Freeing Up Capacity On An SSD With NTFS Compression
-
Page 1:More SSD Capacity Through NTFS Compression
-
Page 2:NTFS Is 19 Years Old
-
Page 3:Test Setup And Benchmarks
-
Page 4:NTFS Compression In Practice
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: Sequential Read And Write (CrystalDiskMark)
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Reads/Writes (CrystalDiskMark)
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: 512 KB Random Reads/Writes (CrystalDiskMark)
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: Launching Applications, Windows Startup And Shutdown
-
Page 9:Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
-
Page 10:Benchmark Results: SYSmark 2012
-
Page 11:Should You Compress Data On Your SSD?
Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
PCMark 7 confirms that enabling NTFS compression leads to significantly higher data throughput when loading applications and in gaming scenarios, but in almost all other disciplines the lead is either small, on par with a uncompressed system drive, or even somewhat worse. The overall result, therefore, doesn't conclusively settle the matter.
Summary
- More SSD Capacity Through NTFS Compression
- NTFS Is 19 Years Old
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- NTFS Compression In Practice
- Benchmark Results: Sequential Read And Write (CrystalDiskMark)
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Reads/Writes (CrystalDiskMark)
- Benchmark Results: 512 KB Random Reads/Writes (CrystalDiskMark)
- Benchmark Results: Launching Applications, Windows Startup And Shutdown
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: SYSmark 2012
- Should You Compress Data On Your SSD?
However, in the conclusion, it is stated that compression ends up writing more vs. uncompressed NTFS, thus consuming more PE cycles. Shouldn't the opposite be true? When writing to the file system, if a file is compressible it should take up less space and therefore conserve more PEs (though actually compressing the files for the first time should result in more writes).
Why does on-the-fly compression result in more writes even though the amount to be written is smaller?
However, in the conclusion, it is stated that compression ends up writing more vs. uncompressed NTFS, thus consuming more PE cycles. Shouldn't the opposite be true? When writing to the file system, if a file is compressible it should take up less space and therefore conserve more PEs (though actually compressing the files for the first time should result in more writes).
Why does on-the-fly compression result in more writes even though the amount to be written is smaller?
Keep in mind, whatever storage option you use, you need room to install updates on top of installing the game, most especially for MMOGs. This means room to download the update AND install it.
Correctomundo. Compression involves replace repeated occurrences of data with references to a single copy of that data existing earlier in the input (uncompressed) data stream. That's why it's not right to think of a compressed archive as a container that stores any given file into a discrete space. If anything, the files kind of overlap in a big mixing pot.
When you compress on the fly, you have to completely decompress all the files in an archive and recompress it when you're done. Hence it's all random transfers for the most part.
It's not a sequential transfer. Plus it's already precompressed data. Nothing SandForce can do about it. SandForce, Samsung, it's not going to make a difference.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
There is less write cycle since the file is smaller! The increase is in the time needed to compress the file before writing to the SSD. Therefore Using compression lengthens the life of the SSD since u are writing less since the files are smaller!
The author must have been sleepy...
The above comment shows a lack of reading and/or comprehension skills!?!?!?!? Wot the...??? League of Legends
The question was already asked and answered in previous comments! I can't think of what to put in this sentence. Therefore Using compression can potentially shorten the life of the SSD since u are potentially writing more [see above comments]!
The poster must have been stupid...
Thats just my opinion, just to check that Microsoft is right about that performance issue with NTFS.
(Excuse my english).
I did use file compression on it, but only on the AppData and ProgramData folders, because those guys suck and can just randomly start becoming monstrously huge. Every now and then I go in there and find some programs like to put a couple gigs in there for no good reason (Adobe Premiere stored several movie files like wtf, and Code Master games (F1 2010, Dirt 3) like to store 1gb replays in there).
However, Black Friday gave me a great opportunity, so I bought a 120gb Corsair Fore Series GT for $110 off (~$150)! This drive is strickly for my games... damn it's nice. Skyrim boots up and loads locations in seconds.
"Like other SandForce controllers, the SF-2281 features a technology called DuraWrite, which uses data compression to lower write amplification and extend the life of the drive by reducing the number of program-erase cycles. This data compression also plays a big part in the controller's performance. The more the data can be compressed, the faster an SSD like the HyperX is able to read and write."
from:
http://cdrlabs.com/Reviews/kingston-hyperx-120gb-solid-state-drive/All-Pages.html
You might try the following:
1) Take your SSD with the system partition and connect it to another computer that already has a bootable drive.
2) Boot into Windows on that other computer, go to the attached SSD, and re-compress the system folder as well as any contents in Program Files and Program Files (x86) that were not compressed already.
3) Put the SSD back into your test machine, re-evaluate the compression ratios, and re-test boot times, shutdown times, and various other system tests.