Windows XP SSD tweaks?
John Doe
Are the following Solid-State Disk drive tweaks for Windows XP
legitimate and significant? Anything else?
Disable AHCI in both Windows and in the BIOS.
Make sure write caching for the SSD is enabled.
Change the Windows registry.
[search for Values]
Enableprefetcher...change 3 to 0
ClearPageFileAtShutdown...change 0 to 1
LargeSystemcache...change 0 to 1
SecondlevelDataCache... in decimal mode, change 0 to
(what ever the L2 cache is on your CPU)
NtfsDisable8dot3nameCreation change 0 to 1
[search for Keys]
the indexing service.HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg
\BootOptimizeFunction
change Enable Y to N
Download and unpack dskcache.exe to C drive (root)
open command prompt and type
c:\dskcache +p c:
that sets XP to cache writes the same as Vista.
Turn off Indexing Services. Turn off the Windows XP page file for the
SSD. Turn off System Restore. Disable Hibernation.
Thanks.
Paul
This article mentions turning off "timestamp for last access".
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43460
Paul
Eric Gisin
There is one that debunks most of this stuff.
I know AHCI and L2 cache are dead wrong.
"John Doe" <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:L9jBl.15879$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
John Doe
The most outstanding misconception in this context must be "wear
leveling"... when you have an SSD drive with 2 million hours mean
time between failure MTBF.
Anyway, that is why I am asking.
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
--
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>The most outstanding misconception in this context must be "wear
>leveling"... when you have an SSD drive with 2 million hours mean
>time between failure MTBF.
>
>Anyway, that is why I am asking.
MTBF is more a measure of the reliability of a population of drives
rather than an individual drive. So if you had 1000 SSDs, then the
average time between failure would be 2000 hours. In any case I would
expect that the most important predictor of failure would be the
number of writes, not the number of powered-on hours.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
John Doe
> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
>>The most outstanding misconception in this context must be "wear
>>leveling"... when you have an SSD drive with 2 million hours mean
>>time between failure MTBF.
> MTBF is more a measure of the reliability of a population of
> drives rather than an individual drive. So if you had 1000 SSDs,
> then the average time between failure would be 2000 hours.
That is lame mental gymnastics.
> In any case I would expect that the most important predictor of
> failure would be the number of writes, not the number of
> powered-on hours.
Are you suggested that MTBF is calculated/predicted without drive
activity?
But seriously.
It "wear leveling" is a silly idea conjured up by an uneducated and
misinformed techie. Or, at least, hopefully, it was not conjured up
by a professional. There is mention of it in a PDF file downloadable
from OCZ's website. That is a bit discouraging, but probably not
written by American engineers. Solid state devices have always been
known to have extremely long life spans compared to mechanical
devices.
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
>
>>>The most outstanding misconception in this context must be "wear
>>>leveling"... when you have an SSD drive with 2 million hours mean
>>>time between failure MTBF.
>
>> MTBF is more a measure of the reliability of a population of
>> drives rather than an individual drive. So if you had 1000 SSDs,
>> then the average time between failure would be 2000 hours.
>
>That is lame mental gymnastics.
===================================================================
MTBF is a statistically derived number, typically based on ideal
environmental conditions, under which one would expect a failure.
For example:
A product has a MTBF specification of 1.2 million hours.
This means that in a specified environment with a population of 1.2
million (drives) one could expect a failure every hour (from within
that population)
===================================================================
>> In any case I would expect that the most important predictor of
>> failure would be the number of writes, not the number of
>> powered-on hours.
>
>Are you suggested that MTBF is calculated/predicted without drive
>activity?
I don't know how it is calculated. I would hope that the manufacturer
takes into account some "standard" usage pattern, whatever that may
be.
>But seriously.
>
>It "wear leveling" is a silly idea conjured up by an uneducated and
>misinformed techie. Or, at least, hopefully, it was not conjured up
>by a professional. There is mention of it in a PDF file downloadable
>from OCZ's website. That is a bit discouraging, but probably not
>written by American engineers. Solid state devices have always been
>known to have extremely long life spans compared to mechanical
>devices.
Flash memories are typically rated for at least 100,000 writes per
cell. I would think tat such a rating could be easily exceeded if the
OS were allowed to write a swap file to the same memory cells ad
infinitum.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling
The article states that "some file systems aggravate the problem by
tracking last-access times, which can lead to file metadata being
constantly rewritten in-place". This is the problem that Paul was
alluding to.
Wear leveling algorithms are built into the controller chips in flash
drives. Wikipedia's external links point to application notes by
Sandisk, Corsair, and Spansion (AMD).
John Doe
> ..."some file systems aggravate the problem by tracking
> last-access times, which can lead to file metadata being
> constantly rewritten in-place". This is the problem that Paul was
> alluding to.
Paul's recent comment was about speed. That might be a good point
though IMO.
> Wear leveling algorithms are built into the controller chips in
> flash drives.
Looking around the Internet, avoiding Wiki using my new MicroGear
scroll wheel with THUMP, I see specifications for flash memory write
cycles from 10,000 to 1,000,000. Still, if their flash memory write
cycles are rated at 10,000, I would agree that some manufacturers
are playing with the MTBF members. Any excessive write cycle problem
would probably show up in SMART, if that is supported by the SSD.
Would be fun if Windows XP Performance Monitor would track that.
I can see how wear leveling would be interesting and fun, but it
probably is not necessary.
Paul
It's Wikipedia time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling
http://www.corsairmemory.com/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf
Wear leveling is what gives these devices claimed usage
times of years. You do want wear leveling.
Paul
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
Years ago I was troubleshooting a digital instrument cluster for a
Ford. The odometer data were stored in a Xicor X2444 "serial 256 bit
NOVRAM featuring a static RAM configured 16 x 16, overlaid bit-by-bit
with a nonvolatile E2PROM array".
Here is the datasheet for the X24C44:
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/Datasheet-040/DSA00101400.pdf
"Xicor NOVRAMs are designed for unlimited write operations to RAM,
either from the host or recalls from E2PROM and a minimum 1,000,000
store operations. Inherent data retention is specified to be greater
than 100 years."
Imagine if the odometer data had to be written to EEPROM every 0.1
miles or km. That would mean that the EEPROM would exceed its rated
lifetime after only 100,000 km. In this case the designer could shift
the data around within the 32 bytes of available space, thus
implementing a form of wear leveling. Alternatively he could retain it
in RAM for 10 clicks and then update it, or he could choose to write
it to EEPROM when the ignition is switched off and parts of the
dashboard revert to keep-alive battery power.
Another interesting problem is posed by my D-Link DSL-302G ADSL modem.
If I use NNTP to automatically sync the modem with an Internet time
server, then the time and date appear to be written to the
AT45DB161BTC flash EEPROM every 15 minutes. Otherwise, if I set the
time manually, and disable NNTP, then the EEPROM is not updated.
Here is the AT45DB161BTC datasheet:
http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc2224.pdf
The above document doesn't appear to specify a rating for max write
cycles, but at 4 writes per hour, 24 hrs per day, that means that the
EEPROM will experience in excess of 100K writes within 3 years.
Hopefully the designer has implemented wear leveling to account for
this.
