My RD400 drive speed has almost halved since I first built it.
So, it's not recommended to put system cache on SSD? How much SSD lifespan is reduced and how much speed is lost then if cache is put on HDD?
So, it's not recommended to put system cache on SSD? How much SSD lifespan is reduced and how much speed is lost then if cache is put on HDD?
TR recently reported that after a year of testing the durability of six SSDs, four died after reaching between 728 terabytes and 1.2 petabytes of data writes, all of which is far beyond the specified life span for the drives.
Two other SSDs—a Samsung 840 Pro and a Kingston HyperX 3K—are still going after crossing the 2 petabyte data write benchmark. That's utterly insane.
To make that point, Tech Report’s Geoff Gasior says the SSD he’s running in his own desktop PC has logged less than two terabytes of data writes over two years or so. “At this rate, it’ll take me a thousand years to reach that total,” Gasior wrote, referring to one drive that lasted to the 1.2PB mark.
Pretty much.I wouldn't worry so much about SSD lifespans.
you are right about that , I mostly moved the windows cache to the mechanical to avoid any performance loss when things page out to the cache. However you do gain a lot more life out of the drive also. I had a 64 gig ssd (vertex ) die out due to the nand going bad. I would assume modern drives have more nand back up and longer endurance.I wouldn't worry so much about SSD lifespans.
My Crucial SSDs (M4-CT512M4SSD2) that I use for staging/editing/rendering HD videos have been holding up perfectly since 2012 (62-76 hours a week), without any performance lost. And my Samsung EVO SSDs for storage/dumping/retrieving large video-projects have been holding up as well. Hell, I had mechanical enterprise hard-drives fail me within 2 years.
Some interesting info on SSDs lifespans at the link below.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2856052/grueling-endurance-test-blows-away-ssd-durability-fears.html
you are right about that , I mostly moved the windows cache to the mechanical to avoid any performance loss when things page out to the cache.
I've had games with performance issues if the page file is on the same drive as the game . By moving it to the mechanical the hitching would go away.I highly doubt moving anything to a mechanical hard drive yields performance gains. "Caching" is the opposite of what you're doing
Maybe just in case of a not-so-good ssd which would have no space remaining
I've had games with performance issues if the page file is on the same drive as the game . By moving it to the mechanical the hitching would go away.
Eastman, what type (i.e., sata, pci-e, usb, etc...), brand and model SSD are you using? You shouldn't be receiving hitching (which sounds like texture streaming is causing some type of fps penalty) from having page file enabled on you're gaming drive. The only time you'll receive something like that, is that page file is fighting for resources (i.e., lack of space on SSD), or you have lot's of applications running in the background, requiring virtual memory.
Plus, if you have a decent amount of system ram (16GB or greater), virtual memory shouldn't be an issue (unless you have some legacy applications coded / requiring page file space). Personally, I have it disabled between my machines, or set to something ridiculously low (16MB), making sure that Windows OS, it's applications and games, are getting the most out of the system memory.
Mx 300 by crucial with sata 3.0 . At the time I had 12 gigs of ram .
Yes, the "12nm" (refined 14nm renamed, kinda like TSMC "12nm" is refined 16nm renamed) Ryzen aka Pinnacle Ridge is coming, but the launch is in April, not MarchAnyone seen recent news on the 12nm Ryzen? Isn't it supposed to be coming in March?
It sounds silly but you should put that swapfile on a ramdrivePersonally, I have it disabled between my machines, or set to something ridiculously low (16MB),