Intel 160 GB ssd drive now $425

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Rod Speed"

DevilsPGD wrote


Because its used more than the rest of the drive for writes, in most real world situations.

It is? I thought you're the one arguing for sufficient RAM so that the
page file is rarely used?

Wrong, it makes a lot more sense to have more physical system ram instead
so the page file doesnt get used at all. MUCH cheaper and much faster too.

It generally makes financial sense to buy an appropriate amount of RAM
for normal operating conditions plus a small buffer, and to use a page
file to avoid out-of-memory crashes when exceptional circumstances
occur.

Buying additional memory for infrequent events probably isn't worth the
money, especially if we end up needing more than just RAM (more on this
below)

So it makes a lot more sense to not have a low memory situation instead.

Agreed -- In which case you don't have to worry about writes to flash
since the pagefile isn't constantly being written.

Enough system ram so the page file doesnt get used will speed it up
MUCH more for a lot less money.

At a significantly higher cost, yes.

Its always true unless it isnt possible to add more system ram for some reason.

That's the "to a point" right there, yup.

You hardly ever are in that situation and it makes a lot more
sense to replace the hardware so it doesnt have that situation
than to go for an expensive SSD for the page file anyway, because
enough system ram so the page file doesnt get used costs a lot
less even if the motherboard has to be changed to allow that.

I'd question your definition of "Hardly ever"

In my world, systems with chipset driven 2GB limitations aren't all that
uncommon, and CPU/OS architecture limits at ~3.2-3.5GB are prevalent.

When it comes down to a case of replacing an entire system (power
supply(1), motherboard, CPU, RAM, and possibly video card(2), printers
and scanners(3)) vs a hard drive for a system that is otherwise
adequate, the choice should be a no-brainer in most cases.

1) Looking around the office, I've got plenty of systems with power
supplies inadequate for a new build, usually a lack of additional
connectors. I've still got a few systems in service that have 20-pin
PSUs, predating both the 24-pin connector and P4 connector.

2) AGP video cards will generally need to be replaced.

3) Many perfectly serviceable printers and scanners have no x64 drivers
at all, requiring these otherwise functional devices get replaced when
moving to a x64 environment.

Then the speed isnt a problem, so there is no point in an expensive
SSD for just the page file.

Nice try at a strawman argument: No one suggested an expensive SSD just
for the page file.

However, since you brought it up, Intel's 40GB SSD starts at $109. Can
you quote me a x64 capable system (or parts) with 4GB of RAM for under
$109 to replace my mother's existing Dell SFF system with a 2GB RAM
chipset based limit?

The system is a little dated, I believe it's a 2.8GHz P4 or so, so
something that meets that level of performance would be required. She's
typically using around 1.2-1.5GB of memory, but she's got one particular
application that she runs once a month (a monthly report, oddly enough)
that needs a good 1GB of RAM to get it's job done. If you can suggest a
replacement system that would get her up to 4GB of RAM for under $109,
I'm sure she'd be grateful.

Anyway, your strawman attempt aside, the cost of putting a page file on
a SSD *you already own* is $0 unless you're already desperately low on
space on the SSD.

In other words, I'm suggesting that if you have an existing SSD, take
advantage of it to improve system performance in low memory conditions
by putting the page file on the SSD.

 

[Rod Speed]

DevilsPGD wrote

It is?
Yep.

I thought you're the one arguing for sufficient RAM so that the page file is rarely used?

Yes, but that doesnt mean that thats what most have.

Most real world systems, particularly the personal desktop
systems that the OP was talking about, do use the page file.

It generally makes financial sense to buy an appropriate amount of RAM
for normal operating conditions plus a small buffer, and to use a page file
to avoid out-of-memory crashes when exceptional circumstances occur.

In the real world, with personal desktop systems
being discussed, its nothing like that in practice.

Buying additional memory for infrequent events

That isnt the case with personal desktop systems being discussed.

probably isn't worth the money,

But using an SSD specifically for the page file is in that situation ? Like hell it is.

especially if we end up needing more than just RAM

Thats hardly ever the case with the personal desktop systems being discussed.

(more on this below)

Agreed -- In which case you don't have to worry about
writes to flash since the pagefile isn't constantly being written.

And there is no point whatever having a dedicated SSD for the page file.

At a significantly higher cost, yes.

Wrong, it would normally be significantly cheaper than a dedicated SSD just for the page file.

That's the "to a point" right there,
Nope.


Nope.

I'd question your definition of "Hardly ever"

I didnt define that. You are actually questioning my USE of that term, a different matter entirely.

