OFF and SuperFetch.

[hood 2]

My initial experience with SuperFetch and 16 Gig RAM.

Flying OFF with SuperFetch turned off I noticed occasional stutters throughout the sesseio.

With SuperFetch on when starting the sim there were noticeable stutters at first.However after a few minutes these stutters completely disappeared even when performing violent manoeuvres at tree top height and did not reoccur during that session.Whenever I start OFF now exactly the same symptoms occur IE noticeable stutters on start up which disappear after a few minutes.

From my experience I can state that with my rig SuperFetch works exactly as they claim.

[+Lothar of the Hill People 6]

My experience as well, hood. If your playing habits are fairly predicable, and you keep your machine running, SuperFetch will be even more ready when you launch OFF and hopefully get reduce those initial stutters further.

 

Maybe not as perfect and dramatic a solution as a pair of SSDs in RAID, but certainly much cheaper.

[Kaische 1]

Is there any possibility to combine the advantages of superfetch AND a SSD. Maybe to inhibit the writing on the SSD but have SF enabled? I have a setup with a SSD, from where I start the performance hungry applications like OFF and Falcon from...

[hood 2]

I have not yet acquired an SSD so am totally ignorant  on this score but I am sure you will get some expert advice from the forum members.

[Tamper 9]

Unfortunate we couldn't continue the discussion in the thread that was already running - strictly for continuity, mind you.  Oh, well.

 

But in that thread there was a description of a forum member with adequate memory, where SuperFetch would've been enabled by default, who maintains that he experienced stutters until getting his SSD.

 

Yes, SSDs cost more, but they are "ready" to perform, without a need to cache anything, for any data they hold, anywhere on the drive, at any time.  With the exact same speed.  A conventional hard disk cannot do this, and a caching algorithm (like SuperFetch) cannot, either.  This is probably why hood experiences the initial "loading stutters", where MudWasp (in the other thread) and my own experience with SSDs is that we don't have stutters, even at initial loading.

 

As for the cost, it's a fairly simple and common matter:  You get what you pay for.  SSDs are built for the best storage performance (given present technology) possible, and this is proven and accepted throughout the industry.  If you want the best performance, there's a reason it costs what it does.

 

Caching algorithms (lke SuperFetch) can attempt to approximate the performance - perhaps even for less money - but that's exactly what you get: An attempt at approximation.

 

These reports are all subjective, we all knew that going into this.  Not that I'm complaining about the subjective nature, I'm simply saying it "is what it is".

 

In the other thread, MudWasp states that, in spite of having a setup where SuperFetch would've been enabled, he still had stutters until he got an SSD - which he reports eliminated the stutters.  In reality, that's what hood has reported.  "Whenever I start OFF now exactly the same symptoms occur IE noticeable stutters on start up which disappear after a few minutes."

 

Yes, the stutters reduce eventually, but they're not eliminated.  Because a caching algorithm can't do that. 

 

Also, I have received memory recently and am still following my own testing; just not ready yet to report.  The final phase will be disabling SuperFetch, whereupon I should notice a drastic difference (but I do not expect to, because I run SSDs).

 

At the same time, I have doubled the memory in my son's W7-64 machine and plan the exact same test for him:  Run with SuperFetch on, then abruptly turn it off, to see if he notices.  The difference is he doesn't have an SSD, so his experience should be that he will immediately see a substantial decrease in performance when I turn it off (if SuperFetch is making all that much difference) .

 

Again, all subjective, which I think is OK in this case, since this is largely about the perception of performance.  So long as you're willing to accept all the subjective accounts.

 

@ Kaische:  I don't think there is a way to selectively cache drives with SuperFetch (which is another problem with using it in a multi-drive arrangement, BTW.  Even Windows Defrag lets you pick which drives are scheduled, as well as being able to select which drives have paging files. But, AFAICT, SuperFetch is an all-or-none type arrangement)

 

When I got the extra 8G memory, I turned SuperFetch on (started service/set to auto) I've definitely already noticed SuperFetch using 'available' memory to cache, so no one's disputing it actually does use memory to cache frequently-used data. The discussion is about whether the performance of this caching is comparable to that of SSDs, and is therefore worth the difference in cost.

