Brian

How to Optimize SSDs for Windows 7

Recommended Posts

You know, I think it can't really be done overall, yes, you can move some temporary file locations - but what's the point?

If you move all your temp files to a HDD you might as well stick with a HDD for your main drive.

The reason to move to a SSD is high write and read speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I think it can't really be done overall, yes, you can move some temporary file locations - but what's the point?

If you move all your temp files to a HDD you might as well stick with a HDD for your main drive.

The reason to move to a SSD is high write and read speed.

I'll add another reason, Quiet!

Someone mentioned durability, I've not had any problem with any of my 3 SSDs for what must be over a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add another reason, Quiet!

Someone mentioned durability, I've not had any problem with any of my 3 SSDs for what must be over a year.

You possibly but the good Intel stuff ;) - but you have a point regarding noise. Moving temp files to a HDD will create a lot of that.

On that note :)

My Intel has gone through 5,51TB of host writes and is still fine :) doing as well as it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You possibly but the good Intel stuff ;) - but you have a point regarding noise. Moving temp files to a HDD will create a lot of that.

On that note :)

My Intel has gone through 5,51TB of host writes and is still fine :) doing as well as it should.

All my SSDs are Intel second generation. There is no noise with SSDs, they are silent.

Are there issues with other brands of SSDs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with noise, but with reliability.

FYI, and I'm sure you know, but the Intel Toolbox has been much improved recently, if you haven't checked it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that. If you're going to move all frequently accessed stuff to HDD you might as well not have an SDD. But that said, write-caching can have a bigger benefit than read-caching so it might not be too big a performance hit.

Personally I'd also redirect the registry files and Application Data and ProgramData folders as they're written to a lot, but redirecting the registry is a bit risky and not for the faint of heart.

At the end of the day though, this is a perfect example of where using an SSD as a read-cache like the rumoured X68 does would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to keep the most often _read_ data on the fast SSD drive, as data is mostly being read when the system is booting up or launching applications. There data written to the drive is small compared to all that .. some registry updates and temp files. With 12 GB RAM, there won't that much need for swap file.

In any case, I have found some information in moving things like TEMP directory and browser cache but not so much on moving the Application settings to a different volume.

Aloke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with noise, but with reliability.

FYI, and I'm sure you know, but the Intel Toolbox has been much improved recently, if you haven't checked it out.

I don't use the Toolbox, not needed. TRIM runs automatically for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my concerns are not reliability but longevity. I'd like my ADATA to last at least as long as my HDD's (7+ years?). To that end, I was trying to reduce unnecessary writes to it.

I don't suppose that Intel tools will work on ADATA products ... Adata has no downloads for their SSD's at all.

Aloke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of longevity, most SSDs have an eye on 5 years. While I'd estimate most will outlive that lifespan, that's what the industry is trying to get us as consumers to accept as reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of longevity, most SSDs have an eye on 5 years. While I'd estimate most will outlive that lifespan, that's what the industry is trying to get us as consumers to accept as reasonable.

There is a hell of a lot of paranoia about "wearing out" SSDs by writing to them too much. Personally I think it's a load of crap based on the reliability of flash in the 90s (which was terrible).

Modern MLC drives quote a longevity of 10'000 write cycles before some cells start to become bad. This is a *very* low estimate, but lets assume it's correct for the sake of argument.

Simple maths (5 years = 1825 days, 10'000 writes / 1825 days = 5.5) shows an estimated lifespan of 5 years assumes you write the entire drive 5.5 times per day. I know I certainly don't perform that many writes to my drive, I doubt most people do, even if they defrag the entire drive once a day.

I loosely estimate I perform an average of 10gb writes per day on my drive which is 60gb, based on 10'000 write cycles that gives me more than 150 years before the weakest cells in my drive start to fail. Even if I went mad and wrote the entire drive every day I'd still have 27 years. I'm not overly concerned about wearing it out.

I still wouldn't enable defrag as it's pointless on an SSD (Wear-leveling basically means all files are fragmented no matter what), but I turn it off to save the Ram and CPU cycles it uses rather than the lifespan of my flash.

I also turn off superfetch and prefetch, again simply to free up the RAM they are wasting. In a fast SSD they offer close to zero performance benefit, wheras more ram is always useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also turn off superfetch and prefetch, again simply to free up the RAM they are wasting. In a fast SSD they offer close to zero performance benefit, wheras more ram is always useful.

disabling prefetch and superfetch will decrease performance, even if the functions itself are not used at all. i guess it has to do with how they are tied into the system. The system seems to have been optimized with pf and sf enabled. Disabling them will throw the optimization off.

i used to have actual benchmarks for that (from the time win 7 was released), but can't find them at the moment. If anyone has any benchmarks, proving or disproving my claim, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern MLC drives quote a longevity of 10'000 write cycles before some cells start to become bad. This is a *very* low estimate, but lets assume it's correct for the sake of argument.
It is a low estimate, but specs for newer (smaller process node) flash cells aren't 10,000 cycles, they're getting down to 3,000 cycle range for 25nm NAND by IMFT.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a low estimate, but specs for newer (smaller process node) flash cells aren't 10,000 cycles, they're getting down to 3,000 cycle range for 25nm NAND by IMFT.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads

I don't like these news at all.... companies get away with selling junk as a "great product".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like these news at all.... companies get away with selling junk as a "great product".