In my world, systems with chipset driven 2GB limitations aren't all that uncommon,

Pity we happened to be discussing Ant's situation, not yours.

and CPU/OS architecture limits at ~3.2-3.5GB are prevalent.

But trivially fixable.

When it comes down to a case of replacing an entire
system (power supply(1), motherboard, CPU, RAM,
and possibly video card(2), printers and scanners(3))

Even sillier.

vs a hard drive for a system that is otherwise adequate,
the choice should be a no-brainer in most cases.

Not when its just a matter of more system ram.

1) Looking around the office, I've got plenty of systems
with power supplies inadequate for a new build,

We arent talking about a new build when more ram is added
because the system has so little that the page file is used a lot.

usually a lack of additional connectors. I've still got a few systems in service
that have 20-pin PSUs, predating both the 24-pin connector and P4 connector.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to replace dinosaur crap
like that than to add a dedicated SSD just for the page file.

2) AGP video cards will generally need to be replaced.

Even sillier.

3) Many perfectly serviceable printers and scanners have
no x64 drivers at all, requiring these otherwise functional
devices get replaced when moving to a x64 environment.

Even sillier.

Nice try at a strawman argument:

Everyone can see you are lying now. There is no straw man argument. Its what
is being discussed, there is absolutely no point whatever in having a dedicated
SSD just for the page file if the page file use is rare/occasional edge cases.

No one suggested an expensive SSD just for the page file.

That is PRECISELY what Ant was talking about, its still there in the quoting right at the top.

Try reading a post that you are replying to some time.

However, since you brought it up,

Like hell I did.

Intel's 40GB SSD starts at $109. Can you quote me a x64 capable
system (or parts) with 4GB of RAM for under $109 to replace my
mother's existing Dell SFF system with a 2GB RAM chipset based limit?

We aint discussing your mother's sytem.

And it makes no sense to be adding a DEDICATED SSD just for the
page file to a dinosaur like that anyway, it only makes sense to replace
that dinosaur with something more capable and get the other advantages
of a much better cpu etc as well if it does use the page file much.

The system is a little dated,

Its a ****ing dinosaur.

I believe it's a 2.8GHz P4 or so, so something that meets that
level of performance would be required. She's typically using
around 1.2-1.5GB of memory, but she's got one particular
application that she runs once a month (a monthly report, oddly
enough) that needs a good 1GB of RAM to get it's job done.

So it makes absolutely no sense to be having a DEDICATED SSD
JUST FOR THE PAGE FILE IN A SYSTEM USED LIKE THAT.

If you can suggest a replacement system that would get her
up to 4GB of RAM for under $109, I'm sure she'd be grateful.

It makes a lot more sense to just wear the less than ideal performance instead
if it only happens with that monthly report. It makes absolutely no sense to be
spending even that $109 for a dedicated SSD just for the page file for that report.

Anyway, your strawman attempt aside,

Everyone who can read can see you are lying, again.

the cost of putting a page file on a SSD *you already own*

**** all would be in that situation, so yours is the straw man. '

This sub thread is clearly discussing a DEDICATED SSD FOR THE PAGE FILE.

is $0 unless you're already desperately low on space on the SSD.

In other words, I'm suggesting that if you have an existing
SSD, take advantage of it to improve system performance
in low memory conditions by putting the page file on the SSD.

Pity this sub thread happens to be discussing the use of a SSD DEDICATED TO THE PAGE FILE.

Having fun thrashing your straw man ?

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote


Thats a lie with a system that is using the page file a lot because
it doesnt have enough system ram.

Swap files don't usually involve a great deal of writing. When you have
memory pressure, little-used pages are written out to the swap file,
while you make use of the pages that are still in memory. It's not as
if pages jump back and forth between swap and main memory continuously.

Regarding write endurance, have a look at this link:

<http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-...lls-enterprise-SSD-with-SATA-6-Gbps-interface>

To be fair, it's a top quality SSD that's just come out, and thus it's
got higher ratings than others you'll find in the shops at the moment.
But it's rated for 1.9 TB per day, every day, for 5 years. You'd have
to be doing some pretty impressive abuse of your swap to wear out that disk.

Thats overstating it.


No thanks, its a lie.



So it makes absolutely no sense to be using a SSD instead of more
system ram if the system is using the page file a lot.


Mindlessly silly.

Do you mean you can't understand what I wrote? Or perhaps you don't
understand about the memory limitations of different OS's?

You arent likely to be using the page file enough to matter if you
have that much system ram.

