Are SSDs always rubbish under winXP?

[Corbomite Carrie]

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.

Yes, the very moment an idiot like you learns how to go to the ORIGINAL
AUTHORED POST in such a thread, and ATTACK the ORIGINAL AUTHOR who
cross-posted HIS horseshit topic into YOUR group.

THAT Is the dumbfuck YOU need to ATTACK, NOT the respondents, ya
fucking dopey ****!

 

[Rich Webb]

No one was bothered by the original post - it might not have been
particularly relevant to either of the newsgroups, and it was trollishly
worded, but it was at least a vaguely related technical question. But
what does annoy people, and is off-topic everywhere, are these petty
little name-calling sub-threads.

I posted in the vague hope that the people in this sub-thread would stop
for a minute and think about what they are doing. It clearly didn't
work for you.

"Corbomite Carrie," also known by the below incomplete list of
pseudonyms, is a troll. The evidence is compelling that his only purpose
is to elicit a response; the best response is to ignore him. He's more
than happy (indeed, prefers) to go on name-calling and insulting for
days on end. Best to let him gibber madly to himself.


"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
100WattDarkSucker <[email protected]>
A Monkey <[email protected]>
Alias <[email protected]>
Alien <[email protected]>
AllInTheChi <[email protected]>
Archimedes' Lever <[email protected]>
BarnCat <[email protected]>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig***!.org>
BigBall's Mother...
<[email protected]>
BigBalls <[email protected]>
BlindBaby <[email protected]>
Capt. Cave Man <[email protected]>
CellShocked <[email protected]>
Chairman Meow <[email protected]>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<[email protected]>
Cujo DeSockpuppet <[email protected]>
DarkMatter <[email protected]>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <[email protected]>
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <[email protected]>
FatBytestard <[email protected]>
FatBytestard <[email protected]>
FigureItOut <[email protected]>
George Orr <George [email protected]>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<[email protected]>
GooseMan <[email protected]>
GotchaDumbfuck! <[email protected]>
I AM THAT I AM <[email protected]>
IAmTheSlime <[email protected]>
ItchyGato <[email protected]>
ItsASecretDummy <[email protected]>
Kai <[email protected]>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <[email protected]>
MassiveProng <[email protected]>
MeowSayTongue <[email protected]>
MrTallyman <[email protected]>
My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do <[email protected]>
Notably Stationed <[email protected]>
OutsideObserver <Stand And [email protected]>
Son of a Sea Cook <[email protected]>
SoothSayer <[email protected]>
Spurious Response <[email protected]>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <[email protected]>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <[email protected]>
Sum Ting Wong <[email protected]>
Sum Ting Wong <[email protected]>
The Great Attractor
<[email protected]>
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<[email protected]>
TheGlimmerMan <[email protected]>
TheJoker <[email protected]>
TheKraken <[email protected]>
TheQuickBrownFox <[email protected]>
The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <[email protected]>
TralfamadoranJetPilot <[email protected]>
TunnelRat <[email protected]>
TutAmongUs <[email protected]>
UltimatePatriot <[email protected]>
UpYerNose <[email protected]>
VioletaPachydermata <[email protected]>
WallyWallWhackr <[email protected]>
WarmUnderbelly <[email protected]>
WhySoSerious? <[email protected]>
life imitates life <[email protected]>

 

[Peter]

I get very different results myself. If the writes are reasonable low
proportion, no speed loss. Bulk file copy to SSD very fast, much better
than rotating media.

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

If you can afford enough SSD i think they would make really great backup
media. Hmmm. maybe they already do. Tapes be expensive, and duplicate
HD are fragile.

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.
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT256M4SSD2

 

[Don Y]

Hi Peter,

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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

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

 

[Corbomite Carrie]

No one was bothered by the original post - it might not have been
particularly relevant to either of the newsgroups, and it was trollishly
worded, but it was at least a vaguely related technical question. But
what does annoy people, and is off-topic everywhere, are these petty
little name-calling sub-threads.

**** you, pussy boy. IF you are interested in the thread, regardless
of which point it became uninteresting to you, you view it. IF you are
NOT interested in the thread, regardless of which point it became
uninteresting to you, OR WHY, you can simply STOP viewing it.

But to netkkkop folks simply because you do not like the way THEY post.
Here it comes, boy...


F U C K Y O U !!!

You goddamned unamerican retarded piece of shit!

I posted in the vague hope that the people in this sub-thread would stop
for a minute and think about what they are doing.

You are a goddamned idiot AND an asshole for assuming they would not or
could not, asswipe!

It clearly didn't
work for you.

Thinking? I did more in the last week to make the world a better place
than you have in your entire, pathetic life, boy.

Now, you and your left hand leave Usenet, and go 'ponder' that for a
while.

Asswipes like you would like to CLAIM civility, but your netkkkop
behavior makes you nothing more than a gang boy tribal mentality punk, at
best.

So, yeah, ASSWIPE! **** YOU, AND THE FUCKING HORSE THAT RODE UP IN
YOU.

EOT.

More gang boy baby bullshit.

 

[Corbomite Carrie]

"Corbomite Carrie," also known by the below incomplete list of
pseudonyms, is a troll.

You can't even get that right. This list contains nyms I have never
used, and I am not a troll, idiot.

The evidence is compelling

You don't even know the meaning of the word, idiot.

that his only purpose
is to elicit a response;

Like what you are doing with this stupid post?

the best response is to ignore him.

Too much of a pussy and a retard to debate an issue technically. So
you run.

He's more
than happy (indeed, prefers)

You do not know a goddamned thing about me, boy. So stop acting like
you do, you pathetic worm.

to go on name-calling and insulting for
days on end. Best to let him gibber madly to himself.

You need an NYPD broomstick handle rammed up your ass.
A nice, splintery one.

Alias <[email protected]>

never used by me, WebbTard.

Alien <[email protected]>

never used by me, WebbTard.

BigBall's Mother...
<[email protected]>

never used by me, WebbTard. Likely one of your butt buddies though.

Cujo DeSockpuppet <[email protected]>

never used by me, WebbTard.

You have had this problem for years where you accuse folks of being
someone you had an argument with in another group. You are beyond as
retarded as a dumbfuck can get. Has anyone suggested to you that your
entire bloodline should be erased from the gene pool?

I am moving to VA soon. Put that on your retarded list, boy.

While you are at it, go hunt up what Corbomite is. Maybe give you a
hint of things to come, jackass.

 

[josephkk]

All blocks are subject to wear leveling.
that includes the FAT (if you use a filesystem that works that way)

The wear-leveling is hidden from the operating system.

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

?-8

 

[josephkk]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[josephkk]

Isn't that what you just did?

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

?-)

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

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.

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_.

 

[WoolyBully]

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

?-8

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.

 

[WoolyBully]

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.

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.

 

[WoolyBully]

Wow, John Larkin, i did not expect you to call yourself a troll!

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

Thaat
may actually be accurate though.

Complete with joekk retarded punctuation and spelling.

?-)

And this utter stupidity.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Joseph,

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

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...

 

[George Neuner]

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.

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/downl...xctrlst/1.00.0.1/nt5/en-us/exctrlst_setup.exe


George

 

[Nico Coesel]

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.

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.

 

[Nico Coesel]

What Joseph means ... more than enough ram. As usual MS didn't got the
mechanism right.

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.

 

[josephkk]

Hi Joseph,



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?

Probably difficult and expensive.

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...

Now that is some useful thinking.

Also remember that MSwin continually writes to the registry, which is
mirrored on disk.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

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_.

One piece of the issue is not so much swap usage, and windows always uses
some, but being able to turn it off when you want. It can even be done
dynamically in unix/linux, but can barely be done at all in MSwin. It
takes fairly advanced direct registry edits in MSwin, and a reboot.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

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.

I did indeed mean difficult, deleting the swap file in MSwin is often a
hand edit to the registry.

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/downl...xctrlst/1.00.0.1/nt5/en-us/exctrlst_setup.exe

That by itself will NOT stop swapping nor get rid of the swap file.

?-)