New PC Build

DJT

unread,

Dec 14, 2012, 5:19:27 PM12/14/12

to

I am planning to build a new PC with h77 Motherboard and small SSD.

I have heard that you can use a small SSD as drive cache with a H77
board.

I have used the SSD in a Win7 machine but the OS took up 90% of the
120Gb SSD.

I couldn't find a way to remove more from drive C; before cloning.

That defeated the purpose of SSD as trim was compromised because of
the lack of spare capacity.

My question is : Would I be better to put the SSD in the new machine
as OS drive(which should fit with a clean load) or would I get better
performance using the SSD as Disk cache.

Thanks

DJT

Paul

unread,

Dec 14, 2012, 6:12:35 PM12/14/12

to

My Win7 laptop has the C: partition set to 40GB NTFS. 26GB currently used.
Your OS doesn't necessarily need all that space (90% of 120GB).

You might be able to put /users structure on another partition,
in which case just OS and programs are on C:.

If I had a tiny SSD, like a 32GB SLC drive, I might make a
cache from that. As otherwise it might not be too useful.
If the drive is a decent size, then it can be used in a
non-cache mode (with some adjustments to what is stored
in the partition).

I would have liked to move the VSS function to another partition,
but desktop OSes don't have the software for that. Apparently,
there is a VSS provider on server OSes, that can use storage
space on another partition. And that might make the "small C:"
idea even more practical.

Paul

SoothSayer

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 1:30:48 PM12/28/12

to

My solution for this matches that of some long time industry pros. One
gets the benefit of a huge magnetic physical drive for capacity, and the
speed of a hybridized (integration-wise) SSD front end.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Momentus-7200RPM-2-5-Inch-STBD750100/dp/B006P1QXFO

Getting folks to embrace this has been slow. Likely because we do not
see Seagate commercials much. Not sure if anyone ever noted any other
problems with this paradigm.

SoothSayer

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 1:37:42 PM12/28/12

to

My super fast USB stick and a USB 3.0 port makes a very fast booting
Linux laptop. It is formatted ext3 and Linux swap. Both work, and
update, etc. just fine. In a 2.0 port, it takes a lot longer to boot.
I wonder if I could make a windows installation on one... hmmmm...

So, a modern USB port and memory stick will be quite fast enough for us
to have a 'cache stick' being one of those bristling from the top or face
of our now declared dead behemoths home PC boxes.

My Patriot "Supersonic MAGNUM" 64 GB stick SCREAMS! (wasn't cheap
either).

Paul

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 1:55:30 PM12/28/12

to

Wouldn't want it. Regular drives work fine for what they are (bulk storage).
Pure SSD drives are good for what they do (boot drive).

The thing about hybrids, is:

1) How many GB per day of writes, are done to the flash chips ?
2) Are the flash chips SLC or MLC ? If MLC, that reduces the
potential lifetime.
3) If the hybrid portion is detected as being defective,
is the controller processor on the controller board smart
enough to avoid using it entirely ?

If (3) is true, I'd buy the tech. If not, then I'd buy one of the other
two "pure" types.

Paul

SoothSayer

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 2:37:39 PM12/28/12

to

http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Momentus-XT-Momentus-Momentus/SSD-vs-Hybrid-Issues-Benchmarking-Hybrid-Drives-and-Defrag/td-p/133034

Pure types die too, and when they do, the entire volume pukes. Nothing
is any different. If anything, Seagate likely manages age internally.
Failure mode records would be interesting to see.

I guess that a market for a mirrored 'pure' drive 'pair' should be
glaringly apparent to anyone with brains.

Other raid levels to follow,

It isn't "the thing about hybrids" at all. "the thing" is about *that*
storage medium itself (solid state), regardless of where or how it is
implemented. Without a true redundant back up or data loss prevention
methodology, 'they' will always be vulnerable, no matter how they get
placed into a system.