If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rating: | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
BillW50 wrote:
On 5/28/2014 10:40 PM, Good Guy wrote: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. You think Bill only runs one OS? I think Bill likes to brag about how many computers and operating systems he uses. -- Alias |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In message , Good Guy
writes: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On Wed, 28 May 2014 20:33:07 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) Off to the pun-itentiary you go! :-) -- Char Jackson |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Good Guy writes: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. (An example of pre-install alignment - make a blank partition first, and while the WinXP installer can "format" the partition later when you tell it to install in that partition, it won't change the origin of the partition. I don't own an SSD and haven't confirmed any of this. Caveat emptor.) http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...ent.html?ltr=S And as you can see here, there are even some issues with older backup tools. Namely, that they can foul up the alignment, when restoring a single partition. https://forum.acronis.com/forum/3267 Paul |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/29/2014 8:19 PM, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Good Guy writes: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. (An example of pre-install alignment - make a blank partition first, and while the WinXP installer can "format" the partition later when you tell it to install in that partition, it won't change the origin of the partition. I don't own an SSD and haven't confirmed any of this. Caveat emptor.) http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...ent.html?ltr=S And as you can see here, there are even some issues with older backup tools. Namely, that they can foul up the alignment, when restoring a single partition. https://forum.acronis.com/forum/3267 Paul I simply cloned the HDD in my WinXP EeePC to SSD and everything works fine. I used EZ Gig IV 4,3,8 UEFI GFX.exe http://www.apricorn.com/products/software/ezgig.html |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
AlDrake wrote:
On 5/29/2014 8:19 PM, Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Good Guy writes: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. (An example of pre-install alignment - make a blank partition first, and while the WinXP installer can "format" the partition later when you tell it to install in that partition, it won't change the origin of the partition. I don't own an SSD and haven't confirmed any of this. Caveat emptor.) http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...ent.html?ltr=S And as you can see here, there are even some issues with older backup tools. Namely, that they can foul up the alignment, when restoring a single partition. https://forum.acronis.com/forum/3267 Paul I simply cloned the HDD in my WinXP EeePC to SSD and everything works fine. I used EZ Gig IV 4,3,8 UEFI GFX.exe http://www.apricorn.com/products/software/ezgig.html Sure, you can ignore the alignment if you want. It's still worth a Google search though, to see under what circumstances it makes a difference. Your drive will still work, and that's not the issue. It's whether you're using the drive as efficiently as possible, and doing the fewest writes to the flash chips. That's less of a concern with Win7 or Win8, because they all-round treat SSDs better. An OS like WinXP is not "SSD aware", and plenty of stuff can be tweaked to make things better. Hard drives are relatively immune to wear, so some of the dumb stuff that WinXP did to them, did not matter (i.e. recording the last time a file was accessed for example - which should be turned off for an SSD). These drives are so fast, the user might not be aware what all these tweaks can do. Paul |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/29/2014 11:48 PM, Paul wrote:
AlDrake wrote: On 5/29/2014 8:19 PM, Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Good Guy writes: On 29/05/2014 04:33, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: I have three more of these SSD unopened to keep in stock until I need them. I'll probably order 3 every month or so until I have enough to start rotating them. I thought SSD's were non-rotating drives... (Bad joke. Don't laugh, just groan.) SSD? Bill into SSD and using XP? Now this is news to me. Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. (An example of pre-install alignment - make a blank partition first, and while the WinXP installer can "format" the partition later when you tell it to install in that partition, it won't change the origin of the partition. I don't own an SSD and haven't confirmed any of this. Caveat emptor.) http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...ent.html?ltr=S And as you can see here, there are even some issues with older backup tools. Namely, that they can foul up the alignment, when restoring a single partition. https://forum.acronis.com/forum/3267 Paul I simply cloned the HDD in my WinXP EeePC to SSD and everything works fine. I used EZ Gig IV 4,3,8 UEFI GFX.exe http://www.apricorn.com/products/software/ezgig.html Sure, you can ignore the alignment if you want. It's still worth a Google search though, to see under what circumstances it makes a difference. Your drive will still work, and that's not the issue. It's whether you're using the drive as efficiently as possible, and doing the fewest writes to the flash chips. That's less of a concern with Win7 or Win8, because they all-round treat SSDs better. An OS like WinXP is not "SSD aware", and plenty of stuff can be tweaked to make things better. Hard drives are relatively immune to wear, so some of the dumb stuff that WinXP did to them, did not matter (i.e. recording the last time a file was accessed for example - which should be turned off for an SSD). These drives are so fast, the user might not be aware what all these tweaks can do. Paul You're right Paul. I just checked and the SSD is reporting 31K-BAD. It's been so long that I had that problem and just as long since I turned on this Netbook that I forget how to align the drive. I also noticed I should upgrade the firmware on this Crucial M4-CT256M4SSD2. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/29/2014 10:48 PM, Paul wrote:
