WIndows7-64Bit, SSD no space
- Thread starter Spaceboy6
- Start date
Well first off ill warn you that you will be in trouble with a SDD that size one way or another since windows 7 can pretty easily get to 20GB+ all bye its self. But there are some things you can do. First run a disk clean up regularly Second Turn of hibernate the easiest way to do that is with a CMD promt powercfg -h off. Keep in mind this totally disables hibernate and lastly if you really need space you can turn off the restore point feature in windows 7 this can some times free up quite a large amount of space although it does leave you at risk.
To turn of system restore.
1)Start menu
2)select Control Panel
3)select System and Security
4)select System
5)on left hand side click System protection
6)Select your SDD drive then press configure or uncheck the box if you had to click config then select turn off system protection. Note this will delete all your past system back ups there bye freeing up that space. No new restore points will be created.
1)Start menu
2)select Control Panel
3)select System and Security
4)select System
5)on left hand side click System protection
6)Select your SDD drive then press configure or uncheck the box if you had to click config then select turn off system protection. Note this will delete all your past system back ups there bye freeing up that space. No new restore points will be created.
13thmonkey
Titan
- Jan 10, 2006
- 24,798
- 350
- 75,790
I think if you get a 100Gb and raid it with a 16 you'll get a 32Gb raid drive, without trim etc. i'd just use a 100 on its own.
SpaceBoy is basically right, and even a 32gb drive is gonna fill up with user/os data pretty fast your gonna be better off re-installing the OS on the 100gb drive in the future. Also because the OS was not set up with raid to start with you would most likely end up with a extended volume of some sort and I don't really know if a OS can work in a situation like that i would think its like putting it over two different directory's. I'm hoping some one with more knowledge on that kinda subject can help out. If im right you will have to re-install the OS when you get the 100gb both ways.
- Jul 10, 2011
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
Yeah, at first I did not know much about raid. So it would be really bad for a 100GB and 16GB in raid
On Raid-0 The information is split equaly between them so 2X16GB = Estimate 30GB fully formatted + Windows7 = 10GB left, which is really enough for what i would like because i also have a 250GB Seagate, SATA-II HDD
"On Raid-0 The information is split equaly between them so 2X16GB = Estimate 30GB fully formatted + Windows7 = 10GB left, which is really enough for what i would like because i also have a 250GB Seagate, SATA-II HDD"
And why you may possibly want to do this?
If you install only your windows there, then your beloved games will not benefit from fast loading and your weird stipe will just no matter at all once Windows is loaded /started/.
If you are planning to place there also your windows swap file - as good it may sound, as bad idea is it actually for many reasons - frequent writing in the windows swap will kill your SSD in few years at max, and this only if you use your PC just an hour a day, if you use it intensively it may kill your SSD even in months, if instead you configure your windows to work swapless - meaning no swap file, you'll first of all make it to run considerably faster, it will not be necessary to care for securing these extra few GB on the system disk for the swap file, and if you use your PC for nothing much as for gaming you can do this safely on just 4GB, if you realy need swap file for something else, besides windows itself, like software, who use its own swap file and there's no option to change this /and the games are not among these softwares, for SC2 I very well know it's running flawless on a swapless system/, then the right thing is to have at least 8GB of RAM, make a virtual drive there for the swap file and this this virtual drive will EAT any possible, no ANY IMAGINABLE SSD stripe, even if you make a strip of 6 SSD, no, even of a 10000 SSDs /as you should multiplex them/ it will make cirkles around these SSDs with its bottom on the front, as it is just literaly thousands of times faster.
In short - put this SSD in to the trash can, configure your windows for not using a swap file, play your games at light speed without ever carying at all about the "not enough space to install windows"
And why you may possibly want to do this?
If you install only your windows there, then your beloved games will not benefit from fast loading and your weird stipe will just no matter at all once Windows is loaded /started/.
If you are planning to place there also your windows swap file - as good it may sound, as bad idea is it actually for many reasons - frequent writing in the windows swap will kill your SSD in few years at max, and this only if you use your PC just an hour a day, if you use it intensively it may kill your SSD even in months, if instead you configure your windows to work swapless - meaning no swap file, you'll first of all make it to run considerably faster, it will not be necessary to care for securing these extra few GB on the system disk for the swap file, and if you use your PC for nothing much as for gaming you can do this safely on just 4GB, if you realy need swap file for something else, besides windows itself, like software, who use its own swap file and there's no option to change this /and the games are not among these softwares, for SC2 I very well know it's running flawless on a swapless system/, then the right thing is to have at least 8GB of RAM, make a virtual drive there for the swap file and this this virtual drive will EAT any possible, no ANY IMAGINABLE SSD stripe, even if you make a strip of 6 SSD, no, even of a 10000 SSDs /as you should multiplex them/ it will make cirkles around these SSDs with its bottom on the front, as it is just literaly thousands of times faster.
In short - put this SSD in to the trash can, configure your windows for not using a swap file, play your games at light speed without ever carying at all about the "not enough space to install windows"
Pyree
Splendid
- Apr 1, 2011
- 8,268
- 2
- 31,460
That is why putting the pagefile in the 16GB ssd is a good idea, on a drive you don't mind wearing out and without compromising stability from running out of ram.
Window 7 is very good at managing RAM and pagefile, most frequently access files will always be cache at RAM not your pagefile given you have enough of it. Therefore pagefile may not be necessary given you have enough RAM. Hence, I guess the performance gain from disabling the pagefile is not going to be much since most frequent access files will be in RAM anyway. I will not turn pagefile off since you have a disposable ssd and why not get yourself a safety measure on something you already paid for and will go to waste if unused. As to the virtual RAM disk for pagefile, it would not help with low RAM situation. You are still limited to the physical amount or RAM regardless. Also, you are wasting your resource to manage a virtual RAM disk which serves little purpose. Window 7 already fill the most used files in RAM anyway. You can check it in window task manager>performance>resource manager> memory and look at the standby RAM usage.
"... on a drive you don't mind wearing out ..." and bla bla bla
Difficult to argue with that, but the things are essentially going to the point, where you should chose, between two cases:
- first case - windows is running pretty stabile without putting anithing in a swap file, in which case the swap file is just obsolette.
And please, don't even bother to mention, that for somebody, willing to buy an almost completely useless, but not cheap, SDD some 30$ for 4GB of RAM may be a problem. ...But after all somebody should pay for the developing of the SSD technology, isn't so? And the manufacturers are hoping it to be the users...
- second case - windows is unstabile without a swap file, and to maintain it's own stability it will constantly write something in that swap - crippling the performance and killing the SDD
So, which case do you choose?
I'll try to make it even more easier for you:
- the real situation - it's actually a kind of a blend between the two cases - windows is pretty stabile on stabile hardware without a swap, meaning - is able to run on a system with some 8GB RAM for days, even for weeks /to the point when "aging" will eventually kill it/ but even then it will try allways to write something in that swap, if you allow it - so - something as a nice blend of worst of both.
and just a side note: you obviously had never encountered an OS with a good memory management.
Difficult to argue with that, but the things are essentially going to the point, where you should chose, between two cases:
- first case - windows is running pretty stabile without putting anithing in a swap file, in which case the swap file is just obsolette.
And please, don't even bother to mention, that for somebody, willing to buy an almost completely useless, but not cheap, SDD some 30$ for 4GB of RAM may be a problem. ...But after all somebody should pay for the developing of the SSD technology, isn't so? And the manufacturers are hoping it to be the users...
- second case - windows is unstabile without a swap file, and to maintain it's own stability it will constantly write something in that swap - crippling the performance and killing the SDD
So, which case do you choose?
I'll try to make it even more easier for you:
- the real situation - it's actually a kind of a blend between the two cases - windows is pretty stabile on stabile hardware without a swap, meaning - is able to run on a system with some 8GB RAM for days, even for weeks /to the point when "aging" will eventually kill it/ but even then it will try allways to write something in that swap, if you allow it - so - something as a nice blend of worst of both.
and just a side note: you obviously had never encountered an OS with a good memory management.
Pyree
Splendid
- Apr 1, 2011
- 8,268
- 2
- 31,460
Exactly, pagefile is not likely to be use so performance is not likely to degrade but the ssd is there and paid for so why not give yourself a safety net.
That just gives more reason to have a pagefile. At first glance virtual RAM disk will make sense but since instability is cause by low RAM, taking a chunk out for RAM disk for pagefile serves no purpose as you are only working with the same mount of RAM and you eat up resource for managing it. Therefore, you want pagefile on fastest storage which is an ssd and on an ssd you do not mind wearing out a.k.a the 16GB ssd.
Heh, it's realy difficult to argue with someone of your kind...
And what exactly you don't understand about "obsolette"?
And what about understanding the "case of" - you can't have both of them you know?
And as I exactly mentioned in my first post - you need a virtual ram disk, only if you need to put there some swap files of another software - like Photoshop for example, not for windows itself. If you don't use Photoshop, you can completely skip on that.
Do you understand English?
And what exactly you don't understand about "obsolette"?
And what about understanding the "case of" - you can't have both of them you know?
And as I exactly mentioned in my first post - you need a virtual ram disk, only if you need to put there some swap files of another software - like Photoshop for example, not for windows itself. If you don't use Photoshop, you can completely skip on that.
Do you understand English?
Pyree
Splendid
- Apr 1, 2011
- 8,268
- 2
- 31,460
Lets not argue anymore because you start bring up points irrelevant to the topic by questioning others English skill. I am not trying to start a war here. You can set it up the way way you want and I will set it up the way I want. SpaceBoy6 will decide which advice to take.
That figures...obsolete NOT "obsolette, stabil NOT "stabile, anything NOT "anithing", you just embarassed yourself actually, buddy 
...don't get snappy, others don't... 
they just gave their opinions & share their own experienced. Don't be such a puss...be a more respectful to other people opinions. I have to agree with spaceboy6 & pyree though...I was thinking having 32gb Patriot Torx 2 but now guess i have to re-think again... 
...don't get snappy, others don't... they just gave their opinions & share their own experienced. Don't be such a puss...be a more respectful to other people opinions. I have to agree with spaceboy6 & pyree though...I was thinking having 32gb Patriot Torx 2 but now guess i have to re-think again... TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC- Started by Tommy Sawyer
- Replies: 4
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram