Me +3 with Greg and Veech. And I'm not worried about SSD life-I'll likely replace it in ~3 yrs anyway when the performance is that much better on the new SSDs, and contrary to my general tendency of wanting to squeeze as much life as possible out of my HW. As an example-my main desktop PC is still my Dell P4 3.4Ghz that I got in Dec 2004-all I've done is replace the ATI X850T Plat it came with with a $90 ATI 3850 last year b/c I want to get as much out of it as I can! It'll stil play Copany of Heroes and Oblivion so what more do I need? I find myself playing a lot more console games nowadays too (got Mass Effect for the 360 instead of PC for example...). So in the case of SSDs I'll make an exception more often than usual b/c I know the performance improvements are going to be that good! YMMV but the math works for me...
BINO > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:58:09 -0600 > Subject: Re: [H] SSD tech > > Actually, the telemetry data Microsoft provides shows that the wear concern > is drastically overblown too. Reads outnumber writes 40:1, and most writes > are large--so write amplification is reduced. While I completely agree that > more RAM is the better approach, I have to disagree with Steve's analysis. > Steve has always had a tendency to be an alarmist blowhard anyway, IMO. > > On the whole, I don't think SSDs have a practical reliability advantage over > magnetic drives (even though they should, my experience with around 100 SSDs > suggests otherwise). I doubt this drives many sales anyway. You buy an SSD > for performance--so use it to maximize performance as much as possible. This > includes putting your pagefile on the SSD. Under normal usage patterns, it > should still last 5 or more years--by which time you're likely not to care > anymore anyway. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:41 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [H] SSD tech > > > > The conversation on Security Now I linked to directly refuted that post on > > the MSDN blogs. The post looked at the performance issue, not at the > issue > > of wear on the SSD. > > > > Besides, who needs a pagefile anymore - it's still miles better to simply > > have more ram. It's not like Ram is expensive. > > > > --------- > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Winterlight > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > At 11:37 AM 2/1/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >> This is exactly why you shouldn't have your windows pagefile on your > > SSD. > > >> > > > > > > I don't think so... from > > > > > > > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-soli > > > d-state-drives-and.aspx > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? > > > > > > Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger > > > sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs > handle > > well. > > > > > > In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on > > > pagefile reads and writes, we find that Pagefile.sys reads outnumber > > > pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1, Pagefile.sys read sizes are > > > typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% > > > less than 16 KB. > > > Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or > > > equal to > > > 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size. > > > > > > In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable > > > performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few > > > files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. > > > > >
