Jump to content

Impact of SSD drive?


VRprofessor
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3489 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Personally i don't have any experience with SSD, but what i did read and understand about it is that they become slow when fragmented. The SL cache does cause fragmentation very fast. 

I would read about SSD if the above still could be a problem for latest SSD's as the technology evolves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ssd will speed up loading textures alot faster, tho the gpu still needs to render it.

There is 1 problem with ssd, they degrade when data is written onto the same place unlike normal hdd`s
I`m using an old vertex2 ssd as cache/temp data storage for the sake of speed, even tho the odds of it degrading are 10 times faster then when using it for normal things.

IF you want to use an ssd, i would strongly recommend using a small 30gig cheap vertex 1/vertex 2 ssd
The vertex 3 series are for the sandybridge systems with +P69 controller that can run at the advertised speeds, not to mention that they are abit more expensive to use as a "dump" disc.

If it would fail after an year, the costs are neglectable to replace it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Alicia Sautereau wrote:

ssd will speed up loading textures alot faster, tho the gpu still needs to render it.

There is 1 problem with ssd, they degrade when data is written onto the same place unlike normal hdd`s

I`m using an old vertex2 ssd as cache/temp data storage for the sake of speed, even tho the odds of it degrading are 10 times faster then when using it for normal things.

IF you want to use an ssd, i would strongly recommend using a small 30gig cheap vertex 1/vertex 2 ssd

The vertex 3 series are for the sandybridge systems with +P69 controller that can run at the advertised speeds, not to mention that they are abit more expensive to use as a "dump" disc.

If it would fail after an year, the costs are neglectable to replace it
:)

That is an interesting idea.  I think I will try putting the cache on a RAMdrive and seeing if it improves performance before buying another SSD,  I tried that in the past, and it didn't help, but that was on a different, slower computer, and there may have been some other bottleneck that kept it from working.

With a three year warranty, wearing out an SSD does not seem to be much of a concern to me.  If it fails under warranty, I get a free replacement.  After three years, technology will probably have advanced enough that I won't mind replacing it, and the replacement will probably be a lot cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can do so and have the space... create a RAM disk, copy the cache to the RAM drive before launching SL and off the RAM drive when done. If you're on Linux by any chance, look into rsync for doing the copyback. It's faster.

Like previous posters have said: Consumer SSDs still have issues with slowing down on fragmentation, and SLs cache is not very efficient anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A word of warning regarding ramdisk

The ram image has to be READ from the hdd into memory
IF you have a slow HDD and/or MEMORY, you will see your windows start/shutdown times extend into the minutes (when auto load/save enabled)

It does work fast when loaded, a trade off that every one has to decide for them selfs :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alicia, thanks for the link. I'll be trying it out in the next few days. 

Jenni, in my case I am using 64bit Windows 7 on all of my computers, with varying amounts of installed RAM.  I either have, or would be able to upgrade to, 8gb RAM in all impacted computers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Linda Brynner wrote:

Personally i don't have any experience with SSD, but what i did read and understand about it is that they become slow when fragmented.

 

Not sure why that would be, though that can be readily circumvented by avoiding NTFS and VFAT filesystems and using a smarter filesystem like ext4 that doesn't suffer from fragmentation anywhere near as bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you're using a particularly ancient operating system or an operating system that handles filesystem caching especially poorly, you're not going to see any significant difference using a RAM drive for your SL cache versus letting the filesystem handler do it's job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just spend whatever money you choose to spend on buying more RAM and then let the operating system's disk-caching system do its job.  The SSD will make your system boot faster.  It will make things load faster the first time, but since SL gets most of its data over the internet, you won't get as much improvement as--say--those running local-disk based games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Baloo Uriza wrote:

Unless you're using a particularly ancient operating system or an operating system that handles filesystem caching especially poorly, you're not going to see any significant difference using a RAM drive for your SL cache versus letting the filesystem handler do it's job.

I second that opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jenni Darkwatch wrote:

Been there done that on different OSes. For me, it made a big difference. Maybe for you it makes none. Hell if I know, or care.

I'm pretty sure if you actually quantitatively measured the results, it wouldn't.  Or you're using something truly ancient for an OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, once it`s download, it`s store in the cache.

If you set 10gig cahce, you can go to all your fav places and wait for it to load, when you return to that spot later on, the textures are loaded almost instantly and only the gpu needs to render them.

Getting more ram is pointless when not running 64bit, and even then, after 14 hour ingame session with building/texturing/shopping/clubbing, sl still doesn`t use more then 1.7gig of ram.

I have 16gig installed running at 2133mhz, all cached places render within seconds from an vertex 2.
Experimented with ramdisk and that was a dissaster because it has to load 4gig into memory at once instead of loading indivudual textures from an ssd, the rendering time was exactly the same as that is the job of the gpu.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Alicia Sautereau wrote:

Wrong, once it`s download, it`s store in the cache.

 

Mmmm grasshopper.  You are on the right track when you start thinking about caches.   Think about disk cacheing some more.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3489 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...