 

I've also confirmed that restarting the computer (as we all knew) will clear this cache.  SSDs don't have to start over just because you restarted your PC, and I may be 'old school' but I still restart my computer, typically once a day.  Helps clear up many of the problems Windows and apps have with rampant memory leaks that the producers of SW have seemingly lost the ability to control.  So, there's another reason to consider a different solution besides caching (like SuperFetch).

 

Lothar:  There's nothing "dramatic" about employing a proven technological advantage in performance.  You actually suggested a RAID array to another member here on this forum in yet another thread.  I simply took the fastest storage performance I could find (SSDs), and built them into an arrangement that was created for performance (RAID0), because I wanted to achieve the best possible performance for a reasonable cost (around $250).

 

To prove how well this works, OCZ actually offers a 'pre-built' RAID0 array of two SSD drives on a PCIexpress card (to eliminate the SATA interface bottleneck).   And it works, extremely well, from my own experience and many accounts out there.  No drama, just performance.  Yes, it's expensive - I think around $350, but, again, you get what you pay for.  My GTX570 video card is nowhere near top of the line, and it was $300 when I bought it - and it wasn't by far the most expensive at the time!

 

No one's questioning that SuperFetch does something akin to improving response, in selective circumstances.  But the facts show it doesn't work as well as an SSD.  This is backed up - as I referenced in the other thread - by the fact that Microsoft, who created it - turn it off on SSDs, because it's simply unneeded at that point.

 

And my opinion is that, if speed is the goal, then it doesn't make sense to spend good money and only get something that performs sometimes, when it's ready, which isn't even proven to increase speed consistently (depends on whether/what's been cached), and that factually has to start over every time you restart your computer.

 

And BTW, we haven't even discussed the known issues that drive caching has when the 'prediction' algorithm goes wrong, and forces flushing/reloading of the cache (yes, this happens, and when it does, "micro-stutter" will pale by comparison).

 

Now, if you're simply going for cheap - OK, sure; that's another matter.  I just find it interesting that, among all the system specs and performance discussions you can find on these fora, the discussions don't usually revolve around cheap.  In fact, I can't ever remember seeing a signature with cheap in it...just the latest and greatest (and often very expensive) video cards, CPUs, motherboards...

 

Hell, if cheap is the point, I have a few machines around here that are winners; old Core2Duos with a 9800GT card I'd let go for dirt cheap...probably run OFF decent enough for what it costs.  Probably won't perform quite as well as a newer rig, but won't cost nearly as much either.  Makes you wonder why people spend hundreds on video cards, upgrades, new rigs...

 

Can't imagine why there's so much problem understanding the relationship between cost and performance.  This was the case with muscle car enthusiasts back in the 50s and 60s, and (surprise) it's still the case now, only now with PCs.

 

Anyway, I expect to have more info on this eventually.  In the meantime, again, what I advocate is letting common sense prevail:  If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  You're not going to get the performance of a $350 item by spending $65.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Tamper

[Hellshade 110]

I think what it boils down to is that if you don't happen to have a few hundred dollars to drop on an SSD Drive, try SuperFetch. It costs nothing but a little of your time and might well offer some improvement to your gaming experience. If you have the cash to drop on an SSD drive, I haven't heard anyone complain that it wasn't worth it.

[Tamper 9]

Hellshade, that's close, but with one fairly large difference:  It's not necessarily free.  I explained above it was unfortunate we didn't continue the discussion in the original thread, but in that thread it was implied that - by way of SuperFetch - one could get rid of stutters for ~$70 worth of memory (if you didn't already have 16G).