The reduction in write cycles is not because it's inferior NAND. It's a result of the smaller fabrication process. I started a thread about it if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reduction in write cycles is not because it's inferior NAND. It's a result of the smaller fabrication process. I started a thread about it if you're interested.

Please do. We can probably add to it once most of the stuff we have been briefed on falls out of being under NDA B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reduction in write cycles is not because it's inferior NAND. It's a result of the smaller fabrication process. I started a thread about it if you're interested.

That still leaves it an inferior product.

Yes, it might be cheaper to produce - but still.

Add to that, that we are more likely to write more to the cells in future we have absolutely zero gain from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do. We can probably add to it once most of the stuff we have been briefed on falls out of being under NDA B)

That still leaves it an inferior product.

Yes, it might be cheaper to produce - but still.

Add to that, that we are more likely to write more to the cells in future we have absolutely zero gain from it.

I tried to better explain what process shrinks mean to SSDs in this post of my "future of SSDs" thread. Let me know if it helps.

Edited by Djembe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Brian for linking this interesting guide but:

is it really useful to disable file indexing? why?

Why is it better to set our power saving option to max performance instead of balanced?

I like the way that my computer automatically turn off after 30 minutes of inactivity, is it really

imporant to set the power saving to max performance? Why? I haven't understood it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Brian for linking this interesting guide but:

is it really useful to disable file indexing? why?

Why is it better to set our power saving option to max performance instead of balanced?

I like the way that my computer automatically turn off after 30 minutes of inactivity, is it really

imporant to set the power saving to max performance? Why? I haven't understood it.

Thanks.

2 myths...

1) Indexing: Do NOT switch it off (on any normal computer) - it will only affect performance ONCE and that is when the Index is initially created - after that you will never ever notice any difference. In fact, if you ever search for something it'll be slower. There is ZERO gain from switching indexing off.

2= Power Plans - switching to "high performance" is utter nonsense and is only for people who need to feel good about what they do.

-> Same as Vista "Ultimate" -> for most of the people who bought it, it's just so they can show off with zero benefit.

In fact, you might even get a worse performance with "high performance" -> read this thread:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/windows-os-software/410831-power-plan-controversy.html

Balanced is all you need - and maybe a battery saver on a laptop when "on the go".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 myths...

1) Indexing: Do NOT switch it off (on any normal computer) - it will only affect performance ONCE and that is when the Index is initially created - after that you will never ever notice any difference. In fact, if you ever search for something it'll be slower. There is ZERO gain from switching indexing off.

2= Power Plans - switching to "high performance" is utter nonsense and is only for people who need to feel good about what they do.

-> Same as Vista "Ultimate" -> for most of the people who bought it, it's just so they can show off with zero benefit.

In fact, you might even get a worse performance with "high performance" -> read this thread:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/windows-os-software/410831-power-plan-controversy.html

Balanced is all you need - and maybe a battery saver on a laptop when "on the go".

On the guide posted on the first post by brian is wrote that High performance helps the SSD to make garbage collection,

is this true? is this true for all SSD? I have a Corsair F120, is this applyable to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the guide posted on the first post by brian is wrote that High performance helps the SSD to make garbage collection,

is this true? is this true for all SSD? I have a Corsair F120, is this applyable to me?

I can't see how it would help -> garbage collection should kick in if the computer is idling - it can idle on any power plan.

On that note, if you have a newer SSD you most likely have trim.

-> At least it would sound logical from this:

http://www.corsair.com/cssd-f120gb2-brkt.html

Oh, and even they state that no changed to the system are required :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic could be that if the SSD is powered down after (extreme example) 1 minute of idle, it won't have time to do its idle garbage collection / trim stuff. But if it's been idle for 1 minute before that happens, it can erase, what, a few hundred MB worth of deleted data and garbage. I'd say that's enough time to catch up with most normal workloads. And besides, it can be trimming and garbage collecting any time the SSD's not being written to. So I don't agree with the logic, but it's at least a possible explanation for why some people might think it could make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic could be that if the SSD is powered down after (extreme example) 1 minute of idle, it won't have time to do its idle garbage collection / trim stuff. But if it's been idle for 1 minute before that happens, it can erase, what, a few hundred MB worth of deleted data and garbage. I'd say that's enough time to catch up with most normal workloads. And besides, it can be trimming and garbage collecting any time the SSD's not being written to. So I don't agree with the logic, but it's at least a possible explanation for why some people might think it could make a difference.

Now there is logic behind that, but "at least a possible explanation" isn't good enough for something that is reasonably easy to test.

-> Fill a drive with data in a predefined pattern - then test on different power plans with different waiting times.

Alternatively, take the firmware apart and analyze it? :=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now