The point here is that it's cheaper to add a SSD for swap than to add
more ram if you have 6 or 8 GB in your system. It doesn't matter that
/you/ can't imagine anyone needing that much memory. That fact remains
that adding an SSD is much cheaper than adding more memory in this case.

I have 8 GB at home. I've used swap space on it (not often, but then
the machine is only a couple of weeks old).

My work machine has 4 GB and it uses swap fairly regularly. But it is
not enough of an issue to go through the time waste, risk, and
inconvenience (and license cost) of upgrading to 64-bit version of windows.

Wrong, because with that much ram, you arent likely to be using the
page file much at all, so a SSD just for the page file will be a
complete waste of money.



Still makes a lot more sense to have real memory instead of a SSD for
the page file, if only because real memory is a LOT faster.

No one is arguing that swap is better than real ram - just that adding
more real ram can be a big cost and involve a lot of time and risk,
while swap is easy and risk-free.

Not if they are properly designed and there is enough real memory.

What should be "properly designed"? You are not making sense.

In Linux, it doesn't matter how much real memory you have - the system
may still use swap if the page hit statistics show it is probably better
to use the memory for disk cache than for the program. Of course, the
more real memory you have, the smaller the chances of this happening.
And you can also control the "swapiness" parameters.

Still makes a lot more sense to design the app properly or use one
thats designed properly.

Again, you are not making any sense. What is this badly designed app
you are talking about? One that writes a lot of data to temporary files?

More fool you, its a monster kludge.


And **** all thats well designed with 8-12GB uses the page file much
and what does needs a serious workstation or server ANYWAY.



Oh bullshit.


You must do if you cant have a decent amount of real memory.


Complete and utter drivel.


More drivel.


More drivel.

Tell me /exactly/ how you would add more memory to a system with a
32-bit OS (say Win XP Pro or Win 7 Pro for concrete cases) that already
has 4 GB installed. If you can find me a way that is low risk and
cheaper than buying a $425 SSD, then I would be very interested to know
- I have such a system that is sometimes ram-limited.


I think you must have fallen into the old rodbot mode again. You've
made some valid points about how it is unlikely that you need swap when
you have large quantities of real ram, and you have a valid opinion that
the speed of ram compared to swap makes swap a poor solution. But
you've now fallen back on knee-jerk denial of clear facts.

 

[JW]

David Brown wrote

[...]

Thats a lie with a system that is using the page file a lot because
it doesnt have enough system ram.

Swap files don't usually involve a great deal of writing. When you have
memory pressure, little-used pages are written out to the swap file,
while you make use of the pages that are still in memory. It's not as
if pages jump back and forth between swap and main memory continuously.

Regarding write endurance, have a look at this link:

<http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-...lls-enterprise-SSD-with-SATA-6-Gbps-interface>

To be fair, it's a top quality SSD that's just come out, and thus it's
got higher ratings than others you'll find in the shops at the moment.
But it's rated for 1.9 TB per day, every day, for 5 years. You'd have
to be doing some pretty impressive abuse of your swap to wear out that disk.

You know you're wasting your time, don't you? Rod is one of the most
clue-resistant trolls on Usenet.

Might as well teach a pig to fly.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Swap files don't usually involve a great deal of writing.
Wrong.

When you have memory pressure, little-used pages are written out to the swap file, while you make use of the pages
that are still in memory. It's not as if pages jump back and forth between swap and main memory continuously.

They do when there is a significant shortage of system ram.

Regarding write endurance, have a look at this link:

To be fair, it's a top quality SSD that's just come out, and thus it's
got higher ratings than others you'll find in the shops at the moment.

So isnt relevant to the discussion.

But it's rated for 1.9 TB per day, every day, for 5 years. You'd have to be doing some pretty impressive abuse of
your swap to wear out that disk.

Pity about the currently buyable SSDs being discussed.

Do you mean you can't understand what I wrote?

Nope, I clearly mean that that claim is mindlessly silly.

Or perhaps you don't understand about the memory limitations of different OS's?

Corse I do. Your claim about an SSD being a lot cheaper is just plain mindlessly silly.

The point here is that it's cheaper to add a SSD for swap than to add more ram if you have 6 or 8 GB in your system.

The real point is that if you have that much ram, you arent going to be
using the swap file enough to warrant having it on a dedicated SSD.

It doesn't matter that /you/ can't imagine anyone needing that much memory.

I never ever said anything like that. We happened to be discussing personal desktop systems.

That fact remains that adding an SSD is much cheaper than adding more memory in this case.