 

If you already have 16G, and you don't have an SSD, you don't need to do anything; SuperFetch (in all likelihood) is already running on your machine.  But at least one person who meets all the criteria has already said that he still had stutters with just such an arrangement - until, that is, he got his SSD.

 

If you don't have 16G, it was explained, then that's why you couldn't expect it to work well: Not enough memory.

 

The reason I'm opposed to this "advice" is that it leads people to believe that, for the same cost, they can get the performance offered by an SSD - so spend money on buying 8G of RAM if you only have 8.

 

My own experience is that the 8G isn't the culprit, nor is an additional 8G going to solve the actual, real problem.  The real problem is solved by solid, consistent throughput, which is not something a caching algorithm can assure.

 

It may approximate; it can attempt.  It cannot assure.

 

MudWasp already said he still had stutters even with 16G, but an SSD cured it.  Hood says he still has stutters initially when loading OFF, even though he's now using SuperFetch.

 

And, BTW, an SSD doesn't necessarily cost a "few hundred dollars".  I have seen reputable name brand MLC flash drives big enough to load OFF and then some, for less than $70 - which is about what I just paid for an additional 8G RAM.

 

And if we assume roughly the same cost @ ~$70??  I'll stick with 8G RAM and spend the money on an SSD, any time. Nothing says you can't have 8G and still turn SuperFetch on, just because you have an SSD...

 

...oh, wait; my mistake - Microsoft themselves acknowledge it's pointless, if you have an SSD.

 

But what do they know?  Just the guys who created the caching scheme.

 

[+Lothar of the Hill People 6]

The reason I'm opposed to this "advice" is that it leads people to believe that, for the same cost, they can get the performance offered by an SSD - so spend money on buying 8G of RAM if you only have 8.

 

No one has said that, Tamper (and I presume you mean for less cost).

 

The advice is valuable for those who want a low-cost way to get rid of most stuttering. And it may even be free for people who have lots of RAM already but disabled SuperFetch in the past thanks to truly bad advice. There are tradeoffs, and your solution isn't the best solution for everybody.

 

...oh, wait; my mistake - Microsoft themselves acknowledge it's pointless, if you have an SSD.

 

Even if you have an SSD, SuperFetch and lots of RAM would not be useless for caching all the stuff not on your SSD. Since SSDs are so much more expensive than traditional hard drives. While RAM is still much more expensive than SSDs per GB, its speed means smart caching can make a bit more RAM go a long way.

 

Nothing is faster than RAM for throughput, so the more space to cache the better. In an ideal world, we'd have as much fast RAM to mirror our cheap storage, and cache the whole thing for instant access with no need at all for hybrid tech like SSD. If you dropped your RAM down to 256MB and relied on your SSD for virtual memory, I don't think you'd be that impressed with its speed any longer.

 

Don't think Microsoft ever used the word "pointless", as the only reason you should disable SuperFetch with an SSD in your system is because the caching algorithm refragments drives to optimize loading most frequently used stuff into RAM, and this reshuffling of data is bad for SSDs because they have a limited number of lifetime write operations.

[hood 2]

Tamper, I still intend to get an SSD when I am shekel-solvent again.I am sure you are correct and that SuperFetch is a Band-Aid solution,but one well-worth using in the meantime.

Cheers

[Tamper 9]

Lothar of the Hill People Posted 09 June 2013 - 02:40:47 PM:

 

http://combatace.com/topic/78576-off-and-ssd/page-1

 

LotHP: "I'd suggest for many gamers additional RAM is a more cost-effective performance boost than a SSD."

 

I just showed above that, for the same price as I paid for an additional 8g of RAM, you could buy an actual SSD. 

 

(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171645)

 

Why imitate, or attempt to approximate when you can have the real performance?  (BTW, that's a 64G SSD - which would factually hold several times what an additional 8G RAM can cache - and it doesn't have to be loaded after every boot, or rely on prediction to be fast, nor suffer any of the other flaws in a caching scheme.)