John Doe
>>> ..."some file systems aggravate the problem by tracking
>>> last-access times, which can lead to file metadata being
>>> constantly rewritten in-place". This is the problem that Paul
>>> was alluding to.
>>
>> Paul's recent comment was about speed. That might be a good point
>> though IMO.
>>
>>> Wear leveling algorithms are built into the controller chips in
>>> flash drives.
>>
>> Looking around the Internet, avoiding Wiki using my new MicroGear
>> scroll wheel with THUMP, I see specifications for flash memory
>> write cycles from 10,000 to 1,000,000. Still, if their flash
>> memory write cycles are rated at 10,000, I would agree that some
>> manufacturers are playing with the MTBF members. Any excessive
>> write cycle problem would probably show up in SMART, if that is
>> supported by the SSD. Would be fun if Windows XP Performance
>> Monitor would track that.
>>
>> I can see how wear leveling would be interesting and fun, but it
>> probably is not necessary.
>
> It's Wikipedia time.
<SNIP>
I do not consider wiki stuff to be authoritative (some is, some is
not). It comes up first in search engines, but I glide past it
effortlessly using my new MicroGear scroll wheel with THUMP.
> http://www.corsairmemory.com/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf
Is the implementation of wear leveling the same for Solid State Disk
drives as it is for USB flash drives?
> Wear leveling is what gives these devices claimed usage times of
> years. You do want wear leveling.
But... Hopefully you are not assuming the user provides wear
leveling, and that the manufacturer has a right to count on the user
doing so. In other words, then the wear leveling must be an integral
part of the SDD. And in that case, the issue is academic, it is not
something the user needs to know.
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>But... Hopefully you are not assuming the user provides wear
>leveling, and that the manufacturer has a right to count on the user
>doing so. In other words, then the wear leveling must be an integral
>part of the SDD. And in that case, the issue is academic, it is not
>something the user needs to know.
The user would benefit from knowing that excessive writes are bad, and
that defragmenting a drive is pointless because of transparent wear
leveling.
In any case Windows 7 will have specific SSD optimisations:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-C2FF1E62180F/COR-T558_WH08.pptx
To this end the latest ATA spec will be able to distinguish between
SSDs and mechanical HDs.
================================================================
SSD can identify itself differently from HDD in ATA as defined by
ATA8-ACS Identify Word 217: Nominal media rotation rate
Reporting non-rotating media will allow Windows 7 to set Defrag off as
default; improving device endurance by reducing writes
Microsoft implementation of “Trim” feature is supported in Windows 7
NTFS will send down delete notification to the device supporting
“trim”
Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all
deleted data blocks
Making early garbage collection possible for fast write
Keeping device’s unused storage area as much as possible; more room
for device wear leveling
The alignment of NTFS partition to SSD geometry is important for SSD
performance in case of Windows XP and Windows XP upgrade to Windows
Vista and Windows 7
The first Windows XP partition starts at sector #63; the middle of a
SSD page
Misaligned partition can degrade device’s performance down to 50%
caused by read-modify-write
Implementing correct alignment according to the latest ATA and SCSI
spec.
================================================================
John Doe
> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
>> But... Hopefully you are not assuming the user provides wear
>> leveling, and that the manufacturer has a right to count on the user
>> doing so. In other words, then the wear leveling must be an integral
>> part of the SDD. And in that case, the issue is academic, it is not
>> something the user needs to know.
>
> The user would benefit from knowing that excessive writes are bad,
Not with a mean time between failure of 1-2 million hours, assuming
the MTBF is even roughly accurate for normal use. Yes flash wears
with writes, but they would include writes in their MTBF
calculation. One or the other is wrong.
> In any case Windows 7 will have specific SSD optimisations:
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-
C2FF1E62180F/COR-T558_WH08.pptx
That is interesting.
(FWIW. I will probably buy Windows 7 when it is published, but will be
using a substitute for what's left of WordPad and Windows Explorer.)
> The alignment of NTFS partition to SSD geometry is important for SSD
> performance in case of Windows XP and Windows XP upgrade to Windows
> Vista and Windows 7
>
> The first Windows XP partition starts at sector #63; the middle of a
> SSD page
>
> Misaligned partition can degrade device's performance down to 50%
> caused by read-modify-write
>
> Implementing correct alignment according to the latest ATA and SCSI
> spec.
Does that mean that simply installing an SSD and installing XP will be
50% slower than doing some sort of alignment first?
Paul
You said
"I can see how wear leveling would be interesting and fun, but it
probably is not necessary."
It is present in some form, in a lot of these devices. Without it,
the lifetime of the device would be short. Since wear leveling
is present, you get to use your device longer, whether it is a
USB flash or an SSD. It isn't always possible, to get details
about what method is used. There are patents on this stuff,
and if the licensing fee was an important part of the
manufacturing cost, then there may be reasons to not use
the best method.
That was one of the things I was curious about, when I first
read a document describing wear leveling, and the fact that
a patent had been applied for. I figured the patent owner
would use it to "club" the opposition. But there seems to be
an awful lot of wear leveling going on out there, so the
licensing must be reasonable.
And you may be interested in wear leveling, if, say, it
affected the performance of the device, whether doing
4KB random writes, or long sustained transfers. If the
algorithm happens to be intrusive, then you start to
care. (Like, what happens to my files, if a file
is being moved inside the device, and the power
goes off.) Yes, there are reasons to be a little
bit curious.
You're an early adopter, so it is your job to
keep your eyes open :-) When you've finished testing
it, then maybe I'll buy one.
Paul
John Doe
> You said
>
> "I can see how wear leveling would be interesting and fun, but
> it probably is not necessary."
I did not know it was for the most part an academic discussion. I
apparently mistakenly thought the people discussing it expected the
user to provide wear leveling using some third party software or
whatever. That would not justify the extremely long MTBF. But I
would rather accept the correction than try to find the discussion.
I have no problem with what you all are saying since you are not
suggesting that the user is supposed to provide the wear leveling.
Paul
> Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> You said
>>
>> "I can see how wear leveling would be interesting and fun, but
>> it probably is not necessary."
>
> I did not know it was for the most part an academic discussion. I
> apparently mistakenly thought the people discussing it expected the
> user to provide wear leveling using some third party software or
> whatever. That would not justify the extremely long MTBF. But I
> would rather accept the correction than try to find the discussion.
> I have no problem with what you all are saying since you are not
> suggesting that the user is supposed to provide the wear leveling.
It's built in. And it's a good thing.
The flash SSD would be pretty crappy without it.
I think consumers should still be curious about
the method used, since it isn't a given that
every company is doing it the same way. One thing
I'm curious about, is whether all these companies
have to pay a licensing fee to use wear leveling.
I thought there was a key patent covering it.
Articles like this one, may be some of the first
references I saw on the subject. They were prepared
by M-Systems. Note the tiny size of the drive they
describe.
http://www.dataio.com/pdf/NAND/MSystems/TrueFFS_Wear_Leveling_Mechanism.pdf
Paul
Franc Zabkar
finger to keyboard and composed:
>That was one of the things I was curious about, when I first
>read a document describing wear leveling, and the fact that
>a patent had been applied for. I figured the patent owner
>would use it to "club" the opposition. But there seems to be
>an awful lot of wear leveling going on out there, so the
>licensing must be reasonable.
I see numerous patents for wear leveling in flash memory devices:
http://www.google.com/patents?as_q=&num=20&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=wear+leveling&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_pnum=&as_vt=&as_pinvent=&as_pasgnee=&as_pusc=&as_pintlc=&as_ptype=11&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=1&as_miny_ap=2009&as_maxm_ap=12&as_maxy_ap=2009
The various patent holders include Intel, Cirrus Logic, Western
Digital, SanDisk, BIT Microsystems, Lexar Media, Unisys Corporation,
LG Semicon, M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers, Macronix, LSI Logic,
Microsoft ...
It appears to me that patents have been granted for wear leveling
techniques and algorithms, not the basic concept.
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid>
>> The alignment of NTFS partition to SSD geometry is important for SSD
>> performance in case of Windows XP and Windows XP upgrade to Windows
>> Vista and Windows 7
>>
>> The first Windows XP partition starts at sector #63; the middle of a
>> SSD page
>>
>> Misaligned partition can degrade device's performance down to 50%
>> caused by read-modify-write
>>
>> Implementing correct alignment according to the latest ATA and SCSI
>> spec.
>
>Does that mean that simply installing an SSD and installing XP will be
>50% slower than doing some sort of alignment first?
I don't know. However, if I understand the document correctly, ATA-8
will have a new set of Data Set Management commands which will target
SSDs. IIUC, a new "Trim" command is intended to divide the drive, and
file system, into blocks of LBAs so that the file system can more
closely match the structure of flash devices. AFAIK, flash EEPROMs
such as those used to store motherboard BIOS are erased on a block
basis, but I don't know how SSDs do it.
AIUI, Windows 7 will be able to determine whether a drive is an SSD by
checking word 217 of the 512-byte Identify Drive data block. This word
will presumably indicate that the drive "rotates" at 0 RPM. It seems
to me that, if Microsoft has a set of optimisations that will be
automatically applied to SSDs in Windows 7, then at least some of
these optimisations could be made available, perhaps via registry
edits, to users of XP and Vista.
Fishface
> Are the following Solid-State Disk drive tweaks for Windows XP
> legitimate and significant? Anything else?
So, did you buy one of these, JD? Which one? Or just toying
with the idea and doing your homework?
Conor
has a special thing in it for SSDs where it makes sure files are
written sequentially and does some other optimisations as well. 30 day
trial to have a play.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
John Doe
As Paul's crystal ball perceived, yes I ordered the 30 GB OCZ Vertex
model (Scheduled Delivery is 04/08/2009). At the moment, I am using
only 9 GB with a very well developed Windows XP. I think someone here,
maybe Paul, linked to a review that shows Intel's SSDs having truly
stellar performance compared to mechanical hard drives. The OCZ Vertex
comes in a distant second, but equally that much better than third
place. The much cheaper OCZ also appears to leave Raptors in the dust.
Looking at newegg reviews, paying close attention for warning signs
about slow write performance, the OCZ appears to beat everything else
in its price range there too.
The indicated good performance of the OCZ Vertex seems strange because
it uses MLC flash memory, and since many reviews warn against that.
Then again, some of Intel's fast (and expensive) SSD's use MLC memory
too. Apparently many people were burned by wasting money on early SSD
drives, so maybe some of them jumped to the conclusion that MLC is all
bad. Or maybe I made a mistake too.
Will see. If anyone provides a direct download link to their favorite
test program, I will be happy to post the results from that. There are
several real-world situations where I expect a big improvement. Any
lag should be easy enough to perceive. A test is better though, for
objectivity.
Hopefully I can figure out how exactly to best install Windows XP on
it. I do have the Windows 7 beta too, another possibility.
--
Land Skis (rough terrain skates). The first rollerblades with a big
front wheel and small trailing wheels, to help roll over obstacles
while maintaining a low stance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603
John Doe
...
> This article mentions turning off "timestamp for last access".
>
> http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43460
From the same forum... I tried aligning the disk "...align=64" and XP
would not install. I see another post that says "...align=32" so here
I go to try that.
--
Interested in making Windows and games obey your verbal commands?
Continuous command recognition (much easier than speech recognition)
can now be enabled using Naturally Speaking and freeware Dragonfly.
See (comp.lang.beta) for discussion.
Paul
> Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> This article mentions turning off "timestamp for last access".
>>
>> http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43460
>
> From the same forum... I tried aligning the disk "...align=64" and XP
> would not install. I see another post that says "...align=32" so here
> I go to try that.
>
Would it be easier to install on an ordinary hard drive, then prep
the SSD (set align=128) and then move the data over ?
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48309
Paul
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
[Cannot get Windows XP to install]
...
> Would it be easier to install on an ordinary hard drive,
Many things would be easier.
> http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48309
I languished at the DOS prompt for about 24 hours,
formatting/aligning, and investigating. At least there were no signs
of disk corruption or failure, but Windows XP simply would not
install... The Windows XP installation CD persistently coughed up this
message "This disk does not contain a Windows XP-compatible
partition". In fact, the easy solution here was to switch the SATA
data cables. Now Windows XP installs just fine, and backup copies can
be restored to the SSD.
If aligning the OCZ Vertex partition really needs doing, using Windows
7 recovery utility Diskpart makes it easy.
[also taken from the OCC forum]
0 get to the command prompt
1 "diskpart"
2 "list disk"
3 "select disk X" (with X being the number given for your SSD)
4 "clean"
5 "create partition primary align 64"
6 "active"
7 "exit"
8 reboot, format that partition, and install XP
John Doe
copy 2.13 GB file from raptor to itself
61 seconds
from the raptor to the SSD
27 seconds
from the SDD to itself
87 seconds
John Doe
> If aligning the OCZ Vertex partition really needs doing
I would think that particular tweak would show up in benchmarks, but
there was no difference whatsoever.
My Vertex SSD is labeled "1275". Maybe it was already updated to the
most recent version, published about three weeks ago. The drive felt
kind of warm... haha.
Daniel Prince
in this thread. Has anyone learned anything new?
Do SSD's speed up Window XP significantly? Does XP write to one
area of the drive so much as to lower the drive life excessively? Do
any of these drives have a long (non-prorated) warranty? Has anyone
had a SSD fail? It so, how long did you use it and what did you use
it for?
How big of a SS drive is needed to speed up Windows XP Home
significantly? Are there any SSD's that should be avoided? Are
there any SSD's that should be sought out? Thank you in advance for
all replies.
--
I don't understand why they make gourmet cat foods. I have
known many cats in my life and none of them were gourmets.
They were all gourmands!
Ken
wrote:
> Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
Yes.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
nos...@invalid.net
The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that this
feature, in its current implementation, is far from perfect.
Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
(registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need to
be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and possibly
more often if a system is heavily used.
John Doe
> Has anyone learned anything new?
When I bought an OCZ SSD, the updated firmware was important for
good performance. Now it probably is current enough.
> Do SSD's speed up Window XP significantly?
With updated firmware and tweaks, Maybe. Some things are
noticeably faster, for example working in Add or Remove Programs
is much faster for some reason, there is no longer a pause after a
program is removed.
> Does XP write to one area of the drive so much as to lower the
> drive life excessively?
Personally, I think that is a silly concern when a device has a
Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) of over one million hours.
> Has anyone had a SSD fail?