It's whether you're using the drive as efficiently as possible, and doing the fewest writes to the flash chips. That's less of a concern with Win7 or Win8, because they all-round treat SSDs better. An OS like WinXP is not "SSD aware", and plenty of stuff can be tweaked to make things better. Hard drives are relatively immune to wear, so some of the dumb stuff that WinXP did to them, did not matter (i.e. recording the last time a file was accessed for example - which should be turned off for an SSD). Which all seems very odd to me since I monitor SSD use by the OS and Windows 7 and 8 abuse the SSD far worse than XP ever did. I do basically the very same tasks whether I am running XP, 7, or 8. And Hard Disk Sentinel and the Kingston SSD Utility both reports that Windows 7/8 write far more to the SSD than XP ever did. For example my XP machine has 200 hours on the SSD and this 8.1 only has 100 hours on the SSD and it already has far more writes than the XP SSD does. That XP machine also does extra duty and records TV programs and still can't write as much as my Windows 7/8 machines. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
BillW50 wrote, On 5/30/2014 7:27 PM:
And Hard Disk Sentinel and the Kingston SSD Utility both reports that Windows 7/8 write far more to the SSD than XP ever did. Well it should, More tasks are employed for maintenance and security in both. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On Fri, 30 May 2014 18:27:39 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/29/2014 10:48 PM, Paul wrote: It's whether you're using the drive as efficiently as possible, and doing the fewest writes to the flash chips. That's less of a concern with Win7 or Win8, because they all-round treat SSDs better. An OS like WinXP is not "SSD aware", and plenty of stuff can be tweaked to make things better. Hard drives are relatively immune to wear, so some of the dumb stuff that WinXP did to them, did not matter (i.e. recording the last time a file was accessed for example - which should be turned off for an SSD). Which all seems very odd to me since I monitor SSD use by the OS and Windows 7 and 8 abuse the SSD far worse than XP ever did. I do basically the very same tasks whether I am running XP, 7, or 8. And Hard Disk Sentinel and the Kingston SSD Utility both reports that Windows 7/8 write far more to the SSD than XP ever did. It's not a question of how much data is written to the SSD, but rather a question of how efficient the writes are. When the writes aren't aligned to block boundaries, a single write can easily result in an extra block being written. Multiply that by the number of writes. -- Char Jackson |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/31/2014 1:05 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 18:27:39 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 5/29/2014 10:48 PM, Paul wrote: It's whether you're using the drive as efficiently as possible, and doing the fewest writes to the flash chips. That's less of a concern with Win7 or Win8, because they all-round treat SSDs better. An OS like WinXP is not "SSD aware", and plenty of stuff can be tweaked to make things better. Hard drives are relatively immune to wear, so some of the dumb stuff that WinXP did to them, did not matter (i.e. recording the last time a file was accessed for example - which should be turned off for an SSD). Which all seems very odd to me since I monitor SSD use by the OS and Windows 7 and 8 abuse the SSD far worse than XP ever did. I do basically the very same tasks whether I am running XP, 7, or 8. And Hard Disk Sentinel and the Kingston SSD Utility both reports that Windows 7/8 write far more to the SSD than XP ever did. It's not a question of how much data is written to the SSD, but rather a question of how efficient the writes are. When the writes aren't aligned to block boundaries, a single write can easily result in an extra block being written. Multiply that by the number of writes. I monitor disk alignment and that isn't a problem. And while Acronis 2011 failed to clone my OS to SSD (it just error on the first attempt to write to the SSD), Paragon worked fine and aligned it as it cloned. And that Kingston Toolbox Utility monitors lifetime writes which would show up as extra writes if the disk was unaligned. Also Open Hardware Monitor shows the Write Amplification is at 0.973 [program/erase (P/E) cycles] which means there is no problem here either. The major concerns about XP and SSDs are disk alignment, defrag, and no trim support. And I don't find these as a real problem. As there are utilities to correct the alignment. And just don't defrag (Windows 7/8 supposedly will refuse to defrag a SSD and will invoke trim instead). And while XP doesn't invoke trim, trim should be done automatically by the SSD during garbage collection anyway. So I really don't see running XP on SSDs as a big deal. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. [] It wasn't the alignment etc. I'm worried about - it's the final eventual failure mode, which I _still_ feel will be in all probability more sudden than with a rotating drive. And, judging by the SSD enthusiasts on here, I probably _am_ being illogical about that. (And illogical fears are the hardest to placate!) Though this _does_ bring up the challenge for the SSD-enthusiasts: if modern SSDs _are_ so good (last for many decades, billions of writes, etc.), how long would you expect one to last if installed on an XP system _without_ taking all the extra precautions? (Not that I'd do it - if I _did_ switch to an SSD, I'd sort out trim and all the other things people say. I'm just wondering, if somebody did just drop one in, would it be likely to fail in a very small number of years? And yes I realize that I'm not specifying the typical usage so you can't really answer.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The best way to achieve immortality is by not dying. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium
On 5/31/2014 11:27 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] Using XP doesn't necessarily mean one is stuck in the mud in all respects. (I'd probably consider SSDs myself if I could persuade myself that their behaviour was something I could live with. [And yes I know I'm illogical.]) To use an SSD on WinXP, it should be properly aligned, and it is recommended to use only one partition on it. Other than that, enjoy yourself. WinXP, left to its own devices, uses a "63 sector" legacy DOS alignment. Whereas you need the Windows 7 (and Linux) 1MB alignment. Find a post-install alignment tool, to fix this. [] It wasn't the alignment etc. I'm worried about - it's the final eventual failure mode, which I _still_ feel will be in all probability more sudden than with a rotating drive. And, judging by the SSD enthusiasts on here, I probably _am_ being illogical about that. (And illogical fears are the hardest to placate!) Well if you ignore alignment, the worst case is it writes twice the cells it would normally write. Although in practice it probably won't be quite that bad. As Paul stated, if you take a fresh SSD and install XP fresh, it will misalign the SSD. There are utilities to correct this before and after. Although I would think most would clone an existing install instead. Most modern cloning software knows how to align to an SSD anyway. Problem solved. Though this _does_ bring up the challenge for the SSD-enthusiasts: if modern SSDs _are_ so good (last for many decades, billions of writes, etc.), how long would you expect one to last if installed on an XP system _without_ taking all the extra precautions? (Not that I'd do it - if I _did_ switch to an SSD, I'd sort out trim and all the other things people say. I'm just wondering, if somebody did just drop one in, would it be likely to fail in a very small number of years? And yes I realize that I'm not specifying the typical usage so you can't really answer.) Well there is two types of SSD. SLC type (now rare) can be written to 100,000 times per cell. And the MLC type that can be written up to 10,000 times. Since the manufacturing cost is SLC is twice as expansive to manufacture than MLC, but lasts 10 times longer. You would think SLC would be more popular. Nope, MLC seems to win out due it is half of the price. So how long can a MLC SSD last? Well if you take a 120GB MLC SSD and write 120GB worth everyday (which sounds very hard to do on the average Windows desktop). The best case for 10,000 writes per cell would take about 27 years (writing 120GB per day). Some files won't change at all while some files changes all of the time. So you have an unbalance of some cells being written to a lot while some only once. So SSDs has a thing called wear leveling. Wear leveling is akin to defragging a hard drive. As defragging moves sectors around so all of the files can be read without the mechanical head moving all over the place (which takes more time if it isn't together). There is no seek time with SSDs so that isn't a problem. Parts of the file could be spread all over the place and it doesn't matter because it can piece everything together regardless in the same amount of time. Oh but the cells that only has very little changes becomes huge targets to be moved out due to being valuable real estate. As like defrag, they move files and fragments, but very seldom changed files (and pieces) are moved to more heavily used cells. So this shell game continues so every cell is written the same amount of times. So what does this all mean? Well counting what is all written, adding wear leveling and such, it is probably closer to half. So writing 120GB per day to a 120GB MLC SSD drive may be like 13 years instead. You know what I think? Probably by 10 years a 1TB MLC SSD will probably cost like 10 bucks anyway and why would you care if your 10 year old 120GB SSD is near the end or not? Take the other extreme, back in 2008 I was really concern about excessive SSD writes and I was using a SLC SSD (only 4GB). So I moved things like browser caches, temps, pagefile, etc. to a RAMDrive. Moved things that changed a lot but didn't really matter if they were lost. I tweaked and got this XP machine down to 400MB of writes per day and I said this is as low as I can go and the machine is still completely useable. Then I figured out all of that trimming how long it would take to wear the SLC SSD out. And it came out to 8,000 years at best and 4,000 years at worst at that rate. And it dawned on me who the hell cares if it still works for 4,000 or 8,000 years straight anyway? Seriously! -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|