 

LotHP: "If you already have a lot of RAM and consistent usage patterns, you likely won't see much performance gain from a SSD..."

 

Sorry...who was it that didn't say RAM would supplant the performance of an SSD for less?  If that's not saying 'having more RAM makes SSDs unecessary' - particularly to a layperson, who doesn't know any better - then I don't know what is.

 

And for Pete's sake, please stop with the "limited lifetime write" business...factually *any storage* hard disks, SSDs or even RAM...all have limited lifetime writes.  (In fact, to be specifically accurate, RAM has the shortest "life" of all since, without power, it is erased.)

 

The SSD write issues were only a major factor back in the first gen devices and the very poor later units.  The quality drives have all but overcome this with additional technology; built transparently into the drive.

 

Finally, Microsoft didn't say they turned off caching on SSDs due to anything to do with all that nonsense you cited.  I pasted a link, of course, in the other thread, but here is what they said, again:

 

Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck.

 

Nothing at all about write life cycle fiddly-slop...it says right there in plain English that these caching schemes don't apply to SSDs because they were designed to improve performance on old hard disk technology.  It doesn't apply to SSDs, which is exactly the same as saying if you have SSDs, SuperFetch is pointless.

 

Certainly doesn't say anything about limited write-life-cycle nonsense.

 

(http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx?Redirected=true)

 

But, again, that's just the guys who wrote it.

 

[MudWasp48 3]

Hey hood,

 

This is a good site to poke around at while looking into ssd's

 

http://thessdreview.com/Forums/

[Hellshade 110]

Hellshade's Law of Computer Performance

 

The perfomance increase of a peice of hardware that you cannot afford is always exactly Zero.   Therefore, anything that you can afford or can do for free will result in better performance than the hardware you can't get.

 

Walls of text will not change that fact.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Hellshade

[Tamper 9]

Hellshade,

 

I posted a link proving that the cost difference is non-existent.  And you retort with that?

 

Dude, let's keep it real, please?  If you have a factual point you can demonstrate with some kind of evidence, by all means, participate.  But if you're just going to resort to making up "law" consisting of a poor attempt to ridicule, it doesn't help an intelligent discussion much.

 

What's next, name-calling?

By the way, just because I cannot afford to take a flight somewhere for a vacation...then, if we apply your logic, that means no one else can enjoy said vacation either...right?

 

You're not there to hear the tree fall in the forest, therefore no one else could possibly hear it...izzat it?

 

*Ahem*

[Hellshade 110]

1.  Factual point:  You can try Superfetch at zero cost.  It is a part of the Operating System.  There is absolutely no financial cost for trying something that comes as part of the OS. It's not "not necessarily free." It is unarguably free. No one has ever turned on Superfetch and gotten a bill from Microsoft for doing so.

 

2.  Factual point:  You compared the cost of purchasing RAM to an SSD drive, not the cost of trying Superfetch.  I didn't say RAM was free. I said Superfetch was free.    Please try to read more carefully so that you might avoid making these kinds of mistakes in your future posts. 

 

3.  Factual point: SSD drives are not free. So the cost difference of trying Superfetch - which is free - and the cost of buying an SSD drive is NOT non-existent.   $59 is more than zero dollars and that can be alot to someone who is on an extremely tight budget.  I will, however, be happy to agree that the prices have fallen dramatically in recent years and so are much more reasonable than when SSD drives first came out.  Still, if someone can't afford one, then they can't afford one.  They can always afford to try Superfetch on their existing machines without cost, regardless of their budget.

 

4.  Factual point: If you can't afford an SSD drive, then you will in fact get zero performance increase from it.  There is absolutely nothing arguable about this statement.   I'm not sure what you could possibly be opposed to in this statement.  It's elementary, really.

 

5.  Factual point: If you try Superfetch - for free - you might get a performance increase.  Will it be more than an installed SSD drive? No, but it will probably be an improvement.  Some improvement is better than no improvement.  Again, elementary.

 

6.  Factual point: I never said anything about people not buying or shouldn't buy an SSD drive unless everyone can get one.  I stated if they can't afford one, free alternatives are worth a try.   In fact directly contrary to your accusation, I posted "If you have the cash to drop on an SSD drive, I haven't heard anyone complain that it wasn't worth it."   That is a recommendation to buy one if you have the money to do so.  Scroll up a bit to see you are 100% wrong here.   The fact that I purchased one myself only continues to hammer home the falseness of your utterly fabricated accusation.  I would kindly request that you please not ask me to "keep it real" while you are making completely unfounded accusations about me that can be disproven on the very same page of the thread.  It doesn't hurt my feelings at all.  I just don't like to see you embarrass yourself like that.

 

 

Please enumerate which of these factual points is wrong sir and exactly why.    

 

Now, If somebody asked me if I thought they should buy more RAM to get the most out of Superfetch, I would tell them to put the money towards an SSD drive because they will get more consistent performance gains for the money.  With careful reading, you will see that I never recommended someone buy RAM over an SSD drive (presuming they have at least 8GB of RAM).   What I said was if you can't afford an SSD drive, it doesn't cost anything to try Superfetch and at least you might get some performance gain just as a few people on here have stated they did.   To me, that is a completely rational and logical contribution to the discussion, backed up by facts that I have yet to see you refute.

 

I stand by Hellshade's Law of Computer Performance and I have yet to see anything from you that contradicts it.  It's common sense and that is all I am advocating.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Hellshade

[MudWasp48 3]

I feel at home, mud is flying...lol...hope I don't get stung or sting someone else.

 

I can say that when I went to a ssd from a 7200 rpm wd black 1 TB, had 32GB of ram on W7 home premium which only utilized 16GB, have later switched to W7 pro which uses all 32GB. .....I experienced a HUGE decrease in microstutters in FSX on W7 hp. They were gone. I flew the same flight patterns with the same addons installed. Same sliders and tick boxes. The ssd wasn't cheap, about $150 from newegg for a 256GB Adata, which was a good buy. At the the time I was debating about a 10,000rpm WD raptor or a ssd. Ssd came on sale so I went that way.

 

Since then I bought a 10,000 rpm wd raptor, 500GB, and put FSX and X-plane on it. Haven't played X-plane much, but have logged over 30 hours on FSX. It runs damm fine. However, I have upgraded my graphics card since then. I also put a video editing program on the WD and that is super fast too. I have no clue if superfetch is turned on, that is a logical drive after my main "C" ssd. Not sure if "C" can be off and "F" can be on, "D" is my dvd drive. "G" is a new 2TB wd 7200 black for backup, and storage.

 

Yes, money is an issue when buying or building a system, and I agree with going with a "freebie" and trying it out. I'm sure superfetch was turned on before I went ssd and the difference was HUGE. I'm wondering if an expensive 10,000 rpm raptor is good enough not to notice the difference. They write faster, but read slower judged by data I've read and even the WD raptor selling video on newegg made by WD.

 

Storage does make a difference!

 

The WD raptor came with a 5yr, Adata a 2yr. Time will tell. Odds are I might have moved on to something new by then, who knows...my last rig was still running fine when I decided to upgrade and do my own thing instead of buying. I learned much and am thrilled with what I have. It beats the heck out of configuring a rig price wise from an online site.

[hood 2]

Thanks MudWasp for that site.That is just what I needed.

[MudWasp48 3]

No problem,

That's were I went to learn about these new-fangled, fancy "hard drives" and become less ignorant, in the traditional meaning of the word...

 

.....Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.

[Tamper 9]

Hellshade, your numbered points omitted a response to one of my comments, so I'll go ahead and get that out of the way first:

 

The "law" you fabricated implies that just because person "A" cannot afford the benefit of something, that no one else can enjoy that benefit, and no one else therefore has any right to discuss it.  That's plain ridiculous.  Even if not one of us had any of this technology or could afford it, we can still enjoy intelligent conversation on the subject.  Even if none of us could afford it, the technical performance issues still exist.

 

It's simply immaterial to make up and interject "law" into the discussion, regardless of who can afford what.  As you'll see, moving forward here, your 'law' is also wrong in it's very foundation, because it assumes something that is inaccurate.

 

Now, then, on to your numbers:

 

1. Can't argue (nor have I tried) that SuperFetch of itself costs anything.  In fact, you came along in the middle of this and I'd venture you still haven't read the first part of the discussion.  Maybe  you, sir, should do so.  (I did say twice now that the discussion was unfortunately bifurcated).  You'd benefit if you did read the other thread, because you'd see that, in the other thread it was clearly implied (as I have repeated here) that 8G wasn't enough RAM to appreciate the benefits of SuperFetch.  So, while I agree completely that SuperFetch costs nothing (and I said so myself in the other thread, which you really should take time to read, please)  this discussion and the question of cost concerns an additional 8G of RAM for folks who only had 8.  Cost = roughly $60-70, depending.

 

2. I compared the cost of 8G additional RAM, because that is the absolute crux and context of this discussion over it's entire course.  If you'd please read more carefully, perhaps you'd see what I'm talking about.

 

3. The ~$60 cost of the SSD is the same as I just paid for an additional 8G of memory, as I stated in this thread.  I'm honestly not sure why you can't see that anyone who can afford one, can afford the other.  Moreover, taking your statement into account as follows:  "If somebody asked me if I thought they should buy more RAM to get the most out of Superfetch, I would tell them to put the money towards an SSD drive because they will get more consistent performance gains for the money. "  I will infer that you understand and agree with what I've said all along, because (factually) that's exactly - and entirely - what I'm saying.  Not sure why you're in such a rush to ridicule me here, mate.

 

4. I genuinely hate to say so, at the risk of inviting your wrath and more unneeded comments, but I must prove you wrong here.  If hood (or anyone else who reads this) would kindly give me a mailing address, I will provide for free - at absolutely no cost - (1) 30G SSD (an OCZ Vertex2, quite fast even if used).  Big enough to load OFF and perhaps more.  Big enough to hold 2-3 times what an additional 8G of RAM can cache, without any of the drawbacks of caching.  (Caveat/disclaimer, I can only offer one; sorry.  As-is, no warranty implied or stated.  Drive is free, recipient must pay for shipping per instructions I will provide).  Factual point?  One needn't buy anything - or be able to afford it - to appreciate the benefit.  I have myself given away hardware here to members of CA, and I've seen others do the same thing.  So, I'm afraid, sir, you are absolutely incorrect in asserting that if you cannot afford to pay for something, you cannot benefit from it.  (Just please admit you didn't consider this possibility and were therefore wrong, and let's not argue, OK?).

 

The problem is you're attempting to focus on what someone can pay for, while in reality I'm talking about relative performance at the same cost, and therefore cost is immaterial.

 

5. Not really arguing this point, but again that is not what's at issue in this discussion,  (Again, I invite you to read the posts)  This discussion concerns whether an additional 8G of RAM, for someone with only 8G, will supplant the performance of an SSD.  As I posted above, Lothar (in the original thread) said "If you already have a lot of RAM and consistent usage patterns, you likely won't see much performance gain from a SSD..."   This implies - if it doesn't state outright - that sufficient RAM makes the performance of an SSD unneccessary.  I've also shown (and provided a link), directly from the folks who wrote SuperFetch, that factually it's exactly the opposite:  Having an SSD makes SuperFetch unnecessary, to the point it's creators turn it off where SSDs are used.

 

6.  I'd prefer not to discuss who's embarrassing themselves.  Please see my responses above.  Again, I don't know why you're so intent to attack me, when at a technical level we are saying the exact same thing.  My comment about 'keeping it real' was soley and entirely directed at the 'law' comment you posted - which was unecessary, and seemed clearly intended to belittle and/or provoke.  Now that you've responded with (what you consider) factual statements, I have responded, indicating where I disagree, and providing proof where appropriate. 

