Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 05:44 AM
Caldezar's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,612

My System Specs

Default Temp files on SSD or not?

For my new build (parts arriving today) I opted to pick up my first SSD. I made it an Intel 510 Series 120GB due to Intel's solid track record and the superior TRIM and garbage collection performance. I know it's a little slower than some of the OCZ drives due to it's focus on sequential speeds, but I'm incredibly leery of purchasing an OCZ product when it comes to my OS Drive. Besides, moving to any SSD from a standard HDD is going to be an epic jump, so I'm not worried.

Positives and negatives of my choice of drives aside, my concern is more to do with the general setup of the SSD; most specifically when it comes to temp files. I already plan on keeping all my large storage on a separate drive, but I purchased a 120GB drive so that I'd have room for my OS and current games on the SSD. However, I've read a lot about people moving their temp files over to their secondary drive. Is this something I should consider? Or is it more of a concern for people with smaller SSD's? How much will it effect the life and/or performance of my SSD? If it just cuts the life of the SSD by 10%, then I'm really not too worried. But if it cuts it by 50% or something, I'm obviously more concerned.

The other option I considered was making a RAM disk for temp files. Would this be a better/faster solution? Or just cause me more headache in the end? I'm generally familiar with RAM disks, but have never worked with them in Windows 7. Nor have I used one specifically for temp files.

Any input on this for a new SSD owner would be great.

I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but the MB I'll be running is an ASUS Sabertooth 990fx.

*NOTE* I'm looking to put this build together tonight, so earlier responses much appreciated.

Last edited by Caldezar; June 20, 2011 at 05:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 05:49 AM
Arinoth's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 8,539

My System Specs

Default

I use the hard drive i had before I switched to the SSD for any temp files that my computer needs, from downloading files to internet caching. I also have standard hard drive caching set to the hard drive, again to alleviate the extra read/writes from the SSD onto the hard drive to prolong the SSD's life.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 05:58 AM
Caldezar's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,612

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arinoth View Post
I use the hard drive i had before I switched to the SSD for any temp files that my computer needs, from downloading files to internet caching. I also have standard hard drive caching set to the hard drive, again to alleviate the extra read/writes from the SSD onto the hard drive to prolong the SSD's life.
Thanks for the rapid response!

Is that the only reason to do this? Prolonged drive life? If so, what kind of impact on life does it have? I can't imagine keeping an SSD longer than a couple years before updating it to current tech anyway. Although I don't want to absolutely destroy my SSD unnecessarily.

Does it impact performance in any way to use a secondary drive rather than SSD for temp/cache?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 06:01 AM
Arinoth's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 8,539

My System Specs

Default

I haven't found any impact on performance as a second drive as what I have mine set up is for the temp files, seeing as they are only stored for a limited amount of time, and usually its stuff not used currently in RAM I personally have never found a slow down.

SSDs have a limited amount of read/writes and using a surrogate helps offset that. Would you need to do this if you're planning on using it only a few years, maybe not, though for me I plan on having it for a while, if not for myself, but pass it along to my fiancee when some great Sata3 SSDs come out at lower pricing. AkG should be able to give you more info as he's the expert, but probably just asleep right now.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 04:33 PM
Galcobar's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Posts: 437

My System Specs

Default

Something to keep in mind is the volume of writes required to wear out an SSD of any decent size within a decade is tremendous, on the order of tens of gigabytes every day. Even with the smaller MLC NAND in use in current drives, the longevity of the NAND is good. Controller durability is the limiting factor in SSD reliability still, at least for those outside of an enterprise/server environment, and at that point you're supposed to be using SLC NAND anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 09:44 PM
lowfat's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grande Prairie, AB
Posts: 7,802

My System Specs

Default

People tend to under estimate how long their NAND will last. Intel 510 uses 34nm NAND if I am correct, so generally around 5000 write cycles. You would need to write somewhere around 400TB to your 120GB before NAND starts to lose the ability to write to the drive. The only thing I disable on my SSDs is Superfetch, and yet my SSD's still only write around 5TB a year to the drive. So I think it is safe to keep your page file, etc on the drive.

I would however never use it as a download drive. That would be just plain silly (unless SLC).
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old June 20, 2011, 10:07 PM
Caldezar's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,612

My System Specs

Default

Thanks for the feedback guys. I've set my downloads and storage to the secondary drive for now, as well as disabled superfetch. I'll look in to anything beyond that at a future date.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old June 21, 2011, 07:44 AM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,815

My System Specs

Default

Yeah, I've ran my Vertex 2 for over a year now without any major tweaking without issues and the OCZ SSD program still says its at 100% health. However I'm not sure how accurate that is by any means...

The Vertex in my laptop has ran even longer, probably close to 2 years and it too has no issues.

So yeah, I agree that NAND has is fairly reliable unless you are writing massive amounts of data on a daily basis which is unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old June 21, 2011, 07:55 AM
francisw19's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 246
Default

Yeah...agreed with the guys above. Little day-to-day things being written to your SSD is fine. On the flip side, running disk benchmarks on it, for instance, is really hard on the drive since some of the disk benchmarks write a huge amount of data for each run.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old June 21, 2011, 04:43 PM
AkG's Avatar
AkG AkG is online now
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,255
Default

Ok, I am going to buck the trend and turn the question around a bit. And simply state: why would you want to waste nand life on temp files? Stick you Internet browser temp files in ram (where it belongs), stick photoshop temp files on a hdd (as this alone is a crap ton of writes...after one session where cs3 crashed its temp files were over 25gb and this was not a large photoshop session...something I do on a nearly daily basis) and stick your OS temp wherever you like...as you should have a crap ton of RAM and thus not really need to ever use the temp file.

Will it burn out the NAND to leave the temp files on the SSD...probably not, but seriously why waste the writes AND the controller cycles? It will certainly take overhead away from useful read and writes and maybe even result in the occasional NOTICEABLE performance hit from TRIM commands being sent to clean temp file nand blocks.

Do you need to go all the way to the other extreme and make a ram drive...not really. It is overkill, but if you have 16gb of ram...why not...better overkill than UNDER-kill. If you have less than 16gb of ram I probably wouldnt bother.
__________________
"If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe." -JR

“if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” - Dr. MLK jr
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Core temp VS CPU temp cul8erppl Overclocking, Tweaking and Benchmarking 8 January 5, 2011 02:10 PM
Real Temp or Core Temp or Ai Suite Jhayman CPU's and Motherboards 11 November 19, 2009 11:11 AM
CPU temp vs Core temp phil3_66666 Air Cooling 4 July 31, 2009 09:39 PM
Real Temp or Core Temp ?? FrankyG Overclocking, Tweaking and Benchmarking 11 September 29, 2008 11:24 PM
CPU temp or Core temp? E6420 NOOB Delavan CPU's and Motherboards 18 May 28, 2007 05:07 AM