Mine is doing just fine.
> How big of a SS drive is needed to speed up Windows XP Home
> significantly?
Same OS here. My SSD is only 31GB. I use it for the main hard
drive and make hidden copies of Windows to my Raptor. It works
fine. Unfortunately, apparently the price of SSD drives has not
decreased.
I am definitely not thrilled by the experience (it might help to
avoid stuttering for some gaming, but I have played little
lately). I do like the fact that the SSD uses much less power.
Some might like the fact that it is perfectly quiet.
If you have a serious business need, buy an SSD drive. You can
appreciate the fact that hard drive performance makes a little
difference that adds up during the day, or you can put the money
into something that clearly makes a difference. To buy or not to
buy depends on what you need it for versus your other options.
Of course, others have other opinions. Mine is from personal
experience with one SSD Drive since the date of my original post.
Good luck and have fun.
John Doe
> "Ken" <ken_3 telia.com> wrote
>> Daniel Prince <neutrino1 ca.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
>>
>> Yes.
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
>
> The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that
> this feature, in its current implementation, is far from
> perfect.
And you, whoever you are, do not explain what "far from perfect"
is. Also, what you say there should follow your next point,
instead of the way you put it.
> Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
> (registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need
> to be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and
> possibly more often if a system is heavily used.
Says who?
The SSD drive makers claim a greater than one million hours Mean
Time between Failure (MTBF). Obviously someone is lying.
--
>
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mixmin.net!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:14:55 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net alBe2WumVjmkYeBRG4457LipnJ8CxsIsyRsWm+MEKfY8iS6IX6o1/0sjHwX6EuhUtvXYv8KnUWul0am7fNoTbTYmD70rgdjMsSdIGleEEbZQh9UMan5K0PLa8Rl/lU32
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: fr2ffA1u1XyA/Fv8pQ9ww8cqkEU+IYu23qJXocdlXF4PPfh2FQQ+vFDK5wjc86cS0y4e85Ep3+/a+JR7whHUkg==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:jR8BEaqp8sbTHK0zQo9Oo84/XZI=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 0ld14q90v4PYibftq4I4FDmXTa1f9wkzmR7NiQFMF1U=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
nos...@invalid.net
> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <ken_3 telia.com> wrote
>>> Daniel Prince <neutrino1 ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
>>
>> The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that
>> this feature, in its current implementation, is far from
>> perfect.
>
> And you, whoever you are, do not explain what "far from perfect"
> is. Also, what you say there should follow your next point,
> instead of the way you put it.
>
>> Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
>> (registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need
>> to be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and
>> possibly more often if a system is heavily used.
>
> Says who?
>
> The SSD drive makers claim a greater than one million hours Mean
> Time between Failure (MTBF). Obviously someone is lying.
Look a little closer at the specs, or simply read up on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling
The standard lifespan for individual segments on an SSD drive is
1000 write cycles. That's nothing compared to traditional hard
drives. The referenced article explains how SSD manufacturers
have tried to address this problem.
John Doe
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote
>> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>>> "Ken" <ken_3 telia.com> wrote
>>>> Daniel Prince <neutrino1 ca.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
>>>
>>> The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that
>>> this feature, in its current implementation, is far from
>>> perfect.
>>
>> And you, whoever you are, do not explain what "far from perfect"
>> is. Also, what you say there should follow your next point,
>> instead of the way you put it.
>>
>>> Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
>>> (registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need
>>> to be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and
>>> possibly more often if a system is heavily used.
>>
>> Says who?
>>
>> The SSD drive makers claim a greater than one million hours Mean
>> Time between Failure (MTBF). Obviously someone is lying.
>
> Look a little closer at the specs,
What the fuck are you talking about?
> or simply read up on the subject:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling
>
> The standard lifespan for individual segments on an SSD drive is
> 1000 write cycles.
And when recently did you learn about USENET?
In other words... Hopefully you are not a regular here.
Do not believe everything you read on a wikishit web site.
Nice to see someone who is eager to learn, but please just ask
instead of trolling for answers when you do not know something.
And please stop trying to change the follow-up groups after you
post.
--
> That's nothing compared to traditional hard
> drives. The referenced article explains how SSD manufacturers
> have tried to address this problem.
>
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:42:11 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <h8gq1t$bgs$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net qMroEqVkgGitN0+/q9Q4L4nVYmjvk5kOtyQ4/+q7dm0VwYBQ3AaybRsX3JeVYq3ZzjkIwKWsX/B/W7bS4teO3rpIzSNVKflbYIpAK1T63sfid2Dlm9Tz8MnZoEiNajeD
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: 604xxKzrxQuGKA2SNzkca1fNDlcZw1uNjOawo0EIXHwJyaue0UDA70K8plTj2g4FhGG5mal4N0OpYToqnblGkQ==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:xulM56sRFEO+9HX1kkothdg4H9c=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: qwQujHCQMkQfOZrr/Qt5x6upEe9vbNMhAdhIIn2zqeA=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
nos...@invalid.net
Concession noted. Thanks for playing.
ohaya
John Doe wrote:
> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ken" <ken_3 telia.com> wrote
>>
>>>Daniel Prince <neutrino1 ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
>>
>>The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that
>>this feature, in its current implementation, is far from
>>perfect.
>
>
> And you, whoever you are, do not explain what "far from perfect"
> is. Also, what you say there should follow your next point,
> instead of the way you put it.
>
>
>>Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
>>(registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need
>>to be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and
>>possibly more often if a system is heavily used.
>
>
> Says who?
>
> The SSD drive makers claim a greater than one million hours Mean
> Time between Failure (MTBF). Obviously someone is lying.
>
Hi,
I think that you're confusing the device (SSD) reliability specification
(MTBF) with the device specifications for the number of writes.
Most (all, I think) SSDs use a bunch of some kind of non-volatile memory
chips. Those memory chips are such that they are limited as to the
number of times they can be written-to. That's why they have a
specification for the number of writes or write-cycles.
The MTBF spec is a kind of average (it's not exactly an average, but
kind of) of how long the overall device should work.
So, let's say you have a device (SSD) that has an MTBF of 1 million
hours, and a number of writes spec of 10000 write-cycles.
If you use that in your machine, and used it only for reading, the MTBF
spec is what should apply.
However, if you're writing to the device, then the number of writes spec
is what applies.
I hope that this helps clarify some things...
Jim
nos...@invalid.net
That's exactly correct, Jim. MTBF is for the device, not for individual
R/W segments on the device. A SSD has no moving parts, so it's
MTBF spec is very misleading.
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>>>"Ken" <ken_3 telia.com> wrote
>>>>Daniel Prince <neutrino1 ca.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>Are there any SSD's that should be avoided?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-jmicron-jmf602,7057.html
>>>
>>>The article mentions wear leveling, but doesn't explain that
>>>this feature, in its current implementation, is far from
>>>perfect.
>>
>>
>> And you, whoever you are, do not explain what "far from
>> perfect" is. Also, what you say there should follow your next
>> point, instead of the way you put it.
>>
>>
>>>Windows is constantly reading and writing certain information
>>>(registry files, pagefile etc), and because of this, SSDs need
>>>to be replaced on a regular basis, certainly every year and
>>>possibly more often if a system is heavily used.
>>
>>
>> Says who?
