Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

Isn't that what you just did?

--

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

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Very bad. No mission critical use there.

"That's not a knife..."

Question:

On a Micro SDHC (I know, not an SSD, per se) would these 'smarts' not have to be built into the chip device itself, as one could not expect every camera or OS to all dance the same?

So, the 'watchdog''chip' would be right there with the array, in hardware, even if some newer ones are "adjustable"?

"*I* am Capt. Kirk!"

"NO!... *I* AM CAPT. KIRK!"

(fight it out)

This ought to be good.

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.

josephkk wrote

It's a matter of the ratios, of course...

It's a poor way to do backups because they are so expensive. $500 or so for 256GB, compared with say $40 for a DLT tape holding the same GB.

Micron are replacing this 256GB M4 SSD, but I wonder if there is any way I can actually use it for anything...

An Intel 256GB SSD lasted ~ 6 months in that PC.

Win7 is not an option, but in any case if the swapfile is what is killing these SSDs then what should one do?

It would be perverse to have extra RAM and have a RAM disk like one used to under DOS Also XP cannot see more than ~3.5GB which severely limits the swapfile options. It would also be perverse to have a HD just for the swapfile :)

I think it is this one - 6gbit/sec SATA.

Not just ratios but *where* the accesses actually go on the "physical" medium -- and what that part of the medium might be doing at the time.

OTOH, you can buy a TB drive (though "consumer" quality) for that same sort of money. :-/

6 months is *awfully* low. Did you end up with *hard* faults? Poor performance? etc. Have you used their "SSD Toolkit" (the actual name escapes me at the moment) to "optimize" the drive (a "consumer-ish" term for TRIM support)

Set the swap size to 0 and add RAM. That's how I deal with swap on diskless UN*X boxen.

table?=20

but=20

Wanna bet that the wear leveling algorithms are _not_ designed for fat file systems only?

?-8

better

backup

duplicate

Considering the number of writes that tape is capable of and the write speed of tape are you very sure? There is also a alternative capital = cost for DLT tapes that SSD disk does not have.

In no small part due to poor design of WinXP which writes crap each and every second, mostly to the registry.

In well designed OSs swap is a separate usage, that can be eliminated = with enough RAM available. Not possible in Win** without special, difficult, configuration.

Once

how

post.

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

?-)

I keep seeing that particular criticism being levelled at Windows but honestly whenever I've looked into it it seems no better or worse than any other system. It seems to me that a lot of the time it's simply people not understanding the way the figures are accounted for. People see swap usage and accuse it of swapping out prematurely. Often it is quite the opposite - it is simply stuff that has never been swapped _in_.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

You are such an idiot.

HE SAID that the OS knows NOTHING about it. THAT MEANS, idiot, that it doesn't matter what the file system is.

They were "not designed for" ANY particular file system.

Yer an idiot. Tape is a vulnerability. Writing to it several times is taking a chance. Period.

REAL IT folks know this. Joekk is an idiot, and knows NOTHING about it.

IF one is going to do backups using SSDs, then one needs just as many of those as one would need tapes.

REDUCTION of write operation count is the goal, and a single drive for backup is simply asking for a failure

Tape sucks, but a tape with a single write to it is pretty safe. An SSD can get bits shifted simply when some star somewhere decides to fart as it dies.

Wow, joekk, we DID expect you to make yet another STUPID post

Complete with joekk retarded punctuation and spelling.

And this utter stupidity.

Correct. But wanna bet vendors start offering "custom firmware" for particular filesystems? So the drive can *know* how the medium is being used and determine instantaneous usage?

Alternatively, *silently* examine the magic numbers in the "partition table" and infer the actual filesystem type from those. Then, use that information to qualify the algorithms that it employs in managing itself...

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:

George

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...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

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...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------