noise, inserted a screenshot from a meaningless synthetic benchmark, and then spammed the thread with 363 KB of images.
For the "retared" (sic) comment: fuck off.
A friend of mine has one and swears by it.Dirge wrote:Fo those of you who picked up one of these SSDs what your impressions? Do they really make things that more responsive on your systems?
Anandtech agrees: article by Anand himself says "I still believe that a SSD is the single most effective performance upgrade you can do to your PC". (The entire article, while long, is well worth the read to understand the advantages and the challenges of SSDs.)