>>
>> The SSD drive makers claim a greater than one million hours
>> Mean Time between Failure (MTBF). Obviously someone is lying.
> I think that you're confusing the device (SSD) reliability
> specification (MTBF) with the device specifications for the
> number of writes.
Says who?
> Most (all, I think) SSDs use a bunch of some kind of
> non-volatile memory chips.
Was the door you came through to get to USENET labeled "CLUELESS
NEWBIES ENTER HERE"?
> Those memory chips are such that they are limited as to the
> number of times they can be written-to. That's why they have a
> specification for the number of writes or write-cycles.
That is wrenchingly boring IMO.
> The MTBF spec is a kind of average (it's not exactly an average,
> but kind of) of how long the overall device should work.
Says another clueless newbie trolling for answers?
The MTBF specification might be wrong, but your justification for
the difference between the specification and the allegedly low
performance is nonsense.
Provide some authoritative citations.
--
> So, let's say you have a device (SSD) that has an MTBF of 1 million
> hours, and a number of writes spec of 10000 write-cycles.
>
> If you use that in your machine, and used it only for reading, the MTBF
> spec is what should apply.
>
> However, if you're writing to the device, then the number of writes spec
> is what applies.
>
> I hope that this helps clarify some things...
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe13.iad.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail
> From: ohaya <ohaya cox.net>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> In-Reply-To: <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 65
> Message-ID: <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.205.17.178
> X-Complaints-To: newsmaster cox.net
> X-Trace: newsfe13.iad 1252781834 72.205.17.178 (Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:57:14 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:57:14 UTC
> Organization: Cox
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:57:17 -0400
>
>
>
nos...@invalid.net
http://www.eettaiwan.com/STATIC/PDF/200808/EETOL_2008IIC_Spansion_AN_13.pdf
"If the system updates the 4 MB file 50 times per day then the system
(Flash) life expectancy would be ~1 day. This case shows the frequent
erasures of the same physical sector directly impacting the life
expectancy of the Flash device. Obviously a half day product life cycle
is not acceptable for typical applications."
Or in other words, it's only because of wear leveling that SSDs have
become usable at all.
John Doe
"nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
> "ohaya" <ohaya cox.net> wrote in message
>> Most (all, I think) SSDs use a bunch of some kind of
>> non-volatile memory chips.
> That's exactly correct, Jim.
That is just amazing, Jack...
> MTBF is for the device, not for individual R/W segments on the
> device.
So you think the read/write "segments" on the device are different
than the device, Jack?
> A SSD has no moving parts, so it's MTBF spec is very misleading.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
Please... Somebody, anybody, provide a citation that suggests
solid-state device MTBF figures are less accurate than physical
devices. I have a difficult time believing anyone could be that
much of a bullshit artist.
Thanks.
For any new readers... The argument is not that SSD device MTBF
figures are accurate. Currently, the argument is about some
apparently bizarre reasons why the MTBF figures are inaccurate.
The figures might be inaccurate, but more evident is that the two
quoted authors are clueless morons with zero credibility.
--
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp3.netcologne.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:04:32 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 59
> Message-ID: <h8grbr$d98$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net QPegBWmnO03u3UJ4sf0vZ824aq6xFenbAv1EkckX8W2+jHGniRA04ZDmSqZVBc83UgjihuH1H3P9bFg5ncI7oFp6qPE1OAF0ycWVRSsTh9wOgf/w4nqyShsmxYma93GM
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:04:27 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: LRkmgPusGEkh9AcYRaWoRNxl3Wjc4QLZmrH7go0ktKg4gwI+c17Cg2zRetvbraNy+1LqXfT3gMr+UsUC8E4j7A==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:+ZNANx71feJmjHnVedAvu/wKKr4=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: roZ9iBJVb4EesXNa2DNqTXT/1qfhzmvShF43wQEw/+0=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
nos...@invalid.net
> Added (sci.electronics.design), please feel free to trim groups.
>
>
> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> "ohaya" <ohaya cox.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Most (all, I think) SSDs use a bunch of some kind of
>>> non-volatile memory chips.
>
>> That's exactly correct, Jim.
>
> That is just amazing, Jack...
>
>> MTBF is for the device, not for individual R/W segments on the
>> device.
>
> So you think the read/write "segments" on the device are different
> than the device, Jack?
>
>> A SSD has no moving parts, so it's MTBF spec is very misleading.
>
> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
>
> Please... Somebody, anybody, provide a citation that suggests
> solid-state device MTBF figures are less accurate than physical
> devices. I have a difficult time believing anyone could be that
> much of a bullshit artist.
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=27010
Be sure to read the referenced links, if you can take your head out
of your ass for that long.
John Doe
Yes of course flash memory has write limits, but you are taking a
major leap from that to your conclusion.
In other words... YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON, JACK.
--
>
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mixmin.net!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:31:55 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 75
> Message-ID: <h8gsv6$fkv$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad> <000a2f4a$0$24220$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net iVMnvN9nePSl7HdQCyFz+CgeLV+6ZCSSiaGf8twH92K5+xvzfBQSOAJPT6BIbzNp0rbpG3GY9cOnNLnC2SAltIp1XllnGyYkFfhE4tob+uCWCRB+nqN2N+Y+/WkrzzoN
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:31:50 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: 9DGWrfmcvvH7a125R9ZSQgrnfmmwTOjSZPVlpKhZbMlC+MF1x0wnLJdJv0Fd6xVCVBP2OTJCjAWcPB1SAEsD7A==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:0bDB5JgJG4l3QdgfG1U1WmyRP1Y=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 4op/fo8PXpcPc5z0hq53WjyoqiTkOmwAE9vqqPwU8K4=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
nos...@invalid.net
> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.eettaiwan.com/STATIC/PDF/200808/EETOL_2008IIC_Spansion_AN_13.pdf
>>
>> "If the system updates the 4 MB file 50 times per day then the
>> system (Flash) life expectancy would be ~1 day. This case shows
>> the frequent erasures of the same physical sector directly
>> impacting the life expectancy of the Flash device. Obviously a
>> half day product life cycle is not acceptable for typical
>> applications."
>>
>> Or in other words, it's only because of wear leveling that SSDs
>> have become usable at all.
>
> Yes of course flash memory has write limits, but you are taking a
> major leap from that to your conclusion.
A 30% failure rate within the first 10 WEEKS in a server installation
speaks for itself:
"As someone who was bit on the ass by mtron SSD drives only a
few months ago I'd like to point out that this claim is patently false.
Out of 10 total 32gb mtron SSD drives we had a 30% failure rate
when used as backing stores on a hi performance clustered mail
server within the first 10 weeks."
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=27010
John Doe
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote
>> "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net> wrote:
>>> A SSD has no moving parts, so it's MTBF spec is very misleading.
>>
>> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>> Please... Somebody, anybody, provide a citation that suggests
>> solid-state device MTBF figures are less accurate than physical
>> devices. I have a difficult time believing anyone could be that
>> much of a bullshit artist.
>
> http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=27010
>
> Be sure to read the referenced links
You want me to sift through opinions that could very easily have
been posted by A FUCKING MORON LIKE YOU JACK, and you want me to
follow the links instead of you posting a relevant link here?
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!
--
> if you can take your head out
> of your ass for that long.
>
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-05.inet.qwest.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!188.40.43.213.MISMATCH!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:36:16 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 36
> Message-ID: <h8gt7a$g27$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad> <h8grbr$d98$1 news.albasani.net> <00e4425c$0$16116$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net 9E9TOgj8lps0vseWER2FSFe1R7BMjFe5xZWsiMRCdpjQiAFrEPNfGK3ZBrFxE6CKycFWPqbGDUiRKtsjqKVl7Ue0P+rzfAKnkRUTDmMi5fnxzFo+B5KpW3TBHGlQT55I
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:36:10 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: yxPsAvTyxM7qJIQzmxOpYby9Uqkh/CvcfSz0IVhS6QPOyFr8LrYSeoaJaoNd/5iQtBJuc93wWpybyrenT/6+Pw==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:VIbO11qoygS4VS7nzdU/WW4u3Zo=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: oFoxh3eegS4FDfnMNjCBEkd6MFoaDHzusnHWcjJJuFw=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
John Doe
Yes of course flash memory has write limits, but you are taking a
major leap from that to your conclusion.
In other words... YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON, JACK.
--
>
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mixmin.net!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:31:55 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 75
> Message-ID: <h8gsv6$fkv$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad> <000a2f4a$0$24220$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net iVMnvN9nePSl7HdQCyFz+CgeLV+6ZCSSiaGf8twH92K5+xvzfBQSOAJPT6BIbzNp0rbpG3GY9cOnNLnC2SAltIp1XllnGyYkFfhE4tob+uCWCRB+nqN2N+Y+/WkrzzoN
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:31:50 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: 9DGWrfmcvvH7a125R9ZSQgrnfmmwTOjSZPVlpKhZbMlC+MF1x0wnLJdJv0Fd6xVCVBP2OTJCjAWcPB1SAEsD7A==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
Paul
A Wikipedia article, had this as the first citation. I've copied
the whole thing, because I know how you like details.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/arch-storage/part2/section-151.html
In particular, look at the first sentence in the third paragraph.
In terms of the "bathtub curve", MTBF is computed based on the
flat section in the middle of the "bathtub", and is not based
on the wearout phase (end of the bathtub). So "Ohaya" is right.
The MTBF doesn't take the wearout mechanism into account. It is
basically taking all the non-wearout failure reasons into account.
We know if you do enough writes (like leave a write benchmark
running by accident), it will wear out and die on you, and
in an interval much shorter than the MTBF quoted.
*******
M T B F
In order to understand MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) it is best to
start with something else -- something for which it is easier to
develop an intuitive feel. This other concept is failure rate which
is, not surprisingly, the average (mean) rate at which things fail. A
"thing" could be a component, an assembly, or a whole system. Some
things -- rocks, for example -- are accepted to have very low failure
rates while others -- British sports cars, for example -- are (or
should be) expected to have relatively high failure rates.
It is generally accepted among reliability specialists (and you,
therefore, must not question it) that a thing's failure rate isn't
constant, but generally goes through three phases over a thing's
lifetime. In the first phase the failure rate is relatively high, but
decreases over time -- this is called the "infant mortality" phase
(sensitive guys these reliability specialists). In the second phase
the failure rate is low and essentially constant -- this is
(imaginatively) called the "constant failure rate" phase. In the
third phase the failure rate begins increasing again, often quite
rapidly, -- this is called the "wearout" phase. The reliability
specialists noticed that when plotted as a function of time the
failure rate resembled a familiar bathroom appliance -- but they
called it a "bathtub" curve anyway. The units of failure rate are
failures per unit of "thing-time"; e.g. failures per machine-hour or
failures per system-year.
What, you may ask, does all this have to do with MTBF? MTBF is the <------- Note!
inverse of the failure rate in the constant failure rate phase.
Nothing more and nothing less. The units of MTBF are (or, should be)
units of "thing-time" per failure; e.g. machine-hours per failure or
system-years per failure but the "thing" part and the "per failure"
part are almost always omitted to enhance the mystique and confusion
and to make MTBF appear to have the units of "time" which it doesn't.
We will bow to the convention of speaking of MTBF in hours or years --
but we all know what we really mean.
What does MTBF have to do with lifetime? Nothing at all! It is not
at all unusual for things to have MTBF's which significantly exceed
their lifetime as defined by wearout -- in fact, you know many such
things. A "thirty-something" American (well within his constant
failure rate phase) has a failure (death) rate of about 1.1 deaths per
1000 person-years and, therefore, has an MTBF of 900 years (of course
its really 900 person-years per death). Even the best ones, however,
wear out long before that.
This example points out one other important characteristic of MTBF --
it is an ensemble characteristic which applies to populations (i.e.
"lots") of things; not a sample characteristic which applies to one
specific thing. In the good old days when failure rates were
relatively high (and, therefore, MTBF relatively low) this
characteristic of MTBF was a curiosity which created lively (?) debate
at conventions of reliability specialists (them) but otherwise didn't
unduly bother right-thinking people (us). Things, however, have
changed. For many systems of interest today the required failure
rates are so low that the MTBF substantially exceeds the lifetime
(obviously nature had this right a long time ago). In these cases
MTBF's are not only "not necessarily" sample characteristics, but are
"necessarily not" sample characteristics. In the terms of the
reliability cognoscenti, failure processes are not ergodic (i.e. you
can't blithely trade population statistics for time statistics). The
key implication of this essential characteristic of MTBF is that it
can only be determined from populations and it should only be applied
to populations.
MTBF is, therefore an excellent characteristic for determining how
many spare hard drives are needed to support 1000 PC's, but a poor
characteristic for guiding you on when you should change your hard
drive to avoid a crash.
MTBF's are best determined from large populations. How large? From
every point of view (theoretical, practical, statistical) but cost,
the answer is "the larger, the better". There are, however, well
established techniques for planning and conducting test programs to
develop specified levels of confidence in a thing's MTBF.
Establishing an MTBF at the 80% confidence level, for example, is
clearly better, but much more difficult and expensive, than doing it
at a 60% confidence level. As an example, a test designed to
demonstrate a thing's MTBF at the 80% confidence level, requires a
total thing-time of 160% of the MTBF if it can be conducted with no
failures. You don't want to know how much thing-time is required to
achieve reasonable confidence levels if any failures occur during the
test.
What, by the way, is "thing-time"? An important subtlety is that
"thing-time" isn't "clock time" (unless, of course, your thing is a
clock). The question of how to compute "thing-time" is a critical one
in reliability engineering. For some things (e.g. living thing) time
always counts but for others the passage of "thing-time" may be highly
dependent upon the state of the thing. Various ad hoc time
corrections (such as "power on hours" (POH)) have been used, primarily
in the electronics area. There is significant evidence that, in the
mechanical area "thing-time" is much more related to activity rate
than it is to clock time. Measures such as "Mean Cycles Between
Failures (MCBF)" are becoming accepted as more accurate ways to assess
the "duty cycle effect". Well-founded, if heuristic, techniques have
been developed for combining MCBF and MTBF effects for systems in
which the average activity rate is known.
MTBF need not, then be "Mysterious Time Between Failures" or
"Misleading Time Between Failures", but an important system
characteristic which can help to quantify the suitability of a system
for a potential application. While rising demands on system integrity
may make this characteristic seem "unnatural", remember you live in a
country of 250 million 9- million-hour MTBF people!
Kevin C. Daly
President
ATL Products
*******
If you need a nice graph, to illustrate the above FAQ, look at
the picture here.
http://www.quanterion.com/FAQ/Bathtub_Curve.htm
And as mentioned in the above article, a typical usage of MTBF,
is computing how many spares to buy. We used to work out the
MTBF for our products, and if a customer asked, we could tell
them "you should stock 5% more of this PCB, due to its
computed MTBF". Those 5% of units would sit in the repair room
storage cabinet, ready to be inserted into a system to fix it.
Having them sitting in the storage cabinet, means a system
could be run non-stop (the items in the storage cabinet, can be
inserted into the system while the power was on - hot insertable).
The prediction was important, when some of the circuits involved
cost $100,000 a piece. A customer would be rightly pissed, if
the estimate was way off, in either direction. So that is what
you're supposed to use an MTBF for. A customer decision to buy
a system, could well be influenced by the added cost of spares
the customer is expected to stock.
HTH,
Paul
John Doe
...
> A Wikipedia article
is hardly authoritative.
> had this as the first citation. I've copied the whole thing,
> because I know how you like details.
I like accuracy and conciseness, Paul, I am usually bored by your
verbosity and unwillingness to trim irrelevant text. Yours is like
top posting, trying to check the advice you are giving is
laborious, but there is nothing technically wrong with your posts
and I appreciate your attempts to help me.
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/arch-storage/part2/section-151.html
Unfortunately, the referenced MTBF FAQ link to IBM's web site is
dead.
> In particular, look at the first sentence in the third
> paragraph.
I think you are trying to point somewhere else, Paul.
> In terms of the "bathtub curve"
The term "bathtub curve" is common and easy to understand, Paul. I
think it usually refers to solid-state devices. Your unquoted
terms "wearout phase" and "wearout mechanism" below are not nearly
as common.
> MTBF is computed based on the flat section in the middle of the
> "bathtub", and is not based on the wearout phase (end of the
> bathtub).
Unfortunately, Paul, there is no such terminology "wearout
mechanism" in the document you referenced above.
> The MTBF doesn't take the wearout mechanism into account.
Unfortunately, Paul, there is no such terminology "wearout
mechanism" in the document you referenced above.
I would be surprised to learn that solid-state device testing is
stuck in the Stone Age, Paul, as apparently you are suggesting.
> We know if you do enough writes (like leave a write benchmark
> running by accident), it will wear out and die on you, and in an
> interval much shorter than the MTBF quoted.
I see, Paul... Leaving a write benchmark running is the "wearout
mechanism".
Again... To be clear, I am not saying that SDD MTBFs are accurate.
I am saying that the current supportive argument for the
allegation that SDD drives fail prematurely sounds like bullshit.
Every Dick on the planet has a sensational claim...
nos...@invalid.net
> Again... To be clear, I am not saying that SDD MTBFs are accurate.
> I am saying that the current supportive argument for the
> allegation that SDD drives fail prematurely sounds like bullshit.
> Every Dick on the planet has a sensational claim...
Wear leveling was not developed by flash memory manufacturers
because they're were bored, you idiot. It's just one of the limitations
of the current technology.
If you pay through the nose, you can get SSDs made with memory
that's rated for much greater numbers of write cycles. But the vast
majority of SSDs sold today use either the 1,000 or 10,000 cycle
variety, with small amounts of 100,000 cycle memory reserved for
use by wear leveling controllers. Again, if you weren't so friggin lazy
you could read about and understand this. It's not even controversial.
John Doe
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>> Again... To be clear, I am not saying that SDD MTBFs are
>> accurate. I am saying that the current supportive argument for
>> the allegation that SDD drives fail prematurely sounds like
>> bullshit. Every Dick on the planet has a sensational claim...
> If you pay through the nose, you can get SSDs made with memory
> that's rated for much greater numbers of write cycles. But the
> vast majority of SSDs sold today use either the 1,000 or 10,000
> cycle variety, with small amounts of 100,000 cycle memory
That is apparently something Jack just learned from a different
wikishit web page or his favorite Web forum.
Your first claim was that "individual segments" (your idiotic term
for flash memory, Jack) was "1000 write cycles"... YOU FUCKING
MORON.
--
> reserved for use by wear leveling controllers. Again, if you
> weren't so friggin lazy you could read about and understand
> this. It's not even controversial.
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mixmin.net!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
> From: "nospam nospam.invalid.net" <nospam invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Followup-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:26:21 -0700
> Organization: albasani.net
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <h8h3ln$pnh$1 news.albasani.net>
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <r5kna5dcpcng9s2o831nl87dr1lhs72sd5 4ax.com> <h8gku9$3cp$1 news.albasani.net> <001d2843$0$26683$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <eaSqm.35408$ec2.22728 newsfe13.iad> <000a2f4a$0$24220$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <h8gukl$bok$1 news.eternal-september.org> <00f48b80$0$29279$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Trace: news.albasani.net ew0y+Q1kMIYqnluZrQERjXTFQJ5xWsrH/y+cIpHUR3KRotpk4JkKOgvQauvGKoNrA4hqoE+QQoZI4ESd6a6GYP6YD14jHeGU8RhRxmaPaX91m7q48zrRlK9IJS79rAaa
> X-Complaints-To: abuse albasani.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:26:16 +0000 (UTC)
> X-User-ID: f6s4blIPebPbopgByMPM4qghGaxeUAn9g58GsEbZhd9Dt03cWui+rEdCZLugU4R6Yq60af5gAGzqx9241gGVNQ==
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:C6Zcf7WgEZGJTwo7pJCJQdyJbCc=
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: fE5bF7o/K65S4Agd9dNOeArKbxT1nPjIPqMedZOfEYk=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>
reese
>> http://www.eettaiwan.com/STATIC/PDF/200808/EETOL_2008IIC_Spansion_AN_13.pdf
>>
>> "If the system updates the 4 MB file 50 times per day then the
>> system (Flash) life expectancy would be ~1 day. This case shows
>> the frequent erasures of the same physical sector directly
>> impacting the life expectancy of the Flash device. Obviously a
>> half day product life cycle is not acceptable for typical
>> applications."
>>
>> Or in other words, it's only because of wear leveling that SSDs
>> have become usable at all.
>Yes of course flash memory has write limits, but you are taking a
>major leap from that to your conclusion.
>In other words... YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON, JACK.
I'm curious,since you have asked for evidence in support of what you believe is
inaccurate, it seems fair to ask where is your evidence that it is?
John Doe
...
> I'm curious,since you have asked for evidence in support of what
> you believe is inaccurate, it seems fair to ask where is your
> evidence that it is?
I would ask which idiotic claim are you talking about, Candy, but
I see from your recent posts that you are a clueless whiner (see
my reply to your whine).
--
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
> From: reese <reese peanutbuttercups.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v3.91 Beta 2 (http://www.newsleecher.com)
> Date: 13 Sep 2009 01:20:29 GMT
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <00655db2$0$4938$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: b9c51e85.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace: DXC=D1A5C;3o9XG;VG4<An`lKBL?0kYOcDh J0^5DJ]>Q9C iSY3bBDQ5=FU:UU75ElKZFSYYHG3:YC]HJkH2573N33C
>
Daniel Prince
>Daniel Prince <neut...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Does XP write to one area of the drive so much as to lower the
>> drive life excessively?
>
>Personally, I think that is a silly concern when a device has a
>Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) of over one million hours.
One million hours is over 114 years. (1,000,000 / (365.24 * 24) =
114.08023948 Do not forget about leap years.)
If they really lasted that long, why do all the 32 gig SSD's I found
have one, two or three year warranties? The one with a three year
warranty was one of the most expensive.
Eric Gisin
"ohaya" <oh...@cox.net> wrote in message news:eaSqm.35408$ec2....@newsfe13.iad...
>
Eric Gisin
Early cards like SM and CF did not have wear leveling and work for years.
Do you have a hardware testing lab that shows SSDs last just a year?
If not shut the fuck up and jump in front of a speeding train.
We don't need stupid cunts like you spreading misinformation.
"nos...@nospam.invalid.net" <nos...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:h8gq1t$bgs$1...@news.albasani.net...
elpamyelhsa
SSD Tweaker 1.6.4 has been released. The free version can check the
Windows TRIM status by pressing F9 and the Pro version has the ability
to Enable/Disable TRIM in Windows 7 and also easily disable Windows
services and Hibernation.
http://elpamsoft.com/Downloads.aspx
Timothy Daniels
Riiiiight. You want us to download a free utility from a company that
gives no valid email address. Riiiiight. Go tweak yourself.
*TimDaniels*
Alan Larsson
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ELPAMSOFT.COM
Created on: 28-Sep-10
Expires on: 28-Sep-11
Last Updated on: 28-Sep-10
Administrative Contact:
Maple, Ashley elpam...@hotmail.com
102 Francis St
Geraldton, Western Australia 6530
Australia
(040) 821-4822
Chris S.
"Alan Larsson" <ab...@alstown.com> wrote in message
news:i9fk3n$mb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I think you busted a spammer, Alan! ;)
Chris
John Doe
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "elpamyelhsa"<elpamyelh...@no.email.invalid> wrote
>>> SSD Tweaker 1.6.4 has been released. The free version can
>>> check the Windows TRIM status by pressing F9 and the Pro
>>> version has the ability to Enable/Disable TRIM in Windows 7
>>> and also easily disable Windows services and Hibernation.
>> Riiiiight. You want us to download a free utility from a
>> company that gives no valid email address. Riiiiight. Go
>> tweak yourself.
Do you even own an SSD drive?
> Considering it is a fairly new listing, I would not trust it
> either....
It might be the only SSD tweaker utility. I used it and still have
a copy. She should probably not run around UseNet posting links in
groups that she does not hang out in, but apparently that was her
first post to UseNet. I find no other mention of that utility in
the UseNet archive, then again you can hardly trust Google's
search.
If you know of and have used any other SSD tweaker utility, please
post about it for those of us who have an SSD drive. Such a
utility might still be useful for Windows XP and maybe Vista. I do
not know of any other neat little utility like that.
elpamyelhsa
Hi Guys,
I can appreciate your suspicion but it is uncalled for. My software has
been around for over a year helping many SSD users with their drives
performance.
This software has been approved by many software providers
eg.
http://www.techspot.com/downloads/4926-ssd-tweaker.html
http://majorgeeks.com/SSD_Tweaker_d6382.html
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/SSD-Tweaker.shtml
http://www.chip.de/downloads/SSD-Tweaker_44034077.html
And a full support forum is found here
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?49779-SSD-Tweak-Utility
My website is very new as i am just starting development of it,
Programming and computers are my hobbies and I work in the IT industry.
I've worked with many SSD drives and needed a quick way to configure
them and this is what lead to my developing this software.
Feel free to email with any questions you may have.
elpamyelhsa
Elpamsoft.com
elpam...@hotmail.com
Geraldton, Western Australia
Bug Dout
> Hi Guys,
>
> I can appreciate your suspicion but it is uncalled for. My software has
> been around for over a year helping many SSD users with their drives
> performance.
Very true, I started using this SSD tweaker almost a year ago when I
upgraded a netbook and desktop computer to SSD...it's a legit program. I
downloaded this latest version and it works as the others.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand
trinary, those that don't, and those that confuse it with binary."
Timothy Daniels
If the software is good and you want to be known for sharing good
software, use a different name for your company or non-profit so people
can remember it, and get a decently named mailbox. How about simply
"Geraldton Software" and In...@GeraldSoft.com as a mailbox and domain?
Once you have a domain, your ISP or GoDaddy can supply the mailbox
and spam filtering at low cost.
*TimDaniels*
John Doe
> Hi Guys,
>
> I can appreciate your suspicion but it is uncalled for.
The suspicion is not entirely uncalled for. Obviously a search
engine is what got you here, you are not a regular poster. You
replied to a post that was many months old.
> My software has been around for over a year helping many SSD
> users with their drives performance.
Yeah, I already said that...
--
>
> This software has been approved by many software providers
> eg.
> http://www.techspot.com/downloads/4926-ssd-tweaker.html
> http://majorgeeks.com/SSD_Tweaker_d6382.html
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/SSD-Tweaker.shtml
> http://www.chip.de/downloads/SSD-Tweaker_44034077.html
>
> And a full support forum is found here
> http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?49779-SSD-Tweak-Utility
>
> My website is very new as i am just starting development of it,
> Programming and computers are my hobbies and I work in the IT
> industry. I've worked with many SSD drives and needed a quick
> way to configure them and this is what lead to my developing
> this software.
>
> Feel free to email with any questions you may have.
>
> elpamyelhsa
> Elpamsoft.com
> elpamyelhsa hotmail.com
> Geraldton, Western Australia
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:01:42 -0500
> From: elpamyelhsa <elpamyelhsa.4j31bp no.email.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Windows XP SSD tweaks?
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:08:17 -0500
> Message-ID: <elpamyelhsa.4j31bp no.email.invalid>
> Organization: NNTPGW
> User-Agent: vBulletin USENET gateway
> X-Newsreader: vBulletin USENET gateway
> X-Originating-IP: 121.221.91.109
> References: <L9jBl.15879$D32.8201 flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> <gAsDl.22987$c45.2228 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <6adna51j1ghk3ksnerrq9gj1sgjol67nrg 4ax.com> <001d2554$0$5764$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <8urua5t4pf58cd7hnav1f4tfej51e0i5s4 4ax.com> <elpamyelhsa.4izeak no.email.invalid> <NqqdnWWfybPT3CbRnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d earthlink.com> <i9fk3n$mb0$1 news.eternal-september.org> <4cbb5ec3$0$29273$c3e8da3$88b277c5 news.astraweb.com>
> Lines: 29
> X-Trace: sv3-yG2M928ZW7+IqrpwHmX6XQ2DiKFF9NFI9WFBc22xhKgVR/+G1w0jIE0Cz7FW3PZRCAO9ifFGseSIKxV!YuYQYJmRNQXOnBoflzYVpWMnZe8c082aCOn2hJZJpOZKUzRImZT/nA8fZHm3TeDZgzyDjg==
> X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Lines: 22
> X-Original-Bytes: 2386
>
>