 

So, in summary:

 

a. You made an inaccurate assumption about someone's ability to acquire technology where they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and

 

b. It appears you were unaware of the context of the discussion (as regards the cost of additional ram which was in reality the context of this entire discussion).

 

Therefore, unfortunately, the 'factual statements' you posted are inaccurate.

 

That's an intelligent discussion, no need to try to ridicule or make up 'laws',

[Hellshade 110]

I'm perfectly content to the let rest of the readers of the forum decide for themselves what each of us is saying. It's clear that you and I will not see eye to eye on what, to me, seems like elementary logic. If a person can't afford a piece of equipment, then there is no reason not to try free alternatives.

 

Nothing about what I have said, including my "law" even remotely hinted at the idea that if one person can't afford something, nobody should get it. In fact to the contrary, I recommended buying SSD drives to those who could. That doesn't stop you from making utterly false statements about what I have said or my meaning though. Nor did I see you admit that you were wrong to accuse me of such. In fact you doubled down on your life. I guess you feel if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough it will be considered true. Good luck to you with that sir. People can read what I wrote for themselves.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Hellshade

[Tamper 9]

You said what you intended, I simply replied.  I have a "deeply embedded emotional disorder"??  Now we resort to the insult-flinging.  Typical.

 

You can't accept that your assumption was inaccurate and caused you to be wrong (which I proved, conclusively).  You can't accept that you walked into the middle of something without reading the entire discussion (which I demonstrated).

 

I stated fact.  I provided references, including legitimate pricing from a real vendor, quotes from Microsoft, quotes from earlier in this discussion...

 

...and because I illustrate the flaws in your argument, *I* have a problem?

 

Wow.

 

Well, at least no one else has stooped to that level so far in the discussion (which I do admire and appreciate).

[+Lothar of the Hill People 6]

Tamper, your strawman "arguments" and hostile attitude aren't winning many friends. Hellshade never said anything even remotely close to 'because person "A" cannot afford the benefit of something, that no one else can enjoy that benefit'. Under no reading of his "law" does such a conclusion follow. You've done this kind of thing repeatedly to my arguments as well. That's not "sarcasm," just rude.

 

The improved lifespan of SSDs comes from technology that distributes access evenly across all the flash memory cells, so no one cell is abused more than others. This maximizes the time before any one cell fails, and this the time until the entire drive fails. It's like laying down on a bed of nails, distributing your body weight evenly so no single nail impales you. This is why SuperFetch should be disabled when you use SSDs: the caching algorithm refragments how data is stored in a way that shortens the lifespan of SSDs. Not because SuperFetch becomes "pointless"--another example of you misconstruing someone else's argument.

 

Because of this, in fact, adding a 30GB SSD to a machine with a lot of RAM can be a bad idea. Sure you end up speeding up the few things you can fit on that tiny drive, but at the cost of slowing everything else down. By disabling SuperFetch, your RAM is no longer used to precache all the stuff that's still read off your traditional hard drives.

 

There are tradeoffs here. The best solution for you isn't the best solution for everyone else. But why am I even arguing with people on the internet?

[Tamper 9]

Uhhh, I didn't start flinging insults, and invoking imaginary "laws".

 

BTW, as I already explained, I have SSDs, and SuperFetch IS enabled on my machine.  So there's absolutely no point in claiming that having SSDs in a system means you hurt performance by forcing it to be off.  You can turn it back on, just like I did.

 

I also already said I have nothing to gain or lose whether someone wants to buy SSDs or RAM.  I just prefer to see factual evidence, with references, as opposed to mumbo-jumbo and fabricated "law".  There's plenty of proof of what's what in this thread; there's plenty of proof out on the Internet as well.  Anyone who wants to read can decide for themselves what makes more sense.

