Should I switch to using my SSD as cache?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Jonathanese

Jonathanese

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2010
273
0
18,790
First of all, here are my specs:

2x WD Caviar Blue 160GB in RAID-0
OCZ Agility 3 60GB SSD
16GB DDR3-1600
Core i5 3570K
ASUS P8Z77-V LK

Currently, here is how I'm running things:

-SSD: OS and smaller programs.
-RAID: Games, Media, and Google Drive.
-RAM: 16GB hybrid RAM drive (8GB RAM, 8GB HDD, dynamically allocated.)
-RAM: 3GB PrimoCache for SSD and HDD cache.


However, I was starting to wonder if things would work more efficiently if I reinstall windows, this time onto the RAID drive, and then use the SSD as cache. Reasons:

-The Agility 3 reports a slow write speed in CrystalDiskMark. About 60MB/s compared to over 100MB/s on my HDD's. So writing to the HDD would likely be faster. With SSD caching, it moves files to the SSD at its own pace, and only READS.

-In RAID, the sequential speeds are really good, but a 15ms seek time is horrible for small files, which is where the SSD could take over, and provide continuity.

-As it is, the SSD is half full, and a lot of it isn't regularly accessed. If SSD caching means commonly-used small files are read from the SSD, it seems like more efficient use of the 60GB I have to work with.


So what do you think, would there be much benefit to using the SSD as cache instead of OS?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jonathanese

Jonathanese

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2010
273
0
18,790
Okay, so I went ahead and did it. Did a secure wipe of my HDDs and SSD and reinstalled everything.

It took a little bit for it to speed up. Nervous time at that. But boy it was worth it.

Boot time is basically the same, now, but it's accelerating much more than just the OS and boot like it did before.

Now, all of my programs and games can be accelerated. Load times are crazy fast, and it's nice knowing the SSD isn't being wasted on all the crazy junk that windows throws into its folder, like backups for installers, patches, etc.

I for one just hope TRIM is available on cache drives.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
popatim

popatim

Titan
Moderator
Dec 2, 2009
38,904
980
135,890
be wary of the hybrid drive. few have large ssd caches. Most are 4 or 8gb. Thought they work well for quite a bit, dont expext it to cache to the lvl you are seeing. it might be better to get one with an msata slot for the cache drive or the newer m.2 spec.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Slayer99

Honorable
Aug 14, 2013
6
0
10,510
I've been thinking of upgrading my storage and doing a similar thing. Got my OS installed on an old OCZ vertex 2 (60GB) with everything else on a 1TB HDD. The HDD is getting pretty old and while the SSD works nicely for the boot drive, I think I'd like to upgrade to see an increase of speed to the overall system. Looking at maybe a couple of Caviar Black in RAID 0 or maybe a velociraptor both using the vertex 2 for caching (or maybe a new 60GB SSD as the vertex 2 is only SATA II). So forgetting benchmarks and all that for a second, would you say you're noticing a significant increase in speed in just everyday style use?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jonathanese

Jonathanese

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2010
273
0
18,790
popatim: I see. It seems like there was a deal on a drive that had 16gb or 32gb of cache. I imagine thats what they normally use in laptops.

Slayer99: Yeah, there's normally a HUGE difference between cached benchmarks and real-world performance. But what I'm talking about IS real-world performance. I even turned it off and re-tested. The real-world difference is HUGE. It focuses on your most-used chunks of data, so your most-used programs will see most benefit. And the nice thing is that it uses the whole SSD, and ONLY fills it with stuff that would be of most benefit. So you're not wasting your SSD with free space and windows garbage.

If you are going to buy a new SSD, get a decent SATA-III drive in a fairly small size, like 60GB. Use this for OS, boot programs, etc. Then take your OLD SATAII drive and use THAT as cache.

Intel Smart Response chooses chunks based on intensity of operations, not on actual speed. If I recall, it doesn't cache more than 32MB of continuous data at a time. With tons of small reads and writes, you won't be hitting the SATA-II bandwidth limit as often, so SATA-II makes sense for cache. And since it's an older drive, using it as cache won't put your data at risk (So ong as you use "Enhance" and not "Maximize").

I would almost recomend some sort of small cache, now, for RAID-0 users. For long continuous tasks, it takes advantage of the fast continuous bandwidth of RAID drives. For short bursts, RAID is downright horrible, performing like a single drive, but this is where the SSD kicks in and saves the day.


Also, I'm now using PrimoCache as a 2048MB cache in RAM, and deferred write. So I have 3 layers of storage cache: RAM, SSD, HDD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom