Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:42:07 -0800, josephkk

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean "expensive" rather than "difficult".  The only requirement
for running Windows without a pagefile is a lot of RAM.  No special
settings other than "no pagefile" are necessary.



All versions of Windows spend a great deal of effort to maintain
performance counters in the registry.  Disabling performance
monitoring (if/when you don't need it) should put a stop to quite a
bit of unnecessary disk access.

You can do it all at once with a registry tweak:

- Go to: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Perflib

- Add a new DWORD Value "DisablePerformanceCounters". Set the value
   of DisablePerformanceCounters value to 1 and reboot your computer.


Or use Microsoft's resource kit tool to enable/disable individual
performance counters:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000platform/exctrlst/1.00.0.1/nt5/en-us/exctrlst_setup.exe


George

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What Joseph means is that Windows always swaps even when the ram is
not full. Running Windows without a swapfile makes it a lot faster
even if you have more than enough ram. As usual MS didn't got the
mechanism right.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Something went wrong. Second try:

What Joseph means is that Windows always swaps even when the ram is
not full. Running Windows WITH a swapfile makes it a lot SLOWER
even if you have more than enough ram. As usual MS didn't got the
mechanism right.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ironically, Linux will occasionally use swap space (if enabled) when ram
is not full to make the system run faster.  If Linux feels that your
system will be faster by pushing some old pages into swap to free up
more space for file caches, then it will do so.  Of course, being Linux
it is all controllable - you enable or disable swap dynamically as you
want, and can use the "swapiness" control to change the balance between
freeing space for file cache, or minimising swap usage.

I certainly have no qualms about putting Linux swap files on SSDs.

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:32:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The paging mechanism itself is not at fault, but other things
Microsoft got wrong are working against it.  

As someone else said, the paging statistics often are misinterpreted.
If you look with, e.g., Process Explorer, quite often you'll often
find that there is very little in the pagefile and, at the same time,
loads of unused RAM ... and yet the disk is churning.  At least on
NT/2K/XP ... Windows 7 and 2K3 and later server editions have self
tuning management and do a much better job (though they all still have
the performance counter registry access issues).


The first issue is that Windows uses relocatable libraries as opposed
to position-independent libraries.  Because dlls are not position
independent, when multiples instances are mapped at different
addresses, there must be multiple copies of the code in memory (one
for each base address).  The most commonly used OS dlls have unique
base addresses so the odds of multiple mapping are very low (though
not zero), but language runtime and user written dlls all have the
same default base addresses unless the developer deliberately rebases
them.  Non-OS shared dlls often place unnecessary memory pressure on
Windows.  Code is paged directly from executables, so the pagefile is
backing only instance data, but having to page in code for different
instances increases disk accesses.


The second issue, which interacts with the first, is that Windows does
not have a unified file system cache, but rather it tries to be "fair"
by reserving cache address space for each running process.  By
default, Windows will take up to 80% of RAM for file caching, so if
you have the normal situation where a lot of processes aren't using
their allotted space, a lot of your RAM may be going unused.

There is a free tool called "cacheset" which will change the per
process file cache limits.  Unfortunately cacheset does not change the
default settings in the registry, so you have to run it each time you
log in, but the tool can be command line driven so you can place it a
startup batch file.

Cacheset, Process Explorer, and a bunch of other useful stuff are all
available at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals

There are a number of registry tweaks available for adjusting
process/system RAM distribution and default file caching parameters.
You can find these with the search engine of your choice.


George

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I did indeed mean difficult, deleting the swap file in MSwin is often a
hand edit to the registry.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
That by itself will NOT stop swapping nor get rid of the swap file.

?-)

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:49:27 -0800, josephkk

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ok, I see your point.  But deleting the file technically is different
from telling Windows not to use it.  After turning off paging and
rebooting, the file - even if there - won't be used.  You can confirm
this by monitoring.

2K and above do make it hard to remove the file permanently.  Once
paging is disabled, the file isn't in use and you can delete it with
no problem, but without the registry edit you refer to the system will
recreate the missing file on every reboot.

The simplest thing for most people to do is to reduce the file to
minimum size (2MB).  After reboot, the file will be truncated and
won't ever grow.  Then just forget about it.

George

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's interesting and it may prolong the life of an SSD, but I don't
think there is any way to disable swapping in winXP onwards. IIRC, a
lot of apps stops running if you do that.

Win the old win3.1 you could just do that, and all disk activity
stopped totally. I ran a multizone heating controller on such a
system, for about 10 years. When NT came along, that was no longer
possible (on the retail version).

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

AFAIK, you can run any version of Windows without a pagefile - given
sufficient RAM.  I haven't tried it with Win7 (or 8) yet, but I know
from personal experience that it works in all the previous versions
(including server editions).

I can only speculate as to why you couldn't make it work.
 
Windows doesn't handle over-allocation of address space in the same
way Unix and Linux does.  Unix and Linux don't commit pages until you
touch them, so you can do idiotic things like malloc 1.5GB in a system
with 256MB of total VMM space.  As long as you never touch the extra,
you'll never have a problem.

But unless an application is deliberately written using VirtualAlloc()
et al., Windows commits *all* pages of an allocation immediately.  If
there is no pagefile, the total of all the committed space has to fit
into RAM, so if programs are grabbing more memory than they intend to
use, you can easily have a problem.  

George

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?


Quoted text here. Click to load it
I have done some googling on this topic and it is quite a nasty
suprise to learn how poor a life flash drives are *expected* to have.
For example (can't find the URL right now) the Intel X25 SSDs can have
only about 30TB written to the drive in its whole life. With perfect
wear spreading, this will push every part of the drive to the flash
write limit in something like 5 years (they reckon) of average desktop
computer usage (they reckon).

30TB is not all that much, over years, especially with swapfile usage.

And if the wear spreading is working less than optimally (firmware
bugs) then all bets are off. On the SSD forums there is a ton of stuff
about different SSD firmware versions doing different things. I have
to wonder who actually has a LIFE after worrying about the firmware on
a "hard drive" :) You don't worry about firmware updates on a cooker,
do you?

So I am not suprised my SSDs are knackered in c. 1 year while hard
drives seem to go on for ever, sometimes making a funny noise after ~5
years (on a 24/7 email/web server) at which point they can be changed.

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Flash *could* be made reliable, but the fabbers go for density. Once
they get a really reliable cell designed, they scale it down and
multi-level it until it's flakey again.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

We only buy ranges ("cookers") that don't have electronics. That makes
them cost about 4x as much, but that's worth it.


--

John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:00 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 You're a dork.

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:31:26 -0800, WoolyBully

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And you're AlwaysWrong.


--

John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:06:41 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Only a 12 year old mind needs to call names.

My description of you is not a name, it is a behavioral observation.
That is beside the fact that you do not know the first thing about how
they are making memory arrays these days, much less any reliability
figures, you lying POS.

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:11:36 -0800, WoolyBully

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wrong again.


--

John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:19:15 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There you go again John, blathering with the trolls just to make a post.
What a ridiculous narcissist.

?-)

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:17:20 -0800, josephkk

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Isn't that what you just did?


--

John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:23:46 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it



  This ought to be good.

Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sure this conversation is absolutely riveting to those involved, but
would you mind keeping it in the sci.electronics.design playpen and not
bothering the adults who live in comp.arch.embedded?

Thanks.


Re: Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:23:46 -0800, John Larkin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wow, John Larkin, i did not expect you to call yourself a troll!  Thaat
may actually be accurate though.

?-)

Site Timeline