 

I've posted links with authoritative references; I don't recall seeing any other such evidence, just individuals' opinions.

 

Hellshade said he wouldn't recommend an extra 8G over an SSD, and I've already proved that the cost can be comparable.

 

MudWasp has said, and now re-confirmed, he continued to have stuttering with SuperFetch, but it stopped with his getting an SSD.

 

Hood said the stutters improve, but are not eliminated when he recently added an additional 8G, which was what was claimed would make all the difference.  Of particular note is that he still plans to buy an SSD.

 

I don't know how much more evidence one could ask for.

 

And I don't know why anyone would find it appropriate to resort to poor behavior, just because the overwhelming amount of evidence doesn't agree with what they happen to believe.

 

But, hey, like I already said, we'll just agree to disagree, let the evidence speak for itself, and let the readers decide for themselves.

[Tamper 9]

BTW, the Microsoft link I posted, with comments from the creators of SuperFetch, doesn't say anything about write problems being why it's turned off on SSDs.  It says, (as I already posted, word-for-word, elsewhere), that SuperFetch is disabled by default because it (and the other caching tricks) were created for hard disk technology.  That's all they said, nothing at all about write issues.

 

More importantly, even though I feel sure you haven't read it, that reference also cites that (from their perspective) Microsoft does say SSDs are a good choice for paging files. 

 

Factually, any writes from a caching algorithm pale completely to insignificance when compared to the amount of writes in a paging file...

 

...so I can only imagine Microsoft believes that this write problem you keep referring to isn't so much of a problem after all.

 

(Here's the link again, just in case: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx?Redirected=true)

 

And here's what it says:

 

Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

• Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
• Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
• Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.

 

Well, I'll be darned.  Let's read that one line again, shall we?

 

"Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well."

 

Gosh.  Maybe we need to get these folks at Microsoft to contact you, because they're clearly confused about this whole SSD-write thingy.  I cannot imagine they'd say that, unless they just weren't really too concerned with all this write horror you keep talking about.

 

But - again - I say let the reader decide; all the info is there.  Trust the folks who created the OS and the SuperFetch algorithm...or some guy on an Internet forum...up to you :)

[+Lothar of the Hill People 6]

Yes SuperFetch was created for hard disk technology. But how it works is actively harmful to the lifespan of SSDs. If you're running SuperFetch you ARE HURTING YOUR SSDs, with far more small write operations refragging the drives to optimize caching than writing to a pagefile. I've provided references before, but only the links you provide seem to matter to you. Here again from Microsoft support:

 

 

Disable SuperFetch

SuperFetch and prefetch are storage management technologies in Windows that provide a fast-track access to data on traditional, slower hard drives. On SSD drives these really clever services only provide for unnecessary write operations. Typically, Windows 7 automatically disables these services for your SSD disk. Otherwise disable it manually.

 

The whole point of having gobs of RAM is to avoid using the pagefile completely. Virtual memory on an SSD is still vastly slower than real random access memory and the stuff cached in it. So go ahead, drop your machine down to 256MB of RAM and enjoy the wonderful performance of your SSD pagefile lol!

 

SSDs are great if you can afford a full system based on them. But there are tradeoffs! I still assert many gamers will find adding RAM and using SuperFetch a more cost-effective upgrade for general system performance than mixing an SSD into a system with lots of traditional storage and disabling SuperFetch.

 

[rjw 47]

Hi foks;

 

I have been following this thread with enthusiasm and have learned quite a bit from all of you

 

I have also noticed a change in tone of the recent posts. I know that all of us share similar interest or we wouldn't be posting here.

 

Differences of opinion are normal and generate very positive learning experiences if they are respected and kept cordial.

Personal attacks bring things down a notch and risk future willingness to contribute and share opinion and knowledge.

 

Sorry if I seem assumptive, but I value all of your combined input and friendship so please consider my thoughts here.

 

Thanks for listening!

 

Best Regards to all.