SRT with Samsung Spintpoint F3

[Shahmatt]

Hello,

I have a Z68 board with a Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB HDD.

I want to make use of SRT caching.

The OCZ Vertex Plus, OCZ Agility 3 and Crucial M4 are all available to me in ~60GB versions. The Vertex Plus is cheapest.

I've been reading that the Spinpoint F3 is however a very fast HDD.

My question is, are either of these SSDs (in SRT mode) going to produce a real world improvement on my computer usage?

 

[WyomingKnott]

Yes. How much remains to be seen. Tom's did an article benchmarking this stuff a while ago; if I find the article I will post a link, and you can consider whether or not to bother.

Here it is: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z68-express-lucidlogix-virtu-ssd-caching,2888.html

 

[Shahmatt]

Thanks very much.

I've tried working out some numbers myself but the benchmarks use different scales across the net (IOPs, MB/S) etc. In addition it seems as though real world performance and synthetic benchmarks can be different. These scales are beyond me right now and I guess I'll have to make a long study of the subject before I can understand it properly.

I really do appreciate any kind of guidance.

 

[Shahmatt]

Yes. How much remains to be seen. Tom's did an article benchmarking this stuff a while ago; if I find the article I will post a link, and you can consider whether or not to bother.

Here it is: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z68-express-lucidlogix-virtu-ssd-caching,2888.html

The Samsung F3 is actually about the same speed as a Seagate XT or maybe slightly faster.

I am very confused but I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guess on SSD performance with SRT. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

1. SSDs are good at Random Reads and Writes but not very great with Sequential Reads and Writes compared with HDDs. In fact, it is possible that a modern day HDD can beat older SSDs in Sequential Reads and Writes.

2. Both the Random and Sequential Writes to SSDs are slower than the Random and Sequential Reads.

3. A SSD used in SRT mode will mean that caching of data (Writing) to the SSD is done automatically and invisibly. Therefore the Writing speed to the SSD is not going to affect general system performance.

4. SRT deliberately avoids caching of large files that may require Sequential access on the basis that these files are most likely one-time use files (movies, music etc.). On this basis Sequential Read speeds on SSDs is less likely to affect general system performance.

5. SSD in SRT mode will therefore primarily be used as Random Read units, which SSDs generally do very well at. Therefore even older SSDs will do very well in improving overall system performance when paired with modern HDDs.

Any comments on my comments?

 

[k1114]

At 60gb, a ssd is better off being used as a boot drive without srt. It is large enough for windows (fresh install is 21gb) and a few important programs/games that need/want it. And you will have direct control of what uses the ssd. Srt is made more for 20-30gb range for low budget clients.

You can see the read/write speeds in the specs of the ssd, the spinpoint f3 averages 115MB/s read/write if you look at tom's charts. But the main advantage of a ssd is access time which results in the greatly improved overall responsiveness of a system. Comparing modern ssds (agility 3 and m4 as you stated) will beat a hdd in every aspect. This is a very informative article about if should you upgrade, and it was published not long ago so pertains to now. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-hdd-performance,3023.html

 

[Shahmatt]

At 60gb, a ssd is better off being used as a boot drive without srt. It is large enough for windows (fresh install is 21gb) and a few important programs/games that need/want it. And you will have direct control of what uses the ssd. Srt is made more for 20-30gb range for low budget clients.

You can see the read/write speeds in the specs of the ssd, the spinpoint f3 averages 115MB/s read/write if you look at tom's charts. But the main advantage of a ssd is response time which results in the greatly improved overall responsiveness of a system. Comparing modern ssds (agility 3 and m4 as you stated) will beat a hdd in every aspect. This is a very informative article about if should you upgrade, and it was published not long ago so pertains to now. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-hdd-performance,3023.html

Thanks for the link but this I know. A SSD on its own with everything necessary installed is always way faster than a HDD.

But I want to use a SSD in SRT mode in order to avoid the hassle of reinstalling Windows and then managing the remaining space by uninstalling old games/apps and putting in new.

It seems to me that SRT takes advantage of the strengths of SSDs and HDDs and puts them together in order to provide a better overall experience. This is what I would like to verify.

 

[k1114]

Ok I understand and everything you said is correct. I think you may be reading too much into the details with sequential/random read/writes. But as I said the biggest benefit is access times which results in the improved system experience. As long as you don't get an old ssd, the ssd will beat a hdd in all sequentials and randoms, as well as all other aspects. The most often used files will be put on the ssd, thus being used off the ssd and having all the benefits of running off a ssd though it may take a couple iterations for srt to "learn" and put it in the cache.

I would recommend the m4 as it is more reliable.

 

[Shahmatt]

Ok I understand and everything you said is correct. I think you may be reading too much into the details with sequential/random read/writes. But as I said the biggest benefit is access times which results in the improved system experience. As long as you don't get an old ssd, the ssd will beat a hdd in all sequentials and randoms, as well as all other aspects. The most often used files will be put on the ssd, thus being used off the ssd and having all the benefits of running off a ssd though it may take a couple iterations for srt to "learn" and put it in the cache.

I would recommend the m4 as it is more reliable.

Thanks for clearing up my mind on this. I will see if I can find a good deal on the M4.

In the mean time I've just now received a second hand offer for a Samsung MMCRE64G5MXP 64GB SATA II (a.k.a Corsair P64, OCZ Summit 60GB).

As I understand the Corsair P64/OCZ Summit was a fairly decent SSD about 3 years ago. On doing a little research I've discovered that this SSD is faster than the original OCZ Vertex 120GB.

See P64 bench: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/4Way-SSD-RoundUp-Redux-OCZ-Corsair-PhotoFast/?page=8
See Summit bench: http://techgage.com/article/ocz_vertex_2_100gb/8

Anyway, I think I can get a good price for it since the drive is outdated and has no warranty - less than a Vertex Plus I hope. Would you classify this SSD as too "old" to show any real world improvement to my system?

 

[k1114]

If you could get a good deal on it, although I worry about how long any memory device works after the 5 year mark. Again for the 3rd time, the biggest benefit is access times. The p64 is .4-.5ms while most other ssds are .2ms but it's still a huge improvement over even the fast spinpoint f3 at 8-13ms.

 

[Shahmatt]

If you could get a good deal on it, although I worry about how long any memory device works after the 5 year mark. Again for the 3rd time, the biggest benefit is access times. The p64 is .4-.5ms while most other ssds are .2ms but it's still a huge improvement over even the fast spinpoint f3 at 8-13ms.

Many thanks for your help. The seller has sent me a Crystaldisk info health status indicating 96% health. 3 years old. I guess this is alright since Samsung rates the disk at 1 million hours.

I am a frequent upgrader anyway so this might be a nice way to start in the SSD world until the prices hopefully begin to fall.

 

[RetiredChief]

On SRT caching (Deals with Intel 311 vs 60 Gig SSD) - good read.
If you can afford, or have a 60 gig SSD use it as a OS + Profram drive NOT SRT.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tomshardwareus.inc&cat=32&post=275023&page=1&p=1&sondage=0&owntopic=1&trash=0&trash_post=0&print=0&numreponse=0&quote_only=0&new=0&nojs=0

As to space requiremens, Also in the Link:
The Agillity III are cheap compared to many of the Sata III SSDs for a reason.
I have 2 120gig agillity III - Benchmarks are overblown. My Curcial M4s run circles around the agillity III, while laughing at me for buying them!!!

While I agree 60 gig for a Boot + program drive is the minium, it is workable. I'm only using around 35 gigs for my systems (2 desktops and two laptops all with SSDs).

3 Things that save space requirements are:
.. (1) disable hibernation - save 4 -> 6 gigs
.. (2) Set page file (virtual memory) min and max to the same value, ie 4 gigs ram set it to 1024 mb. > 4 gigs ram set to 512mb. And you can redirect it to the HDD to save alittle more (Very slight performance hit - but compared to HDD even with SRT you would think its a race car). This save upto 6 gigs
.. (3) manage restore points. limit the number of restore point or disable. This one if not done can eat up space in the long haul.

Bottom Line - $100 is $100, But don't flush it down the lew and be dissapointed. Save a little longer and get a decent SSD be it a 60/64 gig SSD, or a 90/110/128 gig SSD.

The 64 gig m4 is only $109: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820148441
Check the satifaction ratio between the two - no contest.

 

[Shahmatt]

On SRT caching (Deals with Intel 311 vs 60 Gig SSD) - good read.
If you can afford, or have a 60 gig SSD use it as a OS + Profram drive NOT SRT.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tomshardwareus.inc&cat=32&post=275023&page=1&p=1&sondage=0&owntopic=1&trash=0&trash_post=0&print=0&numreponse=0&quote_only=0&new=0&nojs=0

As to space requiremens, Also in the Link:
The Agillity III are cheap compared to many of the Sata III SSDs for a reason.
I have 2 120gig agillity III - Benchmarks are overblown. My Curcial M4s run circles around the agillity III, while laughing at me for buying them!!!

While I agree 60 gig for a Boot + program drive is the minium, it is workable. I'm only using around 35 gigs for my systems (2 desktops and two laptops all with SSDs).

3 Things that save space requirements are:
.. (1) disable hibernation - save 4 -> 6 gigs
.. (2) Set page file (virtual memory) min and max to the same value, ie 4 gigs ram set it to 1024 mb. > 4 gigs ram set to 512mb. And you can redirect it to the HDD to save alittle more (Very slight performance hit - but compared to HDD even with SRT you would think its a race car). This save upto 6 gigs
.. (3) manage restore points. limit the number of restore point or disable. This one if not done can eat up space in the long haul.

Bottom Line - $100 is $100, But don't flush it down the lew and be dissapointed. Save a little longer and get a decent SSD be it a 60/64 gig SSD, or a 90/110/128 gig SSD.

The 64 gig m4 is only $109: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820148441
Check the satifaction ratio between the two - no contest.

Thanks for your suggestions.

However I tend to agree with the WyomingKnott's link (second post: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z68-express-lucidlogix-virtu-ssd-caching,2888.html).

In here 60GB is discussed as a little low for a OS drive. I tend to agree. I understand that it is possible to stretch it a little by tweaking in the ways that you have mentioned. However I really don't want to take too much trouble in managing a small space.

Now I can maybe purchase a larger SSD, but they are kinda expensive right now.

SRT caching is a good compromise. It won't offer me full SSD speeds (see WyomingKnott's link again), but at least it will improve overall HDD performance.

A SSD like the Vertex Plus 60GB or the Agility III in SRT is probably going to improve performance measurably (though not to pure SSD levels) so I will make a decision on one pretty soon (the Samsung deal fell through - chap wanted an unreasonable amount for a very old drive).

 

[RetiredChief]

Shahmatt, The three things I mentioned - most do even if the SSD is a 120/128 gig version.

My concern is not so much the initial performance, but what is not covered much.
Bear in mind the Intel 311 was designed for SRT and uses SLC memory. This is not the case with "run of the mill" SSDs. Most reviews post the results of a "short term" test and for that reason they generally gloss over longer term effects:
(A) with SRT you lose trim, what are the performance hits as data in the SSD is deleted and new data is wriiten. You might think this is a non issue as most SSDs employ Garbage collection (CG), But in most cases CG is a hit/miss.
(B) SSDs do not like to running at full capacity. CG and Trim both Less effective. SSDs do have a limited "Hidden (not available to the user) to somewhat offset this.
(C) as mentioned the Intel 311 uses SLC. One off the reasons is it it Much faster than MLC, but costly per Gb. One off the other advantages is that the number of writes to a cell are much Higher thab for MLC before the Cell dies. Dought this is a factor, but need to be aware of.

By all means go ahead and try SRT for 3 monthes as you can always regroup and use it as a OS drive.

 

[Shahmatt]

Best answer selected by Shahmatt.

 

[Maziar]

This topic has been closed by Maziar