The real fact remains that if you have that much ram, you arent going to
be using the swap file enough to warrant having it on a dedicated SSD.

I have 8 GB at home.

Whoopy ****ing do. We arent discussing you, we are discussing Timmy.

I've used swap space on it (not often, but then
the machine is only a couple of weeks old).

What matters is if its used enough to warrant a dedicated SSD for the swap file.

My work machine has 4 GB and it uses swap fairly regularly.

What matters is whether it uses it enough to warrant a dedicated SSD for
it, or whether it makes a lot more sense to have more system ram instead.

But it is not enough of an issue to go through the time waste, risk, and inconvenience (and license cost) of upgrading
to 64-bit version of windows.

Mindlessly silly. It doesnt even necessarily cost a cent license cost wise.

No one is arguing that swap is better than real ram - just that addingmore real ram can be a big cost

Mindlessly silly.

and involve a lot of time and risk,

Even more mindlessly silly.

while swap is easy and risk-free.

Thats just plain wrong on that last.

What should be "properly designed"?

The little used programs.

You are not making sense.

You're lying, as you always do when you have got done like a ****ing dinner.

In Linux, it doesn't matter how much real memory you have - the system may still use swap if the page hit statistics
show it is probably better to use the memory for disk cache than for the program.

Then its a ****ed OS.

Of course, the more real memory you have, the smaller the chances of this happening.

And there is no point in having it on a dedicated SSD.

And you can also control the "swapiness" parameters.

So you are desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament, as always.

Again, you are not making any sense.

Again, you are desperately attempting to bullshit and lie your way out of your predicament, as always.

What is this badly designed app you are talking about? One that writes a lot of data to temporary files?

Thats one obvious ****ed design.

Tell me /exactly/ how you would add more memory to a system with a 32-bit OS (say Win XP Pro or Win 7 Pro for concrete
cases) that already has 4 GB installed.

You use a 64 bit OS, stupid. Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'very costly'

If you can find me a way that is low risk and cheaper than buying a $425 SSD, then I would be very interested to know

You use a 64 bit OS, stupid.

I have such a system that is sometimes ram-limited.

You use a 64 bit OS, stupid.

I think you must have fallen into the old rodbot mode again.

I know you never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet ****ing paper bag.

You've made some valid points about how it is unlikely that you need swap
when you have large quantities of real ram, and you have a valid opinion
that the speed of ram compared to swap makes swap a poor solution.

Thats not an opinion, its a fact.

But you've now fallen back on knee-jerk denial of clear facts.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as you always
do when you have been done like a ****ing dinner, as always.

He's right, as always.

Now is the cue for your usual pathetic excuse for bullshit.

 

[Rod Speed]

JW wrote

You know you're wasting your time, don't you?
Rod is one of the most clue-resistant trolls on Usenet.

And you wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard
arse and have never ever contributed a damned thing in usenet, EVER.

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote
Rod Speed wrote

[...]

As has already been noted, modern SSDs have effectively unlimited
write lifetime,

Thats a lie with a system that is using the page file a lot because
it doesnt have enough system ram.

Swap files don't usually involve a great deal of writing. When you have
memory pressure, little-used pages are written out to the swap file,
while you make use of the pages that are still in memory. It's not as
if pages jump back and forth between swap and main memory continuously.

Regarding write endurance, have a look at this link:

<http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-...lls-enterprise-SSD-with-SATA-6-Gbps-interface>

To be fair, it's a top quality SSD that's just come out, and thus it's
got higher ratings than others you'll find in the shops at the moment.
But it's rated for 1.9 TB per day, every day, for 5 years. You'd have
to be doing some pretty impressive abuse of your swap to wear out that disk.

You know you're wasting your time, don't you? Rod is one of the most
clue-resistant trolls on Usenet.

Yes, I know about Rod. I have had interesting discussions with him on
several occasions - I've even learned a few things from him. But once
something triggers his rodbot mode, there's no going back - it's the end
of that branch of the newsgroup thread.

 

[JW]

JW wrote


And you wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard
arse and have never ever contributed a damned thing in usenet, EVER.

Hell, you couldn't find a clue if it latched onto your face and inserted
its larva down your throat only to chew its way out of your gullet through
your chest.

Now where's that confounded pig...?

 

[JW]

On 13/08/2010 11:01, JW wrote:
[...]

Yes, I know about Rod. I have had interesting discussions with him on
several occasions - I've even learned a few things from him. But once
something triggers his rodbot mode, there's no going back - it's the end
of that branch of the newsgroup thread.

Yup. On a side note, I've been running a write endurance test on a 8GB
compact flash plugged into a compact flash to PATA adapter. I'm using
Passmark BurnInTest on the disk drive only at 100% utilization since July
of 2009. So far, I've written and verified 142 terabytes to the drive with
no errors which would be about 17,750 over-writes. Pretty impressive...
The media is Transcend 100X industrial and is spec'd at two million
over-writes, so I guess I can expect a write failure sometime after 2100
or so. A pity they don't make power supplies and motherboards that can
last that long.

 

[Arno]

On 13/08/2010 11:01, JW wrote:

[...]

Yes, I know about Rod. I have had interesting discussions with him on
several occasions - I've even learned a few things from him. But once
something triggers his rodbot mode, there's no going back - it's the end
of that branch of the newsgroup thread.

Yup. On a side note, I've been running a write endurance test on a 8GB
compact flash plugged into a compact flash to PATA adapter. I'm using
Passmark BurnInTest on the disk drive only at 100% utilization since July
of 2009. So far, I've written and verified 142 terabytes to the drive with
no errors which would be about 17,750 over-writes. Pretty impressive...
The media is Transcend 100X industrial and is spec'd at two million
over-writes, so I guess I can expect a write failure sometime after 2100
or so. A pity they don't make power supplies and motherboards that can
last that long.

Extrapolating from a cheap Kingsrton 2GB I killed successfully
(3700 overwrites, I guess rated at 10000), I would say you can expect
about 700'000 overwrites before it breaks. Could take a while.

Arno

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> Mark F

I think this number is off by a factor of 20 for SLC, by 200 or more
for MLC - see my entries at the end.

Researching further, but it definitely sounds like you're right.

When I first stumbled across that site the numbers sounded wrong, but a
bit of Googling found other sites quoting the same numbers.

I think the interpretation problem is writes-per-cell vs total possible
writes of all cells.

However, even at those numbers, write cycles still don't matter in
practical terms given that nearly all modern SSDs wear-level, have spare
cells, and real world usage isn't writing the drive over and over and
over.

Thanks for the pointer though, I'll definitely research further before
spewing specific numbers.

 

[JW]

On 13/08/2010 11:01, JW wrote:

[...]

Yes, I know about Rod. I have had interesting discussions with him on
several occasions - I've even learned a few things from him. But once
something triggers his rodbot mode, there's no going back - it's the end
of that branch of the newsgroup thread.

Yup. On a side note, I've been running a write endurance test on a 8GB
compact flash plugged into a compact flash to PATA adapter. I'm using
Passmark BurnInTest on the disk drive only at 100% utilization since July
of 2009. So far, I've written and verified 142 terabytes to the drive with
no errors which would be about 17,750 over-writes. Pretty impressive...
The media is Transcend 100X industrial and is spec'd at two million
over-writes, so I guess I can expect a write failure sometime after 2100
or so. A pity they don't make power supplies and motherboards that can
last that long.

Extrapolating from a cheap Kingsrton 2GB I killed successfully
(3700 overwrites, I guess rated at 10000), I would say you can expect
about 700'000 overwrites before it breaks. Could take a while.

Do you know if the CF you trashed had wear leveling? I'm not entirely sure
that all flash controllers have that feature.

 

[Arno]

<[email protected]>:

On 13/08/2010 11:01, JW wrote:

[...]

Yes, I know about Rod. I have had interesting discussions with him on
several occasions - I've even learned a few things from him. But once
something triggers his rodbot mode, there's no going back - it's the end
of that branch of the newsgroup thread.

Yup. On a side note, I've been running a write endurance test on a 8GB
compact flash plugged into a compact flash to PATA adapter. I'm using
Passmark BurnInTest on the disk drive only at 100% utilization since July
of 2009. So far, I've written and verified 142 terabytes to the drive with
no errors which would be about 17,750 over-writes. Pretty impressive...
The media is Transcend 100X industrial and is spec'd at two million
over-writes, so I guess I can expect a write failure sometime after 2100
or so. A pity they don't make power supplies and motherboards that can
last that long.

Extrapolating from a cheap Kingsrton 2GB I killed successfully
(3700 overwrites, I guess rated at 10000), I would say you can expect
about 700'000 overwrites before it breaks. Could take a while.

Do you know if the CF you trashed had wear leveling? I'm not entirely sure
that all flash controllers have that feature.

Not CF, USB stick. It must have had wear-leveling, otherwise it would
have survived longer. That weral-leveling amplifies total writes
to the device is one of its dirty